[Deck] Merfolk

[Purgatory]

I have never had much problems against ANT with Merfolk, with Cursecatcher, Daze and FoW, along with Wasteland (and Stifle in some builds), our decks are able to mess with ANT quite a bit. Generally, in game one, I just try to land a Vial, get a Cursecatcher in play and then waste whatever he lays down. In games 2 and 3, I do the same, but Spell Pierce Brainstorms and Ponders as he sculpts his hand.

I can't recall losing to ANT with Merfolk that much, I've always considered the matchup to be favorable in our way.

[4eak]

Don't forget thorn of amethyst.

I think Thorn of Amethyst is very strong against storm (despite the outs they have to it and the lack of synergy with our permission), but I also think it is too targeted and less useful in other matchups. With limited sideboard space, and other matchups which are substantially less favorable (Goblins and Zoo), it might be better to play cards which are more generically useful. I think Spellstutter Sprite and Spell Pierce are more useful across the board.

Generally, I prefer Pierce to Stutter. I despise holding 2 mana open for Spellstutter Sprite (I very often have other things to do with Vial@2 as well) and the usual condition of targeting 0-1CC spells (obviously it can target higher CCs in some cases, but usually doesn't) -- too many times I wished the card was just plain Counterspell or Mana Leak. Sprite is most useful against opposing removal, but problematically, removal on Sprite before resolving the trigger is fairly common (against opponents who know what they are doing), negating some of its impact in removal-heavy matches. Pierce also has synergy with our mana-denial and taxing permission: Daze, Wasteland, Back to Basics, Reejery taps (in some cases), and Cursecatcher.

In my 16 lord build, I'm actually running Spell pierce main. It has been fantastic. Against Zoo, you drop Lords and use Spell pierce to answer removal. Against ANT, I'm practically pre-boarded. Admittedly Spell Pierce isn't very great against Goblins, as there are very few targets. In game 1, Spell pierce on a Vial or WWeirding is still respectable. I find Spell pierce impressive in control and aggro-control matchups as well. Where Spell pierce sucks, the Jittes from my sideboard usually clean house.


@ Purgatory

I can't recall losing to ANT with Merfolk that much, I've always considered the matchup to be favorable in our way.

The difference in win/loss percentages between an average Storm pilot and a very skilled Storm pilot is substantially larger than any other archetype. It might be the case that you haven't faced very skilled storm pilots very often (and, of course, given the truly small number of games we play in a lifetime and the sheer number of people who played Merfolk, some people will be able to claim such a record, even if it isn't the average). I believe the matchup is favorable against the average Storm pilot, but I'm not so sure against a very skilled Storm pilot. This also depends on the flavor of the storm build; for example, I have a lot more trouble with Doomsday variants than plain ANT.




peace,
4eak

[lordofthepit]

Don't forget thorn of amethyst.

I don't think this is as useful without the Enlightened Tutor package.

[4eak]

I don't think this is as useful without the Enlightened Tutor package.

This is a poor argument against Thorn of Amethyst in Merfolk. To what extent does the E-tutor package impact the value of Thorn of Amethyst? The few decks which use entirely sided E-tutor packages (for example, UWT and Death & Taxes) aren't running many more than 1 Thorn of Amethyst and 2-4 Enlightened tutors, so it generally doesn't directly increase the odds of seeing Thorn of Amethyst beyond just playing 3-4x Thorn of Amethyst in your sideboard. Shuffling effects for Brainstorm and the chance to pickup an alternate piece of Storm-hate (if you wouldn't want another Thorn of Amethyst) seem to be the only real difference in my eyes (which are rarely relevant in my eyes, as stacking Thorns are quite powerful). I really don't think a lack of an E-tutor package makes Thorn of Amethyst any less useful in Merfolk.

Also, UW Merfolk would be perfectly capable of running the sided E-tutor package.




peace,
4eak

[lordofthepit]

This is a poor argument against Thorn of Amethyst in Merfolk. To what extent does the E-tutor package impact the value of Thorn of Amethyst? The few decks which use entirely sided E-tutor packages (for example, UWT and Death & Taxes) aren't running many more than 1 Thorn of Amethyst and 2-4 Enlightened tutors, so it generally doesn't directly increase the odds of seeing Thorn of Amethyst beyond just playing 3-4x Thorn of Amethyst in your sideboard. Shuffling effects for Brainstorm and the chance to pickup an alternate piece of Storm-hate (if you wouldn't want another Thorn of Amethyst) seem to be the only real difference in my eyes (which are rarely relevant in my eyes, as stacking Thorns are quite powerful). I really don't think a lack of an E-tutor package makes Thorn of Amethyst any less useful in Merfolk.

Also, UW Merfolk would be perfectly capable of running the sided E-tutor package.




peace,
4eak

I'm not saying Thorn of Amethyst is not useful. I just don't believe that it alters the game against enough of the format to justify 2-4 slots in the sideboard for the Storm matchup, especially since a good player can still win through Thorn of Amethyst.

I think the power of the Enlightened Tutor package comes from several factors. First, it can ignore the 6-7 Duress effects that most ANT builds commonly play now. Second, the Enlightened Tutor package allows you to run several types of hate, which attack ANT from different angles. If you play 4 Thorns in the SB and manage to resolve 4, ANT can still Duress away your FoW before removing your Thorns with Echoing Truth at end of turn. UW Tempo, on the other hand, can grab a Thorn of Amethyst, an Ethernsworn Canonist, and an Aura of Silence to cripple the storm player's ability to win.

Finally, Thorn of Amethyst is a pretty narrow card which you wouldn't reasonably bring in against any matchup except against Storm (albeit a reasonably effective piece of hate when backed up by FoW and daze effects). However, it seems kind of a waste to me to dedicate that much sideboard space to a matchup which is already around 50-50 (against a pretty good pilot) or favorable (against most pilots) when there are other decks that can stomp Merfolk, unless your metagame is almost exclusively storm combo. Enlightened Tutor allows you to grab that Aether Vial if the situation dictates it, or more frequently, grab that Umezawa Jitte against the mirror, Goblins, or Zoo to break that game open. UWT makes good use of that (especially before Stoneforge Mystic, but also to supplement that tutor package).

I agree that UW Merfolk can make good use of this package.

Also, a digression. I'm really interested in your build, 4eak. I played a UW Merfolk deck last time I went to a tournament, and performed pretty well, but I found that the white splash was pretty useless because I didn't play very many aggressive decks (and would occasionally get Wasted or end up holding a fist full of StPs, which I always boarded out for G2 and 3). I also found myself routinely boarding out Standstill for Spell Pierce because I would need more counterspells to stop certain bombs. For this reason, your 16-lord build without Landstills but with Spell Pierces sounds pretty interesting (and I've been testing this out). Would you mind posting up a version and describing some of its relative strengths and weaknesses?

[4eak]

I'm not saying Thorn of Amethyst is not useful. I just don't believe that it alters the game against enough of the format to justify 2-4 slots in the sideboard for the Storm matchup, especially since a good player can still win through Thorn of Amethyst.

I agree that Thorn of Amethyst doesn't merit 2-4 slots in the general metagame (see my previous posts). Please note, I was trying to address (and I failed) the reason you gave for why Thorn doesn't merit play in Merfolk, which is entirely different from whether or not Thorn should be played in Merfolk. There are much more relevant reasons to not play Thorn.

Addressing the viability of the E-tutor package directly, I wouldn't even run it in UW Merfolk (even if it is perfectly capable of doing so, the idea is that it doesn't usually and certainly shouldn't), Merfolk has much different issues to worry about. Essentially, even if there were a combination of cards that increased our odds against Storm by 30%, but had little effect on other matchups, I wouldn't advocate it -- particularly when there are other options that impact Storm and remain much more useful in other matchups. The important argument against Thorn is that it is too limited in scope, not that we lack an E-tutor engine.

Also, a digression. I'm really interested in your build, 4eak. I played a UW Merfolk deck last time I went to a tournament, and performed pretty well, but I found that the white splash was pretty useless because I didn't play very many aggressive decks (and would occasionally get Wasted or end up holding a fist full of StPs, which I always boarded out for G2 and 3). I also found myself routinely boarding out Standstill for Spell Pierce because I would need more counterspells to stop certain bombs. For this reason, your 16-lord build without Landstills but with Spell Pierces sounds pretty interesting (and I've been testing this out). Would you mind posting up a version and describing some of its relative strengths and weaknesses?

Land -- 20
16 Island
4 Wasteland

Vials, Phials, Ampules, Ampuls, Ampoules, 1cc Artifact-Bottles -- 4
4 Aether Vial

Folk -- 24
4 Cursecatcher
4 Silvergill Adept
4 Lord of Atlantis
4 Coralhelm Commander
4 Merfolk Sovereign
4 Merrow Reejerey

Permission -- 12
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Pierce

SB:
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Tormod's Crypt
3 Back to Basics
3 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Echoing Truth
3 Mind Harness

I was so used to Standstill (and so fond of its triggers) that it actually took a while for me to even consider testing without it. Obviously, most people abhor the idea of not having direct CA generation outside of Adept. There are, of course, other ways to produce CA, and more importantly, there are also other attributes to the game which are comparable in relevance but different from CA which merit consideration.

I found Standstill to be either too conditional or win-more. Spell Pierce replaced it in my view. Spell pierce isn't nearly as conditional, and it directly strengthens the viability of the Lord-route. With so many Lords, I can very often outclass my opponent's board, I just need to make sure that my Lords can live through removal and avoid bombs. Spell Pierce is much more flexible than Standstill as well; it usually answers the spells I am most concerned about in a matchup.

The lack of Mutavault will also be very questionable to some. Without Standstill, it is less necessary. Its removal affords me great consistency and more space in the deck. If I were to play Mutavault, I'd need to move up to 22ish Land, imho. Removing mutavault buys more slots in the deck, and improves the ability to open with an Island to some extent. This version is also somewhat blue-mana hungry. Mutavault is also a risk which might not be worth taking without Standstill. ~42% of Legacy tournament placing decks use Wasteland. Even with my own Wastelands, Mutavault is very difficult to protect. I have absolutely loved avoiding opposing Wastelands and breaking the symmetry of Back to Basics so extensively.

This is basically what Elves.dec or Relentless Rats.dec wish they could be.



peace,
4eak

[lordofthepit]

I love it. Last time, I wish I maxed out on the Dazes and Spell Pierce effects. I never considered taking out Mutavault, because I thought it was the key to the mirror, but in retrospect, your Wastelands can deal with those and they have no targets for their Wastelands and certainly makes more sense without Standstill. Running a full complement of 24 creatures makes it Vial more productive and minimizes the chance that you topdeck Silvergill Adept without another Merfolk in hand, which happened more often than I would have liked. And of course, I was often frustrated with Merfolk Sovereign because I couldn't reliably get to UU and had to wait three turns for Vial to get online; less of an issue with this build.

I hope you're successful with it. It's one of the cheapest decks available in Legacy, but I think it might be one of the strongest decks regardless of price, especially in certain metagames.

Edit: Played that version today with no luck. Might be the fact that I was in a heavy blue metagame, but losing the Mutavaults kind of hurt. I might revert back to an older version, but I'm still interested in the development of 16 lord strategies.

[Tru3z3rox]

I agree that Thorn of Amethyst doesn't merit 2-4 slots in the general metagame (see my previous posts). Please note, I was trying to address (and I failed) the reason you gave for why Thorn doesn't merit play in Merfolk, which is entirely different from whether or not Thorn should be played in Merfolk. There are much more relevant reasons to not play Thorn.

Addressing the viability of the E-tutor package directly, I wouldn't even run it in UW Merfolk (even if it is perfectly capable of doing so, the idea is that it doesn't usually and certainly shouldn't), Merfolk has much different issues to worry about. Essentially, even if there were a combination of cards that increased our odds against Storm by 30%, but had little effect on other matchups, I wouldn't advocate it -- particularly when there are other options that impact Storm and remain much more useful in other matchups. The important argument against Thorn is that it is too limited in scope, not that we lack an E-tutor engine.




Land -- 20
16 Island
4 Wasteland

Vials, Phials, Ampules, Ampuls, Ampoules, 1cc Artifact-Bottles -- 4
4 Aether Vial

Folk -- 24
4 Cursecatcher
4 Silvergill Adept
4 Lord of Atlantis
4 Coralhelm Commander
4 Merfolk Sovereign
4 Merrow Reejerey

Permission -- 12
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Pierce

SB:
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Tormod's Crypt
3 Back to Basics
3 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Echoing Truth
3 Mind Harness

I was so used to Standstill (and so fond of its triggers) that it actually took a while for me to even consider testing without it. Obviously, most people abhor the idea of not having direct CA generation outside of Adept. There are, of course, other ways to produce CA, and more importantly, there are also other attributes to the game which are comparable in relevance but different from CA which merit consideration.

I found Standstill to be either too conditional or win-more. Spell Pierce replaced it in my view. Spell pierce isn't nearly as conditional, and it directly strengthens the viability of the Lord-route. With so many Lords, I can very often outclass my opponent's board, I just need to make sure that my Lords can live through removal and avoid bombs. Spell Pierce is much more flexible than Standstill as well; it usually answers the spells I am most concerned about in a matchup.

The lack of Mutavault will also be very questionable to some. Without Standstill, it is less necessary. Its removal affords me great consistency and more space in the deck. If I were to play Mutavault, I'd need to move up to 22ish Land, imho. Removing mutavault buys more slots in the deck, and improves the ability to open with an Island to some extent. This version is also somewhat blue-mana hungry. Mutavault is also a risk which might not be worth taking without Standstill. ~42% of Legacy tournament placing decks use Wasteland. Even with my own Wastelands, Mutavault is very difficult to protect. I have absolutely loved avoiding opposing Wastelands and breaking the symmetry of Back to Basics so extensively.

This is basically what Elves.dec or Relentless Rats.dec wish they could be.



peace,
4eak

@ Thorn

Terrible idea in merfolk. Why would we play this? It makes all of our free counters terrible...after all is that not the point of merfolk? Drop threats while using free counters?

@ Spell Pierce and no Standstills

I think this is a bad idea. We play under it so well that most players would need to break it right away. It is just pure CA and a control deck (that needs to pitch to fow) requires CA. I'd love to be able to run spell pierce md, but my list is just too tight. I also love running ET md because of pesky tokens and permanents that I had to let through (due to lack of counters).

@ 16 Lords

I love lords. I've always loved tribal..that is why I play merfolk. I was also one of the first people to LOVE coralhelm commander, HOWEVER, I can't imagine running him 4 of. He is just TOO SLOW to have clogging up your hand. I prefer a instant impact on the board like the other lords or a control element like curse catcher.

As a side note:

How many of you run Kira, Great-Glass Spinner and love her? I sure as hell do. That is why I don't need to run spell pierce against removal.

[Ziilot]

Merfolk has become unfavored against ANT? How do we improve this?

I'm playing three main decked Spell Pierces and three Dispels in sideboard. I think Dispels really improve this matchup. I also think that people underestimate that card, it's also very good against reanimator or any decks which plays spot removal. (excl. Chain Lightning) It may be narrow, but then again every card has its flaws ;)

[lotriderm]

@Tru3z3rox

Before I had 2 Kira's in my SB, but recently I tried moving her into my MD and I've been loving it since.

[4eak]

@ Tru3z3rox

Terrible idea in merfolk. Why would we play this? It makes all of our free counters terrible...after all is that not the point of merfolk? Drop threats while using free counters?

Yes, it is terrible against most of the field, but it is not a terrible card against ANT in particular. In fact, it would be one of the best cards in the deck against ANT.

The reason Thorn is still effective in the ANT matchup is that the symmetry of the card is still greatly broken by Merfolk. Everything the Storm player wants to play through Thorn is taxed, but the Merfolk player is only partially taxed. Further, even for our non-creature spells, the symmetry is still broken in our favor because we have more land (which is largely the basis of playing through it).

Thorn makes Merfolk play slower, but it makes ANT play much slower. Even in the case that you don't use all your permission while it's on the table, if and when it gets answered by the ANT player, you all of the sudden get to use your permission spells for free again, only you're likely much further ahead on the board than the ANT player.

@ Spell Pierce and no Standstills

I think this is a bad idea. We play under it so well that most players would need to break it right away. It is just pure CA and a control deck (that needs to pitch to fow) requires CA. I'd love to be able to run spell pierce md, but my list is just too tight. I also love running ET md because of pesky tokens and permanents that I had to let through (due to lack of counters).

I don't think we play under it as well you do. Just looking through the DTBForum: Goblins, Zoo and Ichorid are decks where I consider Standstill to be far too conditional (or sometimes even useless). When you don't have a Vial (and you won't ~60% of the time), Standstill becomes even more conditional, and even early Goyfs (from several archetypes), Land&Waste-heavy hands from Loam (giving them a chance to develop too effectively), and the Mirror are situations where I'm unlikely to drop Standstill.

This isn't a control deck, it is an aggro-control deck. Raw CA generation isn't necessary (although, it is appreciated). FoW does not require CA generation either. Take for example Merfolk's brethren, Tempo Thresh -- that deck has zero card advantage, and it plays FoW and the aggro-control role very well.

You'll find running Spell pierce makes your maindeck Echoing Truths much less necessary (and helps solve the reason for which you run ET, that being the "lack of counters").

I love lords. I've always loved tribal..that is why I play merfolk. I was also one of the first people to LOVE coralhelm commander, HOWEVER, I can't imagine running him 4 of. He is just TOO SLOW to have clogging up your hand. I prefer a instant impact on the board like the other lords or a control element like curse catcher.

Running 4 will rarely clog your hand. Within your first 10 cards, you only have a 13% chance to have more than 1 CCommander. Those are fairly low odds. FoW and the amount of removal faced by CCommander make the number of times where you aren't able to use redundant CCommanders much lower than you seem to think. And, there will be times when you get multiple CCommanders leveled up.

Now, I can see where you are coming from regarding immediate impact. I'd argue that Silvergill Adept and Wake Thrasher (common card choices) don't have the strongest immediate impact either -- it is only after time that their effects usually become relevant (for example, you may draw another Merfolk card off Adept, but must wait a turn to play it). Likewise, CCommander's strengths usually require 1 or 2 turns to be realized--this is acceptable given the sheer strength of his effect.




peace,
4eak

[Tru3z3rox]

@ Tru3z3rox



Yes, it is terrible against most of the field, but it is not a terrible card against ANT in particular. In fact, it would be one of the best cards in the deck against ANT.

The reason Thorn is still effective in the ANT matchup is that the symmetry of the card is still greatly broken by Merfolk. Everything the Storm player wants to play through Thorn is taxed, but the Merfolk player is only partially taxed. Further, even for our non-creature spells, the symmetry is still broken in our favor because we have more land (which is largely the basis of playing through it).

Thorn makes Merfolk play slower, but it makes ANT play much slower. Even in the case that you don't use all your permission while it's on the table, if and when it gets answered by the ANT player, you all of the sudden get to use your permission spells for free again, only you're likely much further ahead on the board than the ANT player.




I don't think we play under it as well you do. Just looking through the DTBForum: Goblins, Zoo and Ichorid are decks where I consider Standstill to be far too conditional (or sometimes even useless). When you don't have a Vial (and you won't ~60% of the time), Standstill becomes even more conditional, and even early Goyfs (from several archetypes), Land&Waste-heavy hands from Loam (giving them a chance to develop too effectively), and the Mirror are situations where I'm unlikely to drop Standstill.

This isn't a control deck, it is an aggro-control deck. Raw CA generation isn't necessary (although, it is appreciated). FoW does not require CA generation either. Take for example Merfolk's brethren, Tempo Thresh -- that deck has zero card advantage, and it plays FoW and the aggro-control role very well.

You'll find running Spell pierce makes your maindeck Echoing Truths much less necessary (and helps solve the reason for which you run ET, that being the "lack of counters").




Running 4 will rarely clog your hand. Within your first 10 cards, you only have a 13% chance to have more than 1 CCommander. Those are fairly low odds. FoW and the amount of removal faced by CCommander make the number of times where you aren't able to use redundant CCommanders much lower than you seem to think. And, there will be times when you get multiple CCommanders leveled up.

Now, I can see where you are coming from regarding immediate impact. I'd argue that Silvergill Adept and Wake Thrasher (common card choices) don't have the strongest immediate impact either -- it is only after time that their effects usually become relevant (for example, you may draw another Merfolk card off Adept, but must wait a turn to play it). Likewise, CCommander's strengths usually require 1 or 2 turns to be realized--this is acceptable given the sheer strength of his effect.




peace,
4eak

@Thorn

I love thorn and I run it in my elf deck. Something about powering out a thorn turn 1 against combo is just...satisfying. However, I just don't see it working in this deck. There are so many other things we want to play for 2 mana. Also by then they may have already gone off or have established themselves enough. I would much rather the thorn be a daze, FOW, or curse.

@Standstill

You have some very valid points, but I just feel like it is a necessary thing especially with a vial under it. And anyway you can always board it out against those decks that you mentioned. I can see going down to maybe a 3 of, but not taking it out completely?

Also non loam decks eat up their tempo wasting your mutavaults, so that isn't always a terrible thing. Having an extra uncounterable creature on the board is just too good. I cannot imagine running an aggro-control deck without it.

@CC

You are right, but in my case I run 2 Kira main, so removal is not as much of a problem for me. I'd prefer to pump my other attackers that turn instead of trying to level him.

@ET

ET hits so many things (not just things you had to let through). I've hit 2 goyfs before in order to alpha strike. It also deals with annoying ETW tokens. Spell pierce is also a bit conditional and won't improve your MU against zoo much.

[Purgatory]

While I'm curious about Thorn in Merfolk (though I'm not sure if I believe in the concept just yet), but I think I will stick to Spell Pierce. ANT is not frequent enough at tournaments where I usually play (maybe two or three out of like 40 people will play ANT), and Spell Pierce is great against it, while still being versatile and awesome all-around. The field will have to be made up of at least 20-25% of storm combo before I start to take action against it with extreme measures such as Thorn.

[pi4meterftw]

When thorn is in play, permission is not needed. If you play white, you'd definitely pack the ET sideboard. For UWT, I estimate that if I showed up to a tournament without a sideboard, I'd win 60% of my games, and the sideboard makes the remaining 10-15% difference.

I don't estimate that the current merfolk sideboards are pulling 10-15%. You'd most definitely run the UWT sideboard if you could.

Ethersworn canonist is also a lot more versatile than thorn. It also stops enchantress, elf combo, to some extent reanimator, green stompy and other random such things.

I'm not sure if it's worth splashing an additional color.

[Tru3z3rox]

When thorn is in play, permission is not needed. If you play white, you'd definitely pack the ET sideboard. For UWT, I estimate that if I showed up to a tournament without a sideboard, I'd win 60% of my games, and the sideboard makes the remaining 10-15% difference.

I don't estimate that the current merfolk sideboards are pulling 10-15%. You'd most definitely run the UWT sideboard if you could.

Ethersworn canonist is also a lot more versatile than thorn. It also stops enchantress, elf combo, to some extent reanimator, green stompy and other random such things.

I'm not sure if it's worth splashing an additional color.

When thorn is in play permission is not needed?! I highly disagree. I run thorn in the main in a couple of my other decks and even then they can play around it. A thorn allows me more time to get some damage in before they go off and that is about it. I love the card, but in merfolk it just doesn't work, but I've said that before.

I'm also all for keeping merfolk mono blue as there is less chance of color screw from stifle and wastelands. Those are my two cents.

[Purgatory]

I'm also all for keeping merfolk mono blue as there is less chance of color screw from stifle and wastelands. Those are my two cents.

I like splashing white because the manascrewing from Waste/Stifle is rather rare, and as I described in my mini-report above, the white splash allows the deck to get out of situations that are nigh-impossible for the mono-blue build. The slightly shakier manabase is worth it, imo.

[TheSleeper]

4eak: Love the list, I've been running without Standstill for awhile now, but never thought of dropping Mutavault - I'll test it. When are you boarding in Jitte and Back to Basics?

[4eak]

@ Tru3z3rox

@Standstill

You have some very valid points, but I just feel like it is a necessary thing especially with a vial under it. And anyway you can always board it out against those decks that you mentioned. I can see going down to maybe a 3 of, but not taking it out completely?

Also non loam decks eat up their tempo wasting your mutavaults, so that isn't always a terrible thing. Having an extra uncounterable creature on the board is just too good. I cannot imagine running an aggro-control deck without it.

I sympathize with the gut-instinct not to remove Standstill. As I said, it took a while before I even tried it out.

I consider keepable hands with Vial to be already strong -- I'd want to improve the hands which aren't already strong (which Standstill doesn't do well). Even if it was an especially necessary thing with vial under it, Vial + Standstill isn't very common. On the draw, and not including hands that merit mulligans, you have a ~14% chance to open Vial and then drop Standstill

The constant boarding out of Standstill is also why I considered removing it. There comes a time where some degree of "pre-boarding" is worth it. It isn't much of a sacrifice either. Even without Standstill, the matches where Standstill is useful remain about as good. It is against the matches where I board out Standstill that are improved by removing standstill from the main. I think it is a worthy trade.

Non-loam decks which use Wasteland against Mutavault can also prevent Merfolk from breaking the symmetry of Standstill (the tempo game under Standstill is very different).

Also, I can totally imagine aggro-control decks which don't play Mutavault. There are many aggro-control decks in Legacy, almost none play mutavault. I'm not against it in a build that doesn't play Standstill either, but there are other considerations. In the context of 16-lords, you desperately need a higher blue count, and that either comes through running more land (22ish) or running fewer Mutavault. I've been leaning towards the latter in testing, but I could certainly be wrong. Clearly, the BoM winner found otherwise.

@CC
You are right, but in my case I run 2 Kira main, so removal is not as much of a problem for me. I'd prefer to pump my other attackers that turn instead of trying to level him.

Removal is always a problem, even with just 2 Kira (which isn't enough to make Lightning Bolt, PtE, and StP unproblematic). Also, Kira and CCommander are not mutually exclusive. You can run both.

I suggest trying it out. It has different strengths and weaknesses (and a different playstyle, imho).

ET hits so many things (not just things you had to let through). I've hit 2 goyfs before in order to alpha strike. It also deals with annoying ETW tokens. Spell pierce is also a bit conditional and won't improve your MU against zoo much.

Against Zoo with 16 lords, Spell pierce does worlds more than Standstill in my experience. Merfolk is the control deck in that matchup, and your best chance to stack Lords and protect them from removal (which Spell pierce does well). Spell pierce isn't a solution, but it is several times better than Standstill or Echoing Truth.


@ pi4meterftw

When thorn is in play, permission is not needed. If you play white, you'd definitely pack the ET sideboard. For UWT, I estimate that if I showed up to a tournament without a sideboard, I'd win 60% of my games, and the sideboard makes the remaining 10-15% difference.

I don't estimate that the current merfolk sideboards are pulling 10-15%. You'd most definitely run the UWT sideboard if you could.

Bless your heart, we must consider UWT's strategy and win percentages in an entirely different deck thread. I've already had a similar discussion with you in the UWT thread where you compared Merfolk and UWT's matchups against Storm (pg 11). I can certainly see where and why we compare them, but in the end, Merfolk and UWT are fairly different (I'll be happy to outline it), not just in the matchups where the E-tutor package shines (like Storm), but against the general metagame as a whole. I admit, I am a huge fan of the E-tutor silverbullet package, but I disagree with your claim here. I don't think it belongs in Merfolk (and this isn't an argument against splashing), and I don't think it would improve Merfolk's win percentages nearly as much as you do against the general field.

The E-tutor package fits UWT because that deck has entirely different issues to worry about. UWT has a stronger combat defense than traditional Merfolk (White and Green splashes included), and thus that deck is not going to be sideboarding for the same weaknesses as Merfolk. I believe UW Merfolk is much closer in sideboarding requirements to Mono U Folk than to UWT, and the E-tutor package does not address the sideboarding requirements even for UW Merfolk.


@ TheSleeper

4eak: Love the list, I've been running without Standstill for awhile now, but never thought of dropping Mutavault - I'll test it. When are you boarding in Jitte and Back to Basics?

Mutavault's absence isn't as problematic as one might initially assume. There are good reasons not to play it, imho. There are, of course, matches where I prefer having Mutavault. I'm currently testing 14 Islands, 2 Mutavault, 4 Wasteland.

Jitte comes in against almost all Tribal decks and many random aggro decks.

B2B comes in against decks like Rock, certain tempo decks, Loam, Lands.dec, many Counterbalance and Bant decks (often worth the risk against QPM), Landstill, and essentially any deck which doesn't appear to be running an appropriate minimum number of basic lands (which I will usually see in game 1 because of Wasteland). I consider it a powerful tool in many control and aggro-control matchups. 3-color decks often can't afford it.




peace,
4eak

[Finn]

I understand that the ANT matchup has gone south a bit since folks have been toying with the inclusion of Coralhelm Commander. I have to ask if it has actually helped anyone against Zoo or perhaps Goblins. So has it? If the answer is NO, why are we still discussing it? I like the card. I really do. But it has not improved MY Zoo matchup at all. They always seem to have the game wrapped up by the time I can pour 6 mana into anything. My favorite is the Lightning Bolt response to leveling. I will say that having so many lords has prompted fewer bolts to my head. But I still mostly only win games when I disrupt mana.

The one thing I see this card doing (since folks seem to have a hard-on for using this new creature without actually taking any other ones out for it) is weakening our disruption. Which leads me too...

Coralhelm Commaner is not even the card that is silly in this discussion. My daughter is crying her eyes out next to me and tugging at my arm, and honestly it is making me fucking nuts. So my judgement may be clouded at the moment. But can someone explain to me why we need a full page discussion on dedicated SB slots for a matchup that the opponent has always considered to be amongst its worst?

If there is now a legitimate reason for this specialized hate I ask you, do you really need so many lords?

[4eak]

I understand that the ANT matchup has gone south a bit since folks have been toying with the inclusion of Coralhelm Commander.

If it is has gone down, I don't think it is because people have been toying with Coralhelm Commander. Most people aren't playing with it, so even if it is going south (which I'm not sure it is), I don't think it is because of the portion of Merfolk pilots who are using CCommander. I'm not convinced Coralhelm Commander necessarily makes Merfolk worse against ANT either. It can certainly be used in the flex-slots that many may have put Jitte, Merfolk Sovereign, Echoing Truth, StP or Wake Thrasher without seeing much difference in the storm matchup.

I have to ask if it has actually helped anyone against Zoo or perhaps Goblins. So has it? If the answer is NO, why are we still discussing it? I like the card. I really do. But it has not improved MY Zoo matchup at all. They always seem to have the game wrapped up by the time I can pour 6 mana into anything. My favorite is the Lightning Bolt response to leveling. I will say that having so many lords has prompted fewer bolts to my head. But I still mostly only win games when I disrupt mana.

I haven't found CCommander in the flex slots of more traditional builds to improve Goblins or Zoo. I have, however, found running 16 lords to be better (not favorable though). I think there is a difference between toying with CCommander and running 16 lords (which may require further deck changes).

Playing with CCommander through removal (and judging the risk and reward) can sometimes require a complicated series of plays, and there will be times where you spend mana and eat removal. It is a risk which is worth taking (just as Stifle soaking up your tempo and card slot when unused). I've found the ability to stack Lords more effectively to be better than mana-denial against Zoo and Goblins though. Perhaps my results are incorrect though; an individual's testing sample size is rarely big enough. I could certainly be wrong, and your testing may be a more accurate depiction of reality.

But can someone explain to me why we need a full page discussion on dedicated SB slots for a matchup that the opponent has always considered to be amongst its worst?

If there is now a legitimate reason for this specialized hate I ask you, do you really need so many lords?

Perhaps I'm not understanding your question. Few actually agreed to run "specialized hate"; I thought the debate was about why it should not be played, which still seemed pertinent to know. I, for example, didn't think there is a legitimate reason to play specialized hate against storm (although, I like cards which interact with both storm and other decks, like Spell pierce), so I hope my advocation of a stronger ground game (through more Lords) doesn't appear irrelevant.




peace,
4eak