Page 58 of 88 FirstFirst ... 84854555657585960616268 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,160 of 1742

Thread: [Deck] Affinity

  1. #1141
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by anakyn View Post
    You can probably agree with me when I say Chalice is better vs RUG and many combo decks like Storm, Dredge, Reanimator and Elves (against combo Spell pierce won't save you unless you find at least 2 of them, since they usually have either lots of discard or counterspells, and sometimes both, so they will start their combo when they are sure your Pierce will be useless or discarded; while Chalice can literally make you win alone if not countered), which right now are respectively:
    - the most played (and probably stronger) deck in the format
    - probably our worst match-ups
    I don't run Spell Pierce post-board against RUG because Relic of Progenitus is the better card in that matchup, so comparing Chalice to Spell Pierce against RUG is pretty moot. As for Chalice vs. Relic with respect to RUG, I think it does come down to a matter of preference. I agree with you that Chalice is pretty sick against RUG, but I would rather run Relic of Progenitus as it involves less variance of the game circumstances (going first/second, if they have Ancient Grudge, etc.) and it is probably better than either Chalice or Pierce against Dredge or Reanimator. I would consider Chalice to be more annoying against storm combo than Spell Pierce, but I don't think even Chalice is going to significantly make your storm matchup positive anyway. As for Elves, even if I have nothing to SB against it (and I do, see Umezawa's Jitte in addition to Phyrexian Revoker or alternatively Cursed Totem), Elves is nothing more than a minority deck due to Miracles and it shouldn't be a serious consideration even if it's a bad matchup (but I do have SB cards against it anyway!).

    Chalice is far better than Pierce also against Burn, another matchup not so favorable to us (usually Burn can deal 20 dmg faster than us, and kill our Skirges easily if we land them).
    I wouldn't use Burn as a serious basis for the inclusion of a SB card, unless Burn was truly a nightmare matchup for us (like Lands.dec). Also, it's not too hard to defeat anyway. In my opinion, the matchup comes down to tight play, not what cards you run. Any loss to Burn can be accredited to play error and not to drawing the right cards at the right time. I have a little more resistance against Burn than explosive lists as I run 4 Myr Enforcer. Furthermore, I have O-Ring in my sb if I were so inclined to stop Bridge or Lavamancer. Like I said, it hardly matters what you run against Burn, and you shouldn't run anything at all in your SB specifically for Burn.

    But I don't think it would save you very often from Terminus, since they rarely play it with less then 3 total mana in play.
    Tell that to the Miracles players I've beaten. I've said it before, I don't allow Miracles the luxury of having two leftover mana for Spell Pierce when they Miracle-cast Terminus. And Miracles is less consistent than you think. Miracles decks are more likely to keep one-land hands with Brainstorm/StP/SDT in them against us because they know we don't run Wasteland. I don't think Miracles can consistently be able to use Brainstorm to find lands and be able to set up Terminus conveniently enough to dodge Spell Pierce. If they do, that means they had the nuts or I had a slow hand, and I can live with that. I can just save Spell Pierce to make sure my Tezzeret resolves, or I can counter whatever chance they have of winning (Entreat the Angels, Helm of Obedience). It happens, as I've explained from my personal matchup experiences.

    And against Show & tell, which is so full of counterspells that your Pierce will rarely resolve, I think Phyrexian Metamorph should definitely be more useful. Also against Spiral tide your Pierce shouldn't resolve very often, since they play both FoW and Pact (and Pierces sometimes).
    I'm getting the impression that you assume I just run Spell Pierce and nothing else against the matchups I say I use Pierce against. Anyway, I thought we were talking about Chalice vs. Spell Pierce, but if you want to talk about a matchup in which Chalice has no significant applicability, then sure. Have you read the ruling on Phyrexian Metamorph vs. Show and Tell? Because if you knew the ruling, I don't think you would be suggesting that Phyrexian Metamorph would be more useful, as it's not remotely useful at all since it doesn't work against Show and Tell. Did you mean Oblivion Ring, because that actually works? Well, fortunately, I run 3 and 2 Karakas (1 MD). I run Spell Pierce in addition to those spells as backup for when I don't have them. Are you still trying to tell me I shouldn't run Spell Pierce against Show and Tell? Pierce is much better than Chalice here.

    Against Spiral Tide, I don't see how Chalice or any artifact-based solution would be better than Spell Pierce against Spiral Tide, considering they run Cunning Wish for Rebuild, so bringing this up just to contest Spell Pierce's effectiveness is pretty insignificant.

    Pierce > Chalice vs planeswalkers, Pernicious deed, other forms of mass removal and generally speaking control stuff, that's for sure.

    But against Control our best card probably remains Tezzeret.
    I don't get why you're comparing Spell Pierce to cards I already run (in conjunction).

    Against Combo I would also play Cabal therapy (I don't remember if they are in your list) in addition to Chalice: I'm pretty sure both Chalice and Therapy are better than Pierce in combo matchups.
    Of course Pierce would be very strong against combo if only we could follow a permission gameplan together with our traditional aggro plan (like Merfolks for example), but since we are Affinity we can rarely play more than 2-3 Pierces from SB... and 2-3 counters total are too few to fight current combos.
    I've tried Cabal Therapy and I firmly advocated for it in past pages of this thread. Actually, against blue-based combo decks, Cabal Therapy and Spell Pierce are more or less the same in efficacy. You would play Chalice in addition to Cabal Therapy? Can you tell me how you resolve a Cabal Therapy if you cast Chalice with X=1?

    So we can come to this general conclusion, tell me if you agree with me:
    - Chalice is best against many combo decks, RUG, Burn
    - Pierce is best against control
    - Cabal therapy is best against generic combo
    -No. Chalice is irrelevant against Show and Tell, and it wouldn't make any significant difference in making your other combo matchups positive. Relic vs. Chalice against RUG is a matter of taste. Burn is irrelevant.
    -Yes. I'm glad we can agree on that.
    -No. Cabal Therapy is as good as Spell Pierce against combo, but Pierce is better against control so I would rather run Pierce.

    Metas are fluid and with the recent addition of Abrupt decay there's a chance BUG control or tempo decks will find a nice spot: in that case Pierce would be very sweet against Pernicious deeds (but BUG usually plays 4x FoW and at least 4 more counterspells between Dazes and Pierces, so they could counter your Pierce) but useless against Decays.
    And they can remove your Chalices with Abrupt Decay too, even if Chalice is set at x=2. What point are you trying to make exactly? I am the least concerned about not being able to counter Abrupt Decay. The only important cards I run they can target with it are Cranial Plating and Master of Etherium. BUG can't use Pernicious Deed or Abrupt Decay to kill my Myr Enforcers or Tezzerets.

    Of course you can keep your opinion about Pierce being generally better ("overshadowing") than Chalice.

    But imho, the thoughts and reasoning I've followed in the last posts shows that Pierce shouldn't be considered "generally better" than Chalice.

    We can say it's better in certain matchups, and at the same time we should say Chalice is better in others.
    I may have exaggerated what I said, here is my actual point: Spell Pierce has wider applications than Chalice against both control and combo. Chalice should be run over Pierce as a meta-call with regards to specific matchups where you want to maximize your advantage such as RUG or Burn. But given the diversity of Legacy as a format in whole and the number of spells Pierce can target, Pierce just seems like the better card as it's less variable and its success only depends on how well you play it as opposed to how lucky you get with Chalice. You ended several of your points on Chalice with Chalice being very problematic if unanswered. Both Spell Pierce and Chalice of the Void are capable of being countered, but Pierce is a solution card that doesn't care about any removal your opponent has for your Chalice. One such removal that is becoming more popular and accessible if not already is Abrupt Decay. Why not prefer the solution that only needs to resolve ONCE to give you the advantage you need to win?

    Anyways, very nice and stimulating discussion :)
    Likewise. You should post in here more often.
    Last edited by Shawon; 11-23-2012 at 02:52 AM.

  2. #1142

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Well, we definitely don't agree on many points, the most general being what is better vs Combo between Pierce and Chalice.

    It would be pretty useless and frustrating to insist on our respective points, as I don't think we are
    gonna convince each other.


    Btw my logic was NOT to compare Chalice vs Pierce for every matchup, and neither to say Chalice is better vs every combo (I pointed out which combo decks suffer Chalice), but to identify which are the decks they are better against.
    Doing that, we can choose which one to pick depending on meta.
    Unless you think Pierce is "generally better" than Chalice (but that's probably your exact opinion), choosing the first or the latter is related to the meta we expect to meet.
    I won't use Chalice in a control-full meta, that's for sure.
    And I'm not gonna use Pierce in my meta full of RUG / Combo as well as some Burn (I don't even agree on considering Burn a favorable match-up... unless we have a really nice hand/draws, they are gonna deal 20 dmg faster than us).

    If BUG control becomes a thing (at my last tournament there were a couple of BUG decks, and there will be probably more on the next occasion) then I will consider reserving 2 slots to Pierce in place of Metamorph.
    (about Metamorph: yes, you can't use them like Oblivion ring on Show and tell cast, but you can play it the very next turn to destroy their fatty, and I prefer it to O-ring cause it's more versatile in an Affinity build since it can copy artifacts).

    And yes, Chalice is a house vs Storm, it definitely is. Miles better than Pierce in that match-up imho.
    (to be more accurate about this: Chalice better than Pierce in a deck which can run only 2-3 Pierces as permission; Pierce would probably be better if we could run Forces / Dazes along with it)

    One thing I don't understand is when you say "I won't allow Miracle" to have 3 mana for their Terminus... well, it doesn't really depend on you, you know.
    Because I don't think you are running Wastelands or other forms of land disruption... so it really depends on them and their luck and skill.
    If they are so unlucky not to draw at least 3 lands in time (which in unlikely, as they run at least 22-23), or they are so impatient to cast Terminus on 2nd/3rd turn, then Pierce is nuts. But does that happen so often, considering in a tournament you shouldn't meet unskilled opponents?


    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    Pierce just seems like the better card as it's less variable and its success only depends on how well you play it as opposed to how lucky you get with Chalice. You ended several of your points on Chalice with Chalice being very problematic if unanswered. Both Spell Pierce and Chalice of the Void are capable of being countered, but Pierce is a solution card that doesn't care about any removal your opponent has for your Chalice. One such removal that is becoming more popular and accessible if not already is Abrupt Decay. Why not prefer the solution that only needs to resolve ONCE to give you the advantage you need to win?

    You pointed out that both Chalice and Pierce die to counterspells (and to discard, I wanna add), which is true.
    Then you pointed out that Chalice dies to removal, unlike Pierce, and that's true as well.

    But you forgot something: Pierce also dies to "2 mana open opponents", and Chalice doesn't.

    And another thing: Pierce is a reactive card, while Chalice is proactive (you don't have to play it "in response" to something). I think proactive cards fits better a proactive deck like Affinity.
    You can call it philosophy, but imho it's not. Every deck has its style of play and imho we should play accordingly.


    The point about Decay is true as well, but that becomes relevant only when facing BUG decks (and some ANT/TES, unfortunately for us), and I don't use Chalice in that matchup.
    Against ANT I would definitely use Chalice @ 1 and hope they don't have Decay in hand (post-SB of course, as they never play Decay MB), because at that point they can't even play Brainstorm / Ponder to search for it. Anyways, if ANT/TES player has to Decay it, he just lost a turn for doing that and I can profit from it.


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    Anyways, I don't pretend to be right, neither to state Chalice > Pierce on every occasion and meta.

    As I said many competitive Affinity lists run Pierce (did you find some on TC Decks?), so it must be good.

    Actually I love Pierce: I used to run 4x MB in my Merfolk deck, before realizing there were too many for a deck like that.
    Thinking they are not so good for Affinity doesn't mean I consider them less than great in many other decks running blue.

    I just keep thinking it's more of a meta call then a card being "generally better" then the other one.
    Last edited by anakyn; 11-24-2012 at 07:35 AM.

  3. #1143
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by anakyn View Post
    Btw my logic was NOT to compare Chalice vs Pierce for every matchup, and neither to say Chalice is better vs every combo (I pointed out which combo decks suffer Chalice), but to identify which are the decks they are better against.
    Doing that, we can choose which one to pick depending on meta.
    Unless you think Pierce is "generally better" than Chalice (but that's probably your exact opinion), choosing the first or the latter is related to the meta we expect to meet.
    I know that's what you're pointing out. To an extent, I agree, that's why I said Chalice would be against specific matchups in which you want to optimize your wins, such as RUG or Burn. I just don't agree with having to do that when you can beat RUG just fine with other sb options that have broader applications to other matchups (like Relic against RUG, not Pierce). I wouldn't go out of my way to run SB cards specifically for Burn since I consider that deck to be such a minority, but if that's your meta sure, then I can understand you wanting to run Chalice... but it is just one deck that you're able to beat anyway.

    I won't use Chalice in a control-full meta, that's for sure.
    And I'm not gonna use Pierce in my meta full of RUG / Combo as well as some Burn (I don't even agree on considering Burn a favorable match-up... unless we have a really nice hand/draws, they are gonna deal 20 dmg faster than us).
    Because Burn can kill on turn 3 with a fast hand? I never said the matchup was favorable. Burn comes down to who has the better hand and who makes the least number of mistakes. It's somewhere in the middle. Why go out of your way to one-side such an irrelevant matchup? I mean, if that's your meta, then I guess you might as well make it favorable with certainty, but I don't know, personally I would rather leave it up to chance and work on what I believe are more important matchups like Miracles or Omni-Tell.

    (about Metamorph: yes, you can't use them like Oblivion ring on Show and tell cast, but you can play it the very next turn to destroy their fatty, and I prefer it to O-ring cause it's more versatile in an Affinity build since it can copy artifacts).
    This is comical. So tell me, if Show and Tell has the permission to counter my Spell Pierce like you say, what makes you think they won't have that same permission to counter your Metamorph? If they SnT a Griselbrand, you think your Metamorph 1) is going to resolve after they draw 7 in response and 2) is going to be going to be relevant if they draw another Show and Tell? Or tell me, how reliable is the plan to cast Metamorph after your SnT opponent has put down Omniscience and just kills you that same turn because you put down nothing relevant from the Show and Tell?

    And yes, Chalice is a house vs Storm, it definitely is. Miles better than Pierce in that match-up imho.
    (to be more accurate about this: Chalice better than Pierce in a deck which can run only 2-3 Pierces as permission; Pierce would probably be better if we could run Forces / Dazes along with it)
    I never said Spell Pierce made storm combo a positive matchup. It doesn't matter if you run Pierce or Chalice against storm, as they will still win. It's our absolute worst matchup. What's your storm matchup like? Do you face competent storm players, because I would find it very laughable to see a skilled Storm player lose to an Affinity player with Chalice when they can easily remove it or play through a Chalice set a X=0 with a Past in Flames kill. Or just make you discard Chalice. Or just kill you before you have a chance to cast Chalice at X=1. I am in need of some enlightenment on how Chalice makes your storm matchup favorable.

    One thing I don't understand is when you say "I won't allow Miracle" to have 3 mana for their Terminus... well, it doesn't really depend on you, you know.
    Because I don't think you are running Wastelands or other forms of land disruption... so it really depends on them and their luck and skill.
    If they are so unlucky not to draw at least 3 lands in time (which in unlikely, as they run at least 22-23), or they are so impatient to cast Terminus on 2nd/3rd turn, then Pierce is nuts. But does that happen so often, considering in a tournament you shouldn't meet unskilled opponents?
    I thought I spelled this out when I said I apply too much pressure against Miracles for them to just sit back and wait to have two mana leftover for Pierce. If a Miracles players waits on a Terminus they were able to cast, then I get a free combat step. Also, any control deck with 22-23 lands is going to have some consistency troubles of making every land drop without card manipulation, especially if said control players have to use that card manipulation to prioritize putting removal on the top of their library to draw it.

    It seems to me that you're just thinking one-dimensionally about Spell Pierce vs. Terminus and you seem to believe Miracles is a super-consistent deck that always draws both its removal and its lands at the perfect time. Do you want to face me with Miracles on MWS and I'll play my Affinity build? That way, you can see for yourself how often you can comfortably ignore my Spell Pierce while I threaten you for lethal by turns 3-4? PM me if you're interested.

    You pointed out that both Chalice and Pierce die to counterspells (and to discard, I wanna add), which is true.
    Then you pointed out that Chalice dies to removal, unlike Pierce, and that's true as well.

    But you forgot something: Pierce also dies to "2 mana open opponents", and Chalice doesn't.
    Very astute observation. I didn't know my opponent could pay 2 to prevent my Spell Pierce from countering their spell, even if they didn't have two leftover mana to begin with, despite the fact that I opportunely played Spell Pierce at a pivotal point of the game where resolving it would give me a significant advantage. Thanks for letting me know!

    And another thing: Pierce is a reactive card, while Chalice is proactive (you don't have to play it "in response" to something). I think proactive cards fits better a proactive deck like Affinity.
    You can call it philosophy, but imho it's not. Every deck has its style of play and imho we should play accordingly.
    Like I said before, I normally prefer proactive solutions. With the exception of Spell Pierce, every SB tech I run is a proactive solution to any of my matchups. However, Spell Pierce is such a strong exception. Wizard Replica is the closest proactive equivalent of Spell Pierce that fits the theme of Affinity, but it is far too slow to be considered a serious choice.

    The point about Decay is true as well, but that becomes relevant only when facing BUG decks (and some ANT/TES, unfortunately for us), and I don't use Chalice in that matchup.
    Against ANT I would definitely use Chalice @ 1 and hope they don't have Decay in hand (post-SB of course, as they never play Decay MB), because at that point they can't even play Brainstorm / Ponder to search for it. Anyways, if ANT/TES player has to Decay it, he just lost a turn for doing that and I can profit from it.
    "Hope," because that's always worked against storm Anyway, see my response ^ about storm earlier in this post.

    Anyways, I don't pretend to be right, neither to state Chalice > Pierce on every occasion and meta.
    Same here.

    As I said many competitive Affinity lists run Pierce (did you find some on TC Decks?), so it must be good.
    Yes, I did. I mentioned in my last post (as an edit), but I remember looking at a list that had 3 SB Spell Pierces which inspired me to try them. Again, I've been advocating Spell Pierce for what feels like a long time it sometimes feels like I'm the only one who ever thought of the card.
    Last edited by Shawon; 11-24-2012 at 05:38 PM.

  4. #1144
    Fizzling Since '03
    Mr. Froggy's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Canada
    Posts

    602

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    I never tried Spell Pierce (I might, one day) but I say I hate facing Miracles. Even if I have lethal on the board, they always seem to be able to play Terminus when they need it. It's happened often that I had a bunch of guys in play, equipped with Plating, and them down extremely low life, and BOOM! Terminus... Story of my life, really.
    ''The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.'' Lord Eddard Stark - A Game of Thrones

    -Adsum

    -ChrisMeister on MTGO

  5. #1145

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Mmm... you are getting emotional and you are missing many of my points, or you are distorting them.

    I won't go further on this argument: I already explained my opinions and choices and I have motivated them.
    What's more important to me: I did it without using words like "comical" when referring to my interlocutor's thoughts. Maybe you are used to it. I'm not, and I won't become.
    No more to add.

    A couple of examples of your misinterpretations (the first things I've read of your last reply):
    - I never said I use Chalice especially for Burn matchup. I clearly said it was there primarily for RUG and Combo, which are the most used deck in my meta; utility vs Burn is just a bonus, a well-accepted bonus that almost completely shuts down a deck which troubles us
    - I never said I consider Metamorph a strong answer to Show and tell, just a simple answer in a very unfavorable matchup (which Pierce doesn't make less unfavorable at all). I even admitted it IS a worse answer than O-ring, but I prefer it cause of its versatility. I also said the best answer we have vs combo in general is Therapy, NOT Chalice.
    Yet you used the word "comical" for no reason and out of context, probably with the purpose of ridiculing my choices and opinions.

    Then you said something about Storm decks ignoring/removing/discarding my Chalice... well, not easy to ignore Chalice @ 1 when you play Storm, not easy to remove it if you can't play Brainstorm/Ponder to search for answers (if you play TES you can still Burning wish for Shattering spree... and you just wasted 2 turns doing it), not easy to discard it when Affinity can pretty easily produce 2 mana on first turn and just play it before they can do whatsoever.


    But I admit I didn't read your full points after I read the word "comical".
    To be honest, from that point on I didn't read anything of what you wrote.

    Hope someone else will explain his/her thoughts about sideboard decision, the argument between us is over.

  6. #1146
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    What adjective would you have preferred instead of 'comical?' Your idea to use Phyrexian Metamorph is 'comical' because: you had JUST said previously that Spell Pierce is ineffective against Show and Tell due to the number of permission they have, yet you suggested a card you can only CAST to be effective against SnT, that can be hit by just as many counterspells and is 2 more mana expensive than Spell Pierce? It's comical because your point demonstrated irony. Do you still not get the 'context' of my statement? To be honest, I don't understand your frustration. Maybe you see it, but I don't see any direct correlation between calling your idea 'comical' and using that word to describe you as a person. Were you just offended by my usage of the word 'comical' because you didn't get the irony of your statement? I think you're overreacting a bit to one word that wasn't even intended to offend you.

    I'm not going to quote your examples of my alleged misinterpretation, but it doesn't matter who misquoted who. I don't care if I said or you said Phyrexian Metamorph was a 'strong' or 'robust' or 'muscular' or 'healthy' answer to Show and Tell. The fact is, buddy, you mentioned as an answer to Show and Tell and I effectively expressed my opinion why Phyrexian Metamorph has no business being used as an answer to Show and Tell. I don't get how you acknowledge O-Ring being better in the matchup and then say you prefer Metamorph because it's more versatile.

    Hope someone else will explain his/her thoughts about sideboard decision, the argument between us is over.
    I don't mind ending this discussion if you have nothing else to contribute, but there's no need to take things personal as neither of us took the discussion to that level. There's no hard feelings on my side.
    Last edited by Shawon; 11-24-2012 at 11:04 PM.

  7. #1147
    Member
    godofallu's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2012
    Location

    WI
    Posts

    70

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    What adjective would you have preferred instead of 'comical?' Your idea to use Phyrexian Metamorph is 'comical' because: you had JUST said previously that Spell Pierce is ineffective against Show and Tell due to the number of permission they have, yet you suggested a card you can only CAST to be effective against SnT, that can be hit by just as many counterspells and is 2 more mana expensive than Spell Pierce? It's comical because your point demonstrated irony. Do you still not get the 'context' of my statement? To be honest, I don't understand your frustration. Maybe you see it, but I don't see any direct correlation between calling your idea 'comical' and using that word to describe you as a person. Were you just offended by my usage of the word 'comical' because you didn't get the irony of your statement? I think you're overreacting a bit to one word that wasn't even intended to offend you.

    I'm not going to quote your examples of my alleged misinterpretation, but it doesn't matter who misquoted who. I don't care if I said or you said Phyrexian Metamorph was a 'strong' or 'robust' or 'muscular' or 'healthy' answer to Show and Tell. The fact is, buddy, you mentioned as an answer to Show and Tell and I effectively expressed my opinion why Phyrexian Metamorph has no business being used as an answer to Show and Tell. I don't get how you acknowledge O-Ring being better in the matchup and then say you prefer Metamorph because it's more versatile.



    I don't mind ending this discussion if you have nothing else to contribute, but there's no need to take things personal as neither of us took the discussion to that level. There's no hard feelings on my side.
    As a third party let me just step in and say you clearly have no idea what you're reading, and need to think a little more before replying. Oh and the random acts of patronizing people seem childish.

    I would assume that phyrexian metamorph would be sided in against show and tell as a permanent that would be put into play during the resolution of show and tell. The namesake card of the deck. Sort of similar to how Goblins side in Angel of despair. So the casting cost/ability to counter are absolutely not relevant. CAN ONLY BE CAST... um no the entire point is to never cast the card at all, but you totally could if you need an extra beater to add pressure/artifact count which is why the metamorph is more versatile than an oblivion ring which is usless at all times except during the show and tell's resolution.

  8. #1148
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by godofallu View Post
    As a third party let me just step in and say you clearly have no idea what you're reading, and need to think a little more before replying. Oh and the random acts of patronizing people seem childish.

    I would assume that phyrexian metamorph would be sided in against show and tell as a permanent that would be put into play during the resolution of show and tell. The namesake card of the deck. Sort of similar to how Goblins side in Angel of despair. So the casting cost/ability to counter are absolutely not relevant. CAN ONLY BE CAST... um no the entire point is to never cast the card at all, but you totally could if you need an extra beater to add pressure/artifact count which is why the metamorph is more versatile than an oblivion ring which is usless at all times except during the show and tell's resolution.
    Thanks for being the mature one by telling me I have no idea what I'm reading.

    http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...Tell-and-Clone

    You're welcome.

  9. #1149

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    There's no hard feelings on my side.
    It's not called "hard feelings" nor "frustration" (frustration for what? my points on Chalice and Pierce seems pretty solid to me); just being tired to debate with someone who seems more interested in making fun of interlocutor's opinions than serching for common points of view.
    Just that.

    You should read your interlocutor's words with the same focus you put when you read yours.

    You would understand, for example, why I said Metamorph is more versatile.
    Or the meaning of me writing that Pierce dies to "2 mana open", unlike Chalice, after you said Chalice dies to removal unlike Pierce.
    But you're more interested in the apparent "irony" of my thoughts.

    Again, nothing more to add.
    It's all already written, it just needs an open mind to read.

    Or, even better, a "fresh" mind, different from mine or yours.

  10. #1150
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Fair enough.

    ------------------------------------------

    Moving along, this is my what I'm currently working on:

    SolarTezz Affinity


    12 Artifacts Lands
    2 Tombs
    2 Blinkmoth Nexus
    4 Opal
    3 Petals
    1 Drum



    4 Thopter
    4 Skirge
    4 MoE
    1 Ravager
    4 Champ
    4 Enforcer

    4 TC
    4 Plating
    3 Spell Pierce
    4 Tezzeret

    SB:

    2 Karakas
    3 Jitte
    3 Relic
    3 O-Ring
    2 Revoker
    2 Therapy

    Finally, 0 Memnite. Relying less on Springleaf Drum makes it harder to defend Memnite when your purpose is to make the Tezz Affinity deck more robust in offense. Now that I run Petals to retain my explosiveness (sometimes increasing it), I don't need Memnite + Drums for cheap permanent synergy anymore.

    I'm down to just running 1 Drum. I tried cutting them altogether for just 4 Petals, but it didn't feel right. But 1 Drum has been fine. Having a 2nd Drum is 99% of the time worse than any other serious alternative. I also moved Karakas out of the MD because it was entirely useless and limiting during all of my game 1s. Never doing that again.

    I've upped the MoE's back to 4 and I'm running 2 Blinkmoth Nexus. I used to shy away from adding Nexus because usually I would look at lands to cut to add in Nexus and then I would just say no to that. However, replacing creatures with Nexus is a much more natural decision because Nexus increases both my threat count and mana source count at the same time! I'm running Blinkmoth over its Infect equivalent because I don't want to rely on Cranial Plating to make Inkmoth have any realistic chance of killing my opponent.

    With my Tezzs all in the MD and me not loving 3 Revoker, the Cabal Therapies are back in!

  11. #1151
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Besides anakyn, does anyone else here actually feel that RUG is a bad matchup? I've always been under the belief that RUG is inherently one of the reasons why we play Affinity, to beat up on the fair decks that punish unfair decks. Master of Etherium is an absolute beating against RUG and they can't get rid of it pre-board if they let it resolve. That alone is why I decided to keep them in the deck despite it being my most sided-out card of all my matchups. I'd like to know other people's strategies against RUG to compare ideas.

    Have any of you tried Relic of Progenitus against RUG? I find that ever since I cut Grafdigger's Cage from the SB and tried out 3x Relic, my post-board games have tilted tremendously in my favor. If I am able to resolve a Relic by turn 2 and my opponent doesn't have a Delver, I don't see how it's likely I can lose the game, because I can just activate the 1st ability turn after turn until I feel like exiling many cards from the graveyard at once or if I need to draw a card, and when I use the 2nd ability, I'm still exiling cards and getting a card out of it. Post-board against RUG, Relic has the incredible benefit of marginalizing RUG's weapon of choice against Affinity, Ancient Grudge. RUG often doesn't have three mana by the time it casts Grudge, as they will probably need to cast it quick on a resolved MoE. I always try to get rid of any Grudges in the graveyard I see with Relic's 2nd ability, especially when RUG can't tap for . RUG will never exile Grudge by choice if I use the 1st ability, so I have to force them to exile it with the 2nd ability. Using the 2nd ability yields incredible value as you exile 1/2 of their best removal against you and you draw a card. How do you lose once you make a play like that? And that's just value out of one physical card. Nevermind that fact that RUG still has to worry the rest of my deck that beats them to a pulp on top of Relic.

    I think another way to make the RUG matchup positive is replacing Frogmites and Memnites, as both of those cards are better used as fast enablers and cheap offense that become near useless when faced by opposing Goyfs.

  12. #1152

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    Besides anakyn, does anyone else here actually feel that RUG is a bad matchup?

    Well, no offence but this confirms my suspect that you don't read very carefully what other people (in this case, me) are writing.
    I never wrote RUG is bad matchup for Affinity.
    When I did argument why I prefer Chalice, I wrote that it is nuts vs certain combo and RUG, and that it is relevant because combo (not RUG) is our worst matchup while RUG is the most played deck.

    But let's forget it and focus on the RUG matchup.

    I wouldn't say RUG is particularly bad, it's like 45%.
    It depends more on them: if they have lots of denial and/or they use counters brainfully, I'd say RUG wins the majority of times.
    To win, we should have a pretty fast hand and find at least 3-4 threats, cause the first 2-3 threats will be countered/bolted.
    Maybe a good Affinity player should be bluffing a bit against RUG, having them counter/bolt a minor threat while keeping in hand the biggest threats.

    Yes, MoE is our best card here, that's why they'll likely save Force for it. And that's also why we should play it as the last of our threats, unless it's the only one we have.
    If MoE resolves most of the time it's game over.

    Post-side they have Ancient while we have Relic (but I never play 3 Relic side, since I prefer to mix up my GY-hate) and Chalice if we play it.

    Imho the biggest problem here are not even the counters or their Delvers or their bolts, but the quantity of denial instead.
    Assuming they find some Wastelands and Dazes, they can keep us at bay for several turns. Also their Stifles are annoying early, if they stop Cranial equip and we have no spare mana left. Since we are an early game deck, denial hurts us badly.
    From that point of view, maybe Opal and Drums can be considered key cards, since they can let us speed our clock over their denial. Playing 3-4 Citadels is also key.
    Last edited by anakyn; 11-27-2012 at 08:20 AM.

  13. #1153
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by anakyn
    Imho the biggest problem here are not even the counters or their Delvers or their bolts, but the quantity of denial instead.
    Assuming they find some Wastelands and Dazes, they can keep us at bay for several turns. Also their Stifles hurts early, if they stop Cranial equip and we have no spare mana left.
    From that point of view, maybe Opal and Drums can be considered key cards, since they can let us speed our clock over their denial. Playing 3-4 Citadels is also key.
    I feel the opposite way. The cards you just mentioned provide extra acceleration to maintain our speed against mana denial. 4 Darksteel Citadels should always be played MD. Mox Opal and Drum are good pieces of acceleration, but Sol lands also make it easy to play past Daze while not slowing down.

  14. #1154

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    The cards you just mentioned provide extra acceleration to maintain our speed against mana denial.

    Of course, that's why I mentioned them... but you have to see at least 1 of them in your opening hand!
    Otherwise their denial will likely screw your gameplan.

    Playing against a super-efficient deck like RUG emphasizes our biggest and worst problem (vs any matchup) as Affinity: consistency.

    Opal and Drums help us ignoring denial, and we play about 6-7 of them so we are hoping to see some copies... but if we don't?
    Yes, our deck has some nice answer/counters to RUG: problem is finding them.

    Decks like RUG can often start with not-so-good hands cause with a single Ponder they could find the answer/threat they need... but we don't have library manipulation so we are going to mulligan more often.

    I know this issue concerns every matchup and not only RUG, but facing a deck that have such a good consistency/manipulation is a bit painful.
    In the last months Affinity has tried to find something to increase consistency (like Stoneforge), but it remains a big issue and sometimes I watch opponent's Brainstorms/Ponders with envy.


    Generally speaking, as I was writing also in another forum, I feel like having success with Affinity nowadays is related more to luck than skill/smart building.
    Not the best remark for an Affinity player, but that's it.
    (fortunately I also have some other decks... cause lately I play Affinity just for fun but not on tournaments)
    Last edited by anakyn; 11-27-2012 at 11:50 AM.

  15. #1155
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by anakyn View Post
    Of course, that's why I mentioned them... but you have to see at least 1 of them in your opening hand!
    Otherwise their denial will likely screw your gameplan.
    I run 4 Opals, 4 Petals/Drum, 2 Sol lands and 4 Darksteel, all cards I want to see in my opening hand against RUG. I like my odds.

    Playing against a super-efficient deck like RUG emphasizes our biggest and worst problem (vs any matchup) as Affinity: consistency.
    I think facing RUG also emphasizes Affinity's best quality: redundancy. RUG only has consistency and not redundancy. What makes Affinity strong against RUG is a high threat density that's way too diverse to be handled by just one subset of RUG's answers. Bolt can get rid of small guys and Tezzeret, but it can't hit MoE or Champ. Ancient Grudge can hit a lot of artifacts, but it can't answer Tezzeret or Champ, nor a 5/5 Darksteel.

    EDIT: Sure, RUG can draw one specific answer at the right time, but I can overwhelm their demand for specific answers through redundancy. They can have Force of Will to counter Etched Champion. Cool, do they have another Force next turn when I cast my 2nd Champ? Another good thing going for Affinity is that RUG has no form of card advantage, unless you count Ancient Grudge. Affinity runs Thoughtcast to refill gas. As long as Affinity maintains a steady flow of pressure, RUG will inevitably run out of answers.
    Last edited by Shawon; 11-27-2012 at 04:22 PM.

  16. #1156

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    I run 4 Opals, 4 Petals/Drum, 2 Sol lands and 4 Darksteel, all cards I want to see in my opening hand against RUG. I like my odds.

    I agree about the chance to find 1/2 key cards on a total 14, but I don't understand why you include Glimmervoids... they are wastable, so everytime I play them I feel my mana is very fragile against RUG.

    Since I run 3 Drums and no Petals and I don't consider Glimmervoid as a solid strategy to avoid denial, in my deck there is a total of 11 cards that "counter" denial.
    Of course it could be worse (some decks suffer denial more than us), but you also have to consider we only play about 15 lands, which are really few. Under this point of view, when playing vs RUG Moxes and Drums can be considered as "additional Citadels": normally they provide us speed, but against an heavy denial deck often their role is to replace the lands they have wasted.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    What makes Affinity strong against RUG is a high threat density that's way too diverse to be handled by just one subset of RUG's answers. Bolt can get rid of small guys and Tezzeret, but it can't hit MoE or Champ. Ancient Grudge can hit a lot of artifacts, but it can't answer Tezzeret or Champ, nor a 5/5 Darksteel.

    EDIT: Sure, RUG can draw one specific answer at the right time, but I can overwhelm their demand for specific answers through redundancy.

    That's agreeable as well, and that's why I said one important factor is drawing enough threats to overcome their permission.
    We can stomp them away easy enough, if we find enough mana and at least 3-4 threats.

    But:
    - even if we put aside for a moment the consistency problem (which is the question: "how many threats will I find, and in which order?"), there comes again the denial problem.
    Yes, we can have the right mana and the right threats, still they can force us to spend too many turns to cast them.
    The fact is: they can easily start Delver/Mangoose, then Daze something in our turn, then go Ponder to sculpt their hand or another Delver/Mangoose, then Force something, then go Goyf and proceed to beat us down (these are all cards they play 4x): a start like that is pretty common for them, and it means they landed 2 or 3 fast threats while negating our gameplan almost completely. Not easy to comeback from that point.
    You could reply something like: "ok, but that would be godhand for them"... only they have so much library manipulation, that they can build their godhand easy enough, while we have to rely on our luck or mulligan.
    - apart from Bolts, they also play Fire/Ice, which is nuts against us. I found out a good answer to bolts is Ravager: for a long time I didn't consider this guy like a viable option, but since I tested it I feel my build is better.


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    As I said I don't think RUG is a bad match-up, but I wouldn't consider it good neither.

    Godhand RUG vs godhand Affinity (something like artifact land, opal, drum, 0-cc creature, thoughtcast, 2 threats) means Affinity will probably win, just because our threat density is too much for them to answer forever.
    But the fact they have so good consistency & library manipulation while we lack in both factors, imho means we are slightly under them.

    Of course it also depends on our build... Affinity builds are so different that it's very difficult to predict matchup % without knowing the specific cards used.


    EDIT: don't you side Tezzerets out when playing RUG? I always put them out because it's very difficult they will let me cast a 4-mana threat which can be countered also by Pierce...

  17. #1157
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    (Glimmervoids? I don't run any.)

    That's why people play RUG: no matchup is unwinnable for RUG as long as the RUG pilot is skilled, or lucky I suppose. But if you're prepared for RUG and you know the matchup well enough to play correctly, I think the odds are in your favor. We have the advantage of being able to overwhelm their consistency with a high threat density and a fast manabase. The matter of keeping that threat density high and resilient is the current challenge to Affinity builders they need to overcome.

    I think the best thing for Affinity builders to do to improve their RUG matchup is reinventing their offense (or defense). I said that Affinity has a lot of redundancy as its advantage, but it also goes both ways. I've had plenty of games against RUG where I needed to draw into a threat and feeling the disappointment of drawing a Frogmite off the top. I think Affinity's cheap explosiveness is less to be desired in the current format and the deck needs to adapt to today's echelon of removal.

    Part of the reason I decided to cut Signal Pest was Forked Bolt from RUG. As of now, the only creatures I run that can be handled by Fire/Ice or Forked Bolt are Blinkmoths, Vault Skirges, and my 1-of Ravager. But Blinkmoths and Ravager don't effectively count in context, obviously, so the only card that can realistically be killed by Forked Bolt or Fire/Ice is Vault Skirge. That's a nice reduction from running 4 Memnite and 4 Signal Pest as X/1s easily picked off by either removal.

    Quote Originally Posted by anakyn
    EDIT: don't you side Tezzerets out when playing RUG? I always put them out because it's very difficult they will let me cast a 4-mana threat which can be countered also by Pierce...
    I currently keep 2 Tezz post-board against RUG. I bring at least 3 Relic in, but now that I have Cabal Therapy again, my SB changes go like this against RUG: -3 Pierce, -2 Tezzeret, +2 Therapy, +3 Relic. Arguably I could keep Spell Pierce instead of Tezzeret, but I think having a card that opts as both offense and defense is better. Sure, my opponent can run their own Spell Pierce, but it's questionable whether they would keep it in as it fails to answer actual creatures. If I were RUG facing Affinity, I would rather run REB post-board than Spell Pierce. Regardless, if they still run it, I can force them to use it earlier through my regular attempt to overwhelm them or just cast Tezzeret when they are tapped out. If the game against RUG comes down to a grind, it's not too hard to gather enough mana to pay for Pierce, given my manabase.
    Last edited by Shawon; 11-27-2012 at 10:30 PM.

  18. #1158
    Fizzling Since '03
    Mr. Froggy's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Canada
    Posts

    602

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    I finally got to changing out the Frogmites for some Skirges, and I'm finally running a fu set of Thopters now. :)

    I think I'm gonna keep the Blasts in though... I can't see myself removing them from my list.
    ''The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.'' Lord Eddard Stark - A Game of Thrones

    -Adsum

    -ChrisMeister on MTGO

  19. #1159
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Mr. Froggy: What does your list look like now, after said changes?

  20. #1160
    Fizzling Since '03
    Mr. Froggy's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Canada
    Posts

    602

    Re: [Deck] Affinity

    Lands/mana
    4 Darksteel Citadel
    4 Seat of the Synod
    4 Vault of Whispers
    3 Ancient Tomb
    4 Springleaf Drum
    4 Mox Opal

    Beaters
    4 Ornithopter
    3 Signal Pest
    4 Memnite
    4 Vault Skirge

    Win-cons
    4 Etched Champion
    3 Master of Etherium
    4 Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas
    4 Cranial Plating

    Other(s)
    3 Galvanic Blast
    4 Thoughtcast

    I feel this list is extremely tight, and I love it!

    EDIT: It should say 3 MoEs, my bad!
    ''The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.'' Lord Eddard Stark - A Game of Thrones

    -Adsum

    -ChrisMeister on MTGO

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)