Team America vs. Eva Green - Does either deck have strategic superiority?

[Captain Hammer]

Let us consider these two decks...

Eva Green

4 Tombstalker
4 Hypnotic Specter
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Nantuko Shade/Ashenmoor Gouger

4 Dark Ritual
4 Thoughtseize
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Snuff Out
2 Seal of Primordium
2 Reanimate

4 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Bayou
6 Swamp

Sideboard:
4 Choke
4 Leyline of the Void
4 Engineered Plague
3 Umezawa's Jitte

Versus...

Team America

4 Tarmogoyf
4 Tombstalker

4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Snuff Out

4 Stifle
4 Ponder
4 Sinkhole
4 Thoughtseize

1 Bayou
1 Bloodstained Mire
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
2 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
4 Wasteland

Sideboard:
4 Krosan Grip
4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Diabolic Edict

Both decks play the same fundamental win conditions, Eva Green just plays more of them.

Eva Green plays proactive disruption that usually also provides either a tempo boost, explosiveness or card advantage (Dark Ritual, Hymn).

Team America plays a much more daring manabase and relies upon cantrips, tempo boosts and reactive countermagic that offers much greater flexibility at the cost of card parity, explosiveness or card disadvantage (Cantrips, Force of Will).

This begs the question, is one strategy superior to the other. Is cantriping and reactive flexible countermagic, at the expensive of losing explosiveness, using up more mana and being more vulnerable to nonbasic hate and suffering some card disadvantage superior to proactive solutions that while more explosive, don't offer nearly as much flexibility?

How would the two decks perform in an generalized metagame, is one more likely to top deck than the other? How will they fare when they face of against each other.

As Team America proves that this archeatype can support three colors, might Eva Green benefit from splashing white for more powerful threats like Doran, and more flexible answers like Vindicate?

Something akin to this...

-3 Swamp
+3 Scrubland

-3 Nantuko Shade/Ashenmoor Gouger
+3 Doran, the Siege Tower

-2 Seal of Cleansing
+2 Vindicate

I'm interested to hear out your thoughts on and answers to these questions.

[Ch@os]

The point is that TA is more consistent.
In Eva Green you draw sometimes into shit after an very good/explosive start.

Vindicate and Sinkhole in the same deck would be awesome.

[Jak]

Playing proactive and reactive disruption is a lot better than just proactive. The fact that you can proactively disrupt their mana and their hand and still counter stuff that gets by the mana denial and the discard is amazing. Running cantrips that reduces bad draws in the mid to late game is also another thing that TA does that Eva Green does not. Drawing Dark Rituals sucks when it isn't in the early turns.

And another thing, do you have to keep asking these questions about your pet decks?

[Captain Hammer]

The point is that TA is more consistent.
In Eva Green you draw sometimes into shit after an very good/explosive start.

Vindicate and Sinkhole in the same deck would be awesome.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization.

Yes, Tombstalker is bigger than Ashenmoor Gouger and Goyf gets to be bigger than Gouger by the midgame.

But that doesn't mean that Gouger is shit. Gouger afterall doesn't have the vulnerabilities that Tombstalker and Goyf have. Hell, the second Tombstalker you draw into is usually unplayable until well into the midgame. Goyf sometimes stays stuck as a 3/4 or even a 2/3 for a good while, and can shrink even more if you're desperate to play a Tombstalker.

Most of the cards in Eva Green are either significant threats, or powerful disruptive elements. Team America runs so many cantrips, that you will spend some turns doing nothing more than chaining together cantrips one after another to find a card worth playing the next turn. About the only nonstrictly business spell that Eva Green runs is 4 Dark Ritual, but these in turn serve to make the deck incredibly explosive.

And need I even mention TA's manabase.

So no, I don't think TA is more consistent by many measures.

I do agree with you that Vindicate and Sinkhole and Wasteland in the same deck would be awesome.

Hell, even Doran is a fantastic threat, basically serving as a 3cc Tombstalker without the graveyard vulnerability, all while serving to make your Goyfs a little bigger.

I could see the deck down to just 12 threats total, 4 Goyf, 4 Tombstalker, 4 Doran, along with a full set of 4 Vindicate to blow up lands, creatures, enchantments, artifacts and planeswalkers alike. The only problem with this is that it serves to make Dark Ritual just a little bit weaker.

[Jak]

Did you ignore my post and choose to answer what you saw fit? The biggest advantage is the proactive disruption (Sinkhole, Thoughtseize, Wasteland) combined with the reactive disruption (Stifle, Force, Daze).

[Captain Hammer]

If you looked at the timestamps or what I quoted, you would see that I was typing up my reply to Choas while you were making your post.

And if you would read my post, you would know that your characterization is only looking at one side of the issue.

You're right that the reactive answers are excellent. But there are disadvantages.

By NOT running Dark Ritual, Team America loses out on some of Eva Green's explosiveness. By relying on cantrip chains to find it's threats, TA uses up early turns and early mana to play cantrips.

There are disadvantages to having a threat base of only 8, against decks heavy on removal for example.

There are disadvantages to not being able to play Hymn to Tourach to screw up their plays, and often take out an extra land in the process.

You can argue that this is made up for by the ability to play FoW and cantrip into the cards that you want and you could well be right. But the fact remains, it's not just all advantages, there are disadvantages to this approach as well.

[Omega]

In an attempt to reply to your questions...

"This begs the question, is one strategy superior to the other. Is cantriping and reactive flexible countermagic, at the expensive of losing explosiveness, using up more mana and being more vulnerable to nonbasic hate and suffering some card disadvantage superior to proactive solutions that while more explosive, don't offer nearly as much flexibility?"

In my opinion, TA is strictly superior than Eva Green (this does not mean it has better results against all the format or one against another, but rather that TA should be better on a theorical point of view)

First, cantrips. Even TA's cantrip won't save him from bad draw in the late game. So a deck, EVA green in our example, that doesn't run any draw is likely to face inconsistency more often. Inconsistency is something to be avoided when deck building.
Moreoever, reactive strategy combined with proactive strategy can prove to be deadly for an opponent (TA). Pure proactive is weak. If you fail to "lock" the opponent, you can lose the game. Best example of pure proactive deck is Stax. If you fail to lock opponent, or if opponent just break through the lock, your strategy failed and you are likely going to lose. You can destroy lands, destroy hands with discards, but if opponent top deck into god, you still lose the game. TA has the advantage of running some reactive elements (FOW, DAZE and stifle). Even when failing with proactive strategy, he can use his reactive elements to save himself from losing the game by countering threats.
Explosiveness reminds me of "all in" combo deck. SI and Belcher. Both can blow an opponent on turn one, or just plain lose. First turn dark ritual thoughseize and hymn to tourach can be devastating. In fact, it is devastating. However, the game isn't yours yet. In fact, you used 3 cards (d.ritual, thougthseize, and hymn) to remove 3 cards from your opponent's hand. You haven't gained any huge advantage there (Especially with hymn, that is a random card ; thoughtseize can assure you picking a good card). Even doing those first turn bomb, you can still lose the game because opponent can survive those proactive attacks. He can also survive a turn 1 hyppie. Turn 1 hyppie isn't that scary. Opponent just needs to draw good, or better yet, if he has cantrip, he can easily outmatch you with superior quality cards.


"How would the two decks perform in an generalized metagame, is one more likely to top deck than the other? How will they fare when they face of against each other.'

In my opinion, although i did not tested this particular matchup, I believe TA would perform a lot better than Eva Green. Numerous top 8 should prove my point.
Also, on a theorical point of view, the lack of cantrip makes Eva Green extremely vulnerable to bad late game hands. Plus, counterspell gives TA another route. It can proactively disrupt opponent with discard and land destruction, or it can uses its countermagics to prevent threats from resolving.

The only matchup where Pure proactive can be better than a mix of proactive/reactive is maybe against pure control. Pure control being rather slow, your proactive elements are usually relevant. Yes, i would rather play TA even against Landstill. The ability of countering his spells while disrupting him with mana denial is certainly better than just relying on disruption.

I do not believe that explosiveness should be achieved at the cost of inconsistency nor should it be achieved before flexibility.

hope it wasn't too hard to read :)

Robert

[Jak]

If you looked at the timestamps or what I quoted, you would see that I was typing up my reply to Choas while you were making your post.

And if you would read my post, you would know that your characterization is only looking at one side of the issue.

You're right that the reactive answers are excellent. But there are disadvantages.

By NOT running Dark Ritual, Team America loses out on some of Eva Green's explosiveness. By relying on cantrip chains to find it's threats, TA uses up early turns and early mana to play cantrips.

There are disadvantages to having a threat base of only 8, against decks heavy on removal for example.

There are disadvantages to not being able to play Hymn to Tourach to screw up their plays, and often take out an extra land in the process.

You can argue that this is made up for by the ability to play FoW and cantrip into the cards that you want and you could well be right. But the fact remains, it's not just all advantages, there are disadvantages to this approach as well.

So the disadvantage of playing proactive and reactive disruption is not being able to play Dark Ritual, more creatures, or Hymn to Tourach?

You are really looking at this from one side. Sure TA doesn't run Dark Ritual, but is that a disadvantage for every deck? Is Eva Green better than Threshold because it doesn't run Dark Ritual?

From my point of view (right in the middle because I don't own either deck or am infatuated with either) is that TA has better LD elements, better disruption and is more consistent. Eva Green has the ability to run more creatures (but is this even better than running the best and cantrips?) and more proactive disruption (is this even better than having proactive and reactive disruption?). I really feel TA is a much stronger deck than Eva Green.

[thefreakaccident]

Team america is the natural evolution of eva green, get over it and stop your whining.

Also, I wish flash was back :cry:

[Captain Hammer]

How does asking a question about the pros and cons of two popular decks constitute whining.


From my point of view (right in the middle because I don't own either deck or am infatuated with either)...

So you're saying that because you don't own and have had minimal playtime playing either of the two decks, that you're more qualified to understand if one is better? :really:

I own and have played both decks. Hell, you can't not own TA if you own Eva Green and some very basic blue staples. Any legacy player that plays Eva Green and has the very basic legacy staples already owns Team America. They just have to choose which of the two is more worthy of running.

And unlike you, having had gone back and forth between both decks, I'm not completely convinced that Team America indeed was superior. Eva Green seemed to be the better deck for me while Team America came off as threat lite and vulnerable to removal. Eva always offered me 15 powerful creatures + 3 Reanimates to get them back or to steal an opponents. This was the whole point in making this topic, to figure out where one deck shines over the other, and establish if Eva Green indeed was the better choice in an environment with a lot of removal like mine.

So no, not having had either deck doesn't make your opinion more valid. Having owned and having played with both decks does.

On that same note, I think I'm going to give Team America another shot. But instead of running the standard list, I'm going to try a hybrid between it and Dreadstill so that I can get away with playing more threats.

Cutting chaff like Ponder for Dreadnoughts, and maybe even some Standstills (probably not). I just need to figure out the right cards to cut.

How do you think this would fare...


4 Tarmogoyf
4 Tombstalker
3 Phyrexian Dreadnought

4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Snuff Out

4 Stifle
4 Sinkhole
4 Thoughtseize
1 Vision Charm

1 Bayou
1 Bloodstained Mire
4 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
2 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
4 Wasteland

Sideboard:
4 Krosan Grip
4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Diabolic Edict

Any suggestions to this end?

[Hummingbird TG]

You can argue that this is made up for by the ability to play FoW and cantrip into the cards that you want and you could well be right. But the fact remains, it's not just all advantages, there are disadvantages to this approach as well.

The above essentially states that while there are advantages, there too are disadvantages. That is at odds with the definition of Strategic Superiority - which states that a deck is inherently Superior because its Strategy inherently trumps that of the other deck. In other words, you have already made your own conclusions about the subject (it can be seen from when you say "but the fact remains" that you do not intend to consider other views and insist on asserting your own), and assert your own conclusions as a retort to anyone seeking to discuss the topic with you.

That, I believe, is at odds with merely "asking a question about ... two popular decks". You seem to have the agenda of defending your initial presumption, behind asking this question. Perhaps, this would be whining?

Oh, btw, you call Ponder chaff and cut it.........and then run Vision Charm? Dodgy, to say the least. Also, I remember reading somewhere on the Dreadstill thread or somewhere on this forum, from posters who know their stuff about Dreadstill, that Dreadnought requires some way of recouping the loss in card advantage it would be if it is removed by opponents...which your proposed list absolutely lacks.

[Captain Hammer]

I find it interesting that rather than addressing the question raised, about the risks of going from essentially 18 threats to just 8, the risks of going from a bullet proof manabase to one that is just asking to be Blood Mooned, BtBed, or Waste+Crucible locked etc. you act like either issue never even occured to you.

If you played both decks, I find it hard to believe that the question of the threat count and the manabase wouldn't have concerned you at some point. In which case, you could actually respond to that question, or at the very least would be aware of it.

Here is what I'm going to do...

I'm going to play Team America some more for a week or so longer. And if that deck still feels light on threats and too vulnerable to Blood Moon compared to Eva Green...

I'm going to then spend a week trying something strategically somewhere between Team America and Eva Green, but with a higher threat count and less trobulesome manabase than TA.

A list like this perhaps...

4 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Doran, the Siege Tower

4 ?(StP?, Duress?, Cabal Therapy?, Dark Rit?, Gadook Teeg?, BoP?, Eternal Witness?)?
4 Thoughtseize
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Snuff Out
4 Vindicate
3 Reanimate

4 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Bayou
3 Scrubland
3 Swamp

[Hummingbird TG]

Before I further post I would say that yes, I have played both decks.

But the few threats in Team America is a non-issue. This thread discusses STRATEGIC Superiority. Team America does not use only exactly 8 threats as a STRATEGY per se. The strategy of Team America is to disrupt the resources of the opponent, then play a fat creature, preferably backed by countermagic, to seal the deal quickly. The strategy of Eva Green is to disrupt the resources of the opponent, then play a fat creature to seal the deal quickly (I count Hypnotic Specter as part of the disruption?). The argument in this thread is if either of those strategies are superior. The exact number of threats are a means to execute the strategy, and not the Strategy itself; and therefore irrelevant, for we are first arguing the strengths of the strategies in this thread, rather than the best means of executing them.

[Jak]

So you're saying that because you don't own and have had minimal playtime playing either of the two decks, that you're more qualified to understand if one is better? :really:

First off I couldn't not respond to this. Where did I say I haven't played with the decks? Where did I say I had only minimal playtime with them? I only said that due to your obviously biased stance. Posting Eva Green lists that are obviously your own and talking about a deck that you are obviously, as I said, infatuated with.

Now I think the list is horrible. Dreadstill can support Dreadnought with Standstills to actually recoup some of the lost CA. It can also protect it much better. You can't just throw it into the list and expect it to work wonders.

There have been things wrong with Sui Black in the past and while I believe TA is much different from the norm, it is the best step to make the deck competitive because it fixes problems like topdecks and bad draws.

[Captain Hammer]

And yet simultanously creates new, arguably more dangerous ones. That's my point. You can't just talk up the problems it solves and completely ignore the new ones that it creates or exacerbates. Blood Moon/Magus/Back to Basics for instance.


The strategy of Team America is to disrupt the resources of the opponent, then play a fat creature, preferably backed by countermagic, to seal the deal quickly.

You just admitted that playing a fat creature to seal the deal quickly IS part of the strategy of the deck.

So how can you in the same post say that not being able to get or keep a win condition into play consistently is not at all strategically relevent?

And surely you admit that being able to play out your strategy even in the face of a turn one Mox, Tomb, Blood Moon/Magus of the Moon is not strategically irrelevent.

[Hummingbird TG]

Oh, and I forgot to respond to your new list...


A list like this perhaps...

4 Tombstalker
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Doran, the Siege Tower

4 ?(StP?, Duress?, Cabal Therapy?, Dark Rit?, Gadook Teeg?, BoP?, Eternal Witness?)?
4 Thoughtseize
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Sinkhole
4 Snuff Out
4 Vindicate
3 Reanimate

4 Wasteland
4 Polluted Delta
4 Bloodstained Mire
3 Bayou
3 Scrubland
3 Swamp

Welcome, to bad Deadguy Ale/ loses to Thresh Galore. And while we remain on the topic of bad Deadguy Ale decks, I can assure you I've played the archetype probably far more than yourself. By the way, how could you even consider BoP in such a deck which wants things done on turn 1, not 2 (and Dark Ritual with so much non black)?

(To pre-empt the it's not Deadguy Ale argument, it's surely as slow as a Deadguy Ale deck, for in some Deadguy lists it does play those threats, possibly even all three, resembling the Rock, then incorporating Deadguy's LD strategy and disruption. You can argue LD is actually a Sui-Black strategy, but the defining card of Sui Black is Dark Ritual -- something your list conspiciously lacks (and I question running so many other-colored cards with Dark Ritual), so it's definitely not Sui, it isn't Rock because Rock doesn't do LD, and it isn't Deadguy because it doesn't have draw. In other words, it's a bad Deadguy deck (you could call it a bad Rock deck, or bad Eva Green deck, if you wanted, but it's as slow as Deadguy so I found it fitting to compare it with that). Just as I stated above.)

EDIT: A quick rebuttal.


You just admitted that playing a fat creature to seal the deal quickly IS part of the strategy of the deck.

So how can you in the same post say that not being able to get or keep a win condition into play consistently is not at all strategically relevent?

And surely you admit that being able to play out your strategy even in the face of a turn one Mox, Tomb, Blood Moon/Magus of the Moon is not strategically irrelevent.

That's the EXECUTION of the Strategy, in a thread about STRATEGIC Superiority. If the thread were about "Which deck is Superior", certainly we must take the effectiveness of the execution into account. But now, barring a misnaming of the thread, I believe we're only discussing the plan of the deck, not the means the deck uses to execute it. (On hindsight, I presume this is definitely not what you're trying to get at with this thread, rather discussing the effectiveness of both decks, and the thread is merely misnamed?)

[Captain Hammer]

For someone who claims to be far more familiar with these archeatype than myself...

I find it absolutely fascinating that you confuse what is so clearly a Rock list with a Deadguy Ale list. There is an entire thread devoted to the Rock in the Decks to Beat forum if you're unfamiliar with the archeatype, or the purpose that BoP can serve. I suggest taking a glance at it before commenting on my list further.



That's the EXECUTION of the Strategy, in a thread about STRATEGIC Superiority. If the thread were about "Which deck is Superior", certainly we must take the effectiveness of the execution into account. But now, barring a misnaming of the thread, I believe we're only discussing the plan of the deck, not the means the deck uses to execute it.

The majority of players would consider a discussion of the effectiveness with which a deck can execute it's strategy relevent when discussing strategic superiority.

But fine, if the only way that you would be willing to talk about that is to remove the word "strategic superiority" from the thread's title, consider it removed.

[Hummingbird TG]

For someone who claims to have played the archeatype far more than myself...

I find it absolutely fascinating that you confuse what is so clearly a Rock list with a Deadguy Ale list so readily. There is an entire thread devoted to the Rock in the Decks to Beat forum if you're unfamiliar with the archeatype.

Perhaps familiarity with The Rock tells us that it does not attempt to play the LD deck with Sinkhole and Wasteland, and familiarity with Deadguy Ale shows me that your spell-suite is incredibly similar to it, and creature suite similar to the Bwg versions.

EDIT: As you suggested, sir? I read the entire Rock thread on the DTB forums. In all of its 7 pages there is exactly ONE list with Sinkhole. That is yours. Perhaps the following reply answers the question on whether your list is or is not a Rock Deck. It seems, to, to be the consensus on that thread that the Rock is a mid/late game deck, and may or may not be board control. But definitely not LD.




What defines a Rock deck. Is it the colors, or is it the presence of Pernicious Deed, even inspite of it's dyssynergy with solid threats like Goyfs and Doran that The Rock has access to. Or does any aggro control black based deck spashing white and green count as The Rock.

I'm just wondering because I've seen the below list played before and I'm wondering whether this deck qualifies as The Rock. It certainly seems like a faster more aggressive path to take the deck down.

4 Tarmogoyf
4 Hypnotic Specter
4 Tombstalker
3 Doran, The Siege Tower

4 Dark Ritual
4 Thoughtseize
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Snuff Out
4 Sinkhole
3 Vindicate
2 Reanimate

4 Wasteland
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bayou
3 Scrubland
2 Swamp
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
That looks like Eva Green with a white splash to me (and also vaguely like Hanni's Rockguy). The Rock is a midrange deck with green mana acceleration which aims to win the mid to late game via superior resources and favorable exchanges on the board. BoP and Deed are "Rock cards", Ritual and Sinkhole are not. In Legacy, I would say running Pernicious Deed is very nearly a necessary condition to be called The Rock.

I would put the various BGx decks in the following order from most aggressive to most controllish:

Eva Green - Rockguy - The Rock - Tombstone - Truffle Shuffle

- Eva Green is aggro, singlemindedly focused on speed and disruption, uses Rituals, and doesn't run cards like Dark Confidant (or Deed).

- Rockguy is midrange, focused on resource denial, probably runs Dark Confidant, and can use either Birds or Rituals.

- The Rock is midrange, win by favorable trades on the board and runs Birds (or other green mana) and Deeds. It's midrange in almost every respect: it has some discard, some spot removal, some mass removal, some creatures, maybe some mana disruption, maybe some card draw, but isn't focused on any one of them.

- Tombstone is control, uses cheap, fat guys and Harmonize, probably uses Birds, and probably doesn't run Deed (but could, I think).

- Truffle Shuffle is control, runs expensive, fat guys, and a metric fuckton of removal. Doesn't necessarily have acceleration.

[Captain Hammer]

it has some discard, some spot removal, some mass removal, some creatures, maybe some mana disruption, maybe some card draw, but isn't focused on any one of them.

Sinkhole is a perfectly valid card to run in The Rock, any piece of disruption is, especially now that Rock's curve has gotten lower and lower thanks to Goyf.

Not running the namesake of Deadguy Ale (Dark Confidant) in Deadguy Ale is not.

Regardless, your original statement before you edited it, that the list posted was a Deadguy Ale list is not valid. As you now added and admit in that same post, that the list can't be readily called either Deadguy, or Rock or Sui Black is more valid. It's basically a hybrid between Eva Green and the Rock and has no cards that don't fall along the staple lists of either deck.

That was my original point, that this is meant to be Eva Green with better topdecks.

Regardless, we've now completely veered off topic.

I will do as I originally said, try Team America for a week or so more, then try the Eva Green with elements of the Rock variant I posted and report back my findings.

[Hummingbird TG]

Sinkhole is a perfectly valid card to run in The Rock, any piece of disruption is, esp now that Rock's curve has gotten lower and lower thanks to Goyf.

Not running the namesake of Deadguy Ale (Dark Confidant) in Deadguy Ale is not.

Please, sir, then why do none of the Rock decks in that thread, save for yours, run Sinkhole? Sinkhole is a card that sees play in Suicide variants, it's strengths are that it can be Ritualled out, and can acompany an LD Suite to disrupt the opponent in multiple ways.

The Rock wants to control the board, and not have explosiveness but instead stability, and therefore does not play Dark Ritual. It aims to control the board (i.e. kill what the opponent plays that it doesnt like), not render the opponent unable to play cards in their hands.

The deck that wants to do what your deck wants to do is Deadguy Ale, namely, blow up lands, and creatures, at a slower pace than that of Sui (visible in the use of the 3cc Vindicate, as well as more controlling elements); you mentioned that Deadguy Ale is not Deadguy Ale without its namesake Confidant. That is true. That's exactly why I called your deck a bad Deadguy Ale list. But whatever we want to call it, sir, lets not pretend that it's not neither Team America (tempo through free spells), nor Eva Green (Dark Ritual) (in addition to the obligatory Discard and LD, of course).

[Captain Hammer]

Hummingbird,

So first you argue that the effective with which a deck can execute it's strategy is completely irrelevent when talking about strategic superiority. A rather ridiculous proposition, but fine I'll play along.

Then, you raise the complaint that what I refer to as an Eva Green variant is actually a deckguy list. I disagree but fine whatever.

Then you go back and edit it saying that the list can't be called Eva Green, or Deadguy, or the Rock and has elements of all three, a statement that I happen to agree with.

So now you're back to calling it a deadguy list.

All this begs the question. Why are you so obsessed with semantics anyways? Why don't you think the effectiveness of a strategy is relevent to a discussion of strategic superiority?

Why is it so important that we talk about what the deck should be called instead of talking about how well it plays?

Why not talk about your actual experience playing with TA or Eva Green like the rest of us, assuming you have any to talk about? If you're unable or unwilling to talk about that, then I ask that you please stop posting here.

[frolll]

Can we just agree that arguig about naming conventions is so fuckin useless, as is arguing about the strength of a deck in a vacuum, because there is no such thing as a deck in a vacuum. If for your meta, Bg SUI is better than UGB Fishy Rock (or Eva Green and Team America), then just go ahead and play the former.
Decks have pros and cons in relation to the metagame in which they are gonna be played. Absolute pros and cons are but an excuse to argue on the interweb; ego battles and e-penis stroking is pretty damn near to being the mark of a troll, IMHO.

This thread is full of nice theorycrafting, but also post so obtuse and people that are far too psychorigid for my tastes... It kinda looks like Captain Hammer is a new kind of CtG, slightly hybridized with a Machinus or a BreathWeapon. Depressing to see that much time wasted upon theory crafting rather than actual playtesting and/or metagame analysis.

/end rant and kinda semi-disrespectful (not on purpose, sorry guys) post

[Captain Hammer]

Other than that part about you comparing posters I agree.

Far too much time has been wasted on whether we can talk about the effectiveness of a strategy when talking about strategic superiority.

And even more time wasted on whether a deck is deadguy ale or not.

I want to talk about the actual decks TA and Eva Green, and their respective strengths and weaknesses. Because TA's ability to play Stifle perks my interests, but then TA's low threat count and vulnerable manabase has given me problems. That was the whole reason for posting this thread, to get other's input on these vulnerabilities as well Eva Green's vulnerabilities.

[Hummingbird TG]

-My point was actually that the deck was worse than Deadguy Ale in its plan and what it tried to accomplish, thats why if you read what i posted I first called it a "bad Deadguy Ale". I'm not concerned with arguing on what a deck is called. I'm concerned with arguing what a deck is. Call it whatever you like, but a deck playing a certain configuration of cards is still a deck playing a certain configuration of cards, and thats why naming conventions are useful: they are precise enough to convey the plans and general executions of these plans the decks play. Rather than arguing what your deck was called, I was trying to argue what your deck actually WAS; and my personal conclusion was that it was a worse Deadguy Ale, for reasons I have earlier elaborated on.

-In fact, both of the decks you posted, none are actually Team America or Eva Green (referring to the post above, I don't mean decks called Eva Green or Team America specifically, but decks with the integral cards and strategies you posted).

-On Strategy and execution of it I happen to think that the execution is secondary to the Strategy itself, and therefore less important to debate (for execution itself is fraught with technicalities), but I do see where that may be debatable.

[Captain Hammer]

-My point was actually that the deck was worse than Deadguy Ale in its plan and what it tried to accomplish, thats why if you read what i posted I first called it a "bad Deadguy Ale". I'm not concerned with arguing on what a deck is called. I'm concerned with arguing what a deck is. Call it whatever you like, but a deck playing a certain configuration of cards is still a deck playing a certain configuration of cards, and thats why naming conventions are useful: they are precise enough to convey the plans and general executions of these plans the decks play. Rather than arguing what your deck was called, I was trying to argue what your deck actually WAS; and my personal conclusion was that it was a worse Deadguy Ale, for reasons I have earlier elaborated on.

-In fact, both of the decks you posted, none are actually Team America or Eva Green (referring to the post above, I don't mean decks called Eva Green or Team America specifically, but decks with the integral cards and strategies you posted).

-On Strategy and execution of it I happen to think that the execution is secondary to the Strategy itself, and therefore less important to debate (for execution itself is fraught with technicalities), but I do see where that may be debatable.

Thank you for illustrating froll's and my point.


Can we just agree that arguig about naming conventions is so fuckin useless, as is arguing about the strength of a deck in a vacuum, because there is no such thing as a deck in a vacuum.

This thread is full of nice theorycrafting, but also post so obtuse and people that are far too psychorigid for my tastes. Depressing to see that much time wasted upon theory crafting rather than actual playtesting and/or metagame analysis.


If you want to continue to argue that a deck with
4 Snuff Out
4 Goyfs
4 Doran
4 Tombstalker
3 Reanimate

and a grand total of
0 Dark Confidant
0 Jotun Grunt
0 Exalted Angel
0 Kitchen Finks
0 Cursed Scroll
0 Gerrard's Verdict
0 Engineered Plague
0 Oblivion Ring
0 Sensei's Divining Top
0 Swords to Plowshares

is actually a Deadguy ale variant and not a Sui Black variant. Go at it.

Just please please do it someplace else.

I already posted my playstesting experience with TA. And your playtesting is the only thing that I'm interested in hearing about.

[Hummingbird TG]

I already posted my playstesting experience with TA. And that's the only thing that I'm interesting in hearing.

And that, good sirs, I guess, sums up the thread. You aren't willing to hear anything except your opinions about TA. Therefore why is this thread here?


If you want to continue to argue that a deck with
4 Snuff Out
4 Goyfs
4 Doran
4 Tombstalker
2 Reanimate

and a grand total of
0 Dark Confidant
0 Jotun Grunt
0 Exalted Angel
0 Kitchen Finks
0 Cursed Scroll
0 Gerrard's Verdict
0 Engineered Plague
0 Oblivion Ring
0 Sensei's Divining Top
0 Swords to Plowshares

First, I want to laugh at you for a bit. Cursed Scroll, Kitchen Finks, are not cards that Deadguy Ale in modern lists run. Apparently you don't know the deck, and merely went to the last (rather, for accuracy and precision's sake, second last) page of the Deadguy thread to take a list of cards to straw man the argument with.

Next, almost all black decks run Engineered Plague in the sideboard. Running plague is not characteristic of Deadguy Ale. Plagues in the main is also not common practice.

Sensei's Divining Top and Oblivion Ring, moreso Oblivion Ring, have their places in Deadguy only due to preferences of the player, and are nothing solid in the lists.

Now for the important cards, namely Confidant, Angel, Grunt. Confidant, naturally, is the namesake of the deck (Bw Confidant). Angel is probably the best win condition the deck has ever had, but people wishing to avoid having to have 4 mana may run Stalker. Grunt rapes Tarmogoyf, fullstop. But the only thing integral to the strategic plan that makes Deadguy Deadguy, out of that above 3, is Confidant.

Back to my points, I called your deck a BAD DEADGUY ALE. What does bad mean, sir? It means sub-par. Now, a sub-par deck means it has the same, or similar, aims as another deck (i.e. Strategy), but poorer cards in the same roles or similar roles (i.e. Execution).

So what is the Strategy of Deadguy Ale? Disrupt hands, disrupt mana, drop a beater and continue disrupting, then eventually win. Your deck falls into that squarely. The size of the threats, the presence of Dark Confidant, are all matters of execution. But then you say, is that not true of the plan of Sui Black?

But no, Sui Black's plan has an integral component of speed, something which Deadguy has lacked for years (Deadguy has been characterized by often being too slow for the format); and that is generally captured with Dark Ritual. You don't run Dark Ritual. You don't run acceleration that allows you to power out disruption before your opponents can react. Sui Black's plan also has ONE MORE COMPONENT: and that is the option to accelerate out a BEATER before the opponent can react, and just win from there. Deadguy Ale lacks that option. You lack that option.

Confidant, is merely a way for Deadguy Ale to refill its hand and continue disrupting. It is not directly critical to the strategy (though indirectly useful in many ways) of Deadguy Ale (perhaps in the days of Pikula, yes, but in current day the deck no longer utilizes "drop an unanswered Bob, you win" as a game plan because that is no longer viable), and indeed many games will Confidant not be able to do much. Thereby stop straw man-ing the argument and focus on the key points of contention.

I doubt you're going to read the above in its entirety, but I write it all in the hopes you will.

As to your implication that I dragged the thread into a discussion of what decks are Deadguy Ale and what decks are not, my initial mention of Deadguy Ale (I must repeat it again, since it seems you do not remember, or conveniently forget to remember, its entirety): "a bad Deadguy Ale". In other words, I mean that your deck is WORSE at destroying hands and lands than Deadguy Ale, and worse at landing a threat too. That is a critque of the PLANS or STRATEGY of your proposed list. Certainly that would be on topic?

Now lets talk about TA and Eva Green. The problem is that other than backing repeatedly your opposition to the points other posters have made towards the discussion, you have made no new points. All your lists, frankly, apart from sucking, are NOT Team America. NOR are they Eva Green. Therefore they are irrelevant to the discussion which you claim so much you wish to stay on topic of. Why don't you, while you call to me to talk about these two decks, talk some sense about them first, instead of repeatedly asserting a subjective stand without backing it up? Else, this thread looks to me too much a mess for any discussion of any matter whatsoever.

[Captain Hammer]

Great job mischaracterizing the quote.

The quoted asked for your and other people's playtesting experinces with Team America and/or Eva Green.

Out of your over a dozen posts here, you refused to provide any, instead focusing on semantics. So what the hell are you doing in this thread then? Have you ever even played TA or Eva Green?



First, I want to laugh at you for a bit.


And all that your contradictions provoke from me is laughter.

First you argue that "a deck playing a certain configuration of cards is still a deck playing a certain configuration of cards, and thats why naming conventions are useful"

And then you insist that a deck that shares none of Deadguys win conditions and nothing in common with Deadguy other the same disruption suite found in every single sui black deck ever made is a deadguy variant, bad or otherwise, is laughable.

I've said three times already that I want you to finally for once post playtesting experience with TA, or Eva Green, or something even remotely relevent. What you've been insisting on posting instead over and over again is both offtopic and spammish? So either leave the thread sir, or contribute something based on your actual play experience.

If continue to spam here rather than posting something relevent, I'm requesting a moderator to kindly lock this thread or take some other action to put an end to what amounts to irrelevent spam.

[frolll]

Fact is, to answer this thread - Both decks can have "strategic superiority" (whatever that means), it depends on the metagame where you wanne play with them. In a metagame full of scrubbish aggro with 17 basics + 4 wasteland, don't run TA. In a metagame chock full of multi fetches+bilands decks with a tendency to run into controllish territory (à al Dreadstill Ugr and 4cFish), go run TA. Your ability to rape their manabase will be put to good use, whil your disruption will keep them to answering your threats.

Also, wanna point that if you've piloted SUI variants since '99, even in the latter case, you may be more confortable running Eva Green; playstyle and experience with a deck is also to be taken into account IMHO.

Now, we can lock this shit.

[Captain Hammer]

Good point froll, but with one addendum.

In a metagame chock full of multi fetches+bilands decks, you can bet your ass that some smartass will bring Dragon Stompy and own you and most of the meta, or you will lose to some scrubby deck with Ankh of Mishra or Price of Progress in the early rounds, or some deck designed to abuse Back to Basics (MUC, Fairie Stompy post board etc) gives you problems as well.

And expect to see lots of efficent removal, Wastelands, Stifles and Crucibles from your opponents too.

Atleast that's been my experience anyways.

[Hummingbird TG]

Great job mischaracterizing the quote.

The quoted asked for your and other people's playtesting experinces with Team America and/or Eva Green.

Out of your over a dozen posts here, you refused to provide any, instead focusing on semantics. So what the hell are you doing in this thread then? Have you ever even played TA or Eva Green?



And all that your contradictions provoke from me is laughter.

First you argue that "a deck playing a certain configuration of cards is still a deck playing a certain configuration of cards, and thats why naming conventions are useful"

And then you insist that a deck that shares none of Deadguys win conditions and nothing in common with Deadguy other the same disruption suite found in every single sui black deck ever made is a deadguy variant, bad or otherwise, is laughable.

I've said three times already that I want you to finally for once post playtesting experience with TA, or Eva Green, or something even remotely relevent. What you've been insisting on posting instead over and over again is both offtopic and spammish? So either leave the thread sir, or contribute something based on your actual play experience.

If continue to spam here rather than posting something relevent, I'm requesting a moderator to kindly lock this thread or take some other action to put an end to what amounts to irrelevent spam.

Perhaps you honestly fail to understand what I'm saying, but it seems otherwise, the way you keep taking quotes out of context. If you really want to, help yourself and ask a moderator to kindly lock the thread, I believe that would be more useful than us arguing when we cannot even come to agreement upon the definition of terms in this argument.

[Bardo]

This has run its course.