Basics vs Stifle/Waste - Is it right?

[Chaz_the_hunter]

With the recent rise of decks playing Stifle and Wasteland for early color and land disruption, is it right to start looking at not playing fetches? or even Mono decks without fetches? I could see a very good MUC deck that only has 4 fetches and basics being really good because a good amount of the meta starts with 8 dead cards maindeck that they are keeping game 1 automatically. most decks assume they have something to target with Stifle, what if they didn't

[Captain Hammer]

Why even play the four fetches. Both MUC and Burn don't play any and seem to do just fine. I suppose that if you're on a budget, you wouldn't have to feel too bad about playing a monocolored deck full of basics these days.

If you're looking to just be immune to Stifle, Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon, I would play either Armageddon Stax, Fairie Stompy or Dragon Stompy. No need to build a brand new deck.

[FoolofaTook]

Playing a basics-heavy deck has a cost attached to it that probably far outweighs the risks of being Stifled and Wasted early on: you give up flexibility and power for consistency.

[Finn]

Merfolk has been doing this for a long time. It is not new. But, yeah, it is a hard trade off to manage.

[GreenOne]

There's also Enchantress, which runs 4 Fetches and 4-5 unbasics total.

[Chaz_the_hunter]

The reason I ask is that you can still build a deck and splash with OG and RAV Duals that should be really consistent. It doesn't take care of the Wasteland problem but does deal with the Stifles, and the Wastelands are not hitting a major part of the deck.

Also, if Vial Goblins only ran basics, would it's matchup against those decks improve by enough to warrant drawing an extra land/not a spell each game?

[FoolofaTook]

It's really hard not to run fetches in Legacy unless you're mono-color. The mana fixing ability is just tremendous, which is one of the main reasons Wasteland and Stifle have good value at the moment.

It's almost like you need to look at this from the other perspective: do decks in Legacy need to run Wasteland, and Stifle if possible, to prevent the opponent from overpowering them with a growing assortment of undercosted threats?

[Bryant Cook]

TES, needs one land to win. Can care less about stifle.

[kicks_422]

Not running Fetches because Stifle/Waste is present is like not breathing because there are GERMS in the air.

[kroelai]

You just need Fetch for your brainstorms, ponders, tops, loams, finding basics against MUC, goyfs, tombstalkers etc, etc.

[Omega]

Although mono color deck are probably the most consistent, the fact that they lose so much in term of power make them obsolete against the format

To abuse cards like Sensei's divining top, Brainstorm, ponder, graveyard (whether for ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh or to feed tombstalker), you need fetchland. Plus, to abuse the colors (to take the best out of each color) you need fetchlands
Robert

[Piceli89]

Merfolks does this, and it's pretty solid too. Fetches are becoming quite risky in this metagame approach, even if they're damnly useful.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Although mono color deck are probably the most consistent, the fact that they lose so much in term of power make them obsolete against the format.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9177/epicfailureyo4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


I had a more relevant image, but I decided this one was funnier.


Still.

No.

[Enigma]

It forces decks to run basics, but not to unfetch their decks.

IBA: What's the goal with your post. It's just useless.

[Ch@os]

Merfolks does this, and it's pretty solid too.

http://s11b.directupload.net/images/090106/9tma7hvt.jpg

[XTermina11nvasionX]

Playing a basics-heavy deck has a cost attached to it that probably far outweighs the risks of being Stifled and Wasted early on: you give up flexibility and power for consistency.

Not really. If you evaluate some of the most powerful and consistent decks Magic has ever offered over the years, you'll see that decks like...

Black Suicide
Mono Black Control
Elves
Burn
B.B.S.
Etc.

...have withstood the test of time and can ultimately prove to play spoiler when playing in a large event. You'll notice people take offense when they lose to a deck considered "inferior", simply because you opt to play with one color and they choose, oh, say three. Why do you think almost every control deck has trouble against burn? Or combo decks having trouble against mono black? It's the age old theory of consistency with color selection.

Basics are extremely powerful in a lot of decks. It renders sometimes up to twelve cards useless in the opponents' deck simply because they weren't prepared to take on someone who has no intention on putting on a show, but rather effectively using the most primitive source of power the game has to offer.

I'd think about that, at least.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It forces decks to run basics, but not to unfetch their decks.

Or just to run a couple extra land.


IBA: What's the goal with your post. It's just useless.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/7464/internetorlyeh2gz6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

No, but seriously. There are good monocolor decks.

Not the ones the Terminal Disease guy said, but good monocolored decks.

Well, maybe Elves.

[XTermina11nvasionX]

You mean bad decks that are, say, mono-white and run cycling cards in order to win?

That was good in maybe like, 2006 when aggro-control was a more prevalent threat. Unfortunately, the truth is more hybrids of the decks I listed see play on a regular basis in larger numbers than what you deny and because they do so, they tend to do well. And if they don't, it makes people like Infamous Bear Assassin (obviously on the attack) a sad panda because now he lost the five bucks he was going to spend on some fries and a frosty when he essentially handed it to the fat kid wearing emo clothes across the table round four.

It's unfortunate some people (like this guy) still reject the notion consistency constributes to the overall outcome of a match. History has proven that time and time again. Some people are tired of the same old, same old, and that's fine. Irregardless, facts are facts. These decks win because everyone plays them, no? Does it take skill to play those decks? Yes, some. I think some people get pained when they feel that they've put so much time into developing something new and exciting that when they are faced with the reality of losing to something like Burn. Because from your response, I can tell you would. And honestly, I wouldn't care.

(And it's Terminal Invasion, guy. That would be the name of my band. Believe me, if I were honestly offended, you'd know personally because I could care less. But since you decided to attack my name and opinions first because of my obvious low post-count, you just don't matter in this conversation on a serious, enthusiastic level anymore.)

[umbowta]

Although mono color deck are probably the most consistent, the fact that they lose so much in term of power make them obsolete against the format


You mean bad decks that are, say, mono-white and run cycling cards in order to win?

LOL! Yeah that was a couple years ago, but clearly it's also the case that mono green Berserk Stompy was incapable of winning just this past summer...and then miracles happened. I love this thread.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You mean bad decks that are, say, mono-white and run cycling cards in order to win?

What, you mean like this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=22413) thing?

Nah. I haven't recommended Wombat in a while, kid.


That was good in maybe like, 2006 when aggro-control was a more prevalent threat.

See, here's about when I start to think it would be a good thing if you refrained from commenting until you'd actually played the format.

Man, you know what's been totally on the decline since the printing of Tarmogoyf, Counterbalance, Thoughtseize and Ponder? Aggro-control.


Unfortunately, the truth is more hybrids of the decks I listed see play

How are you defining "hybrid"? If you call Team America a Sui-Black variant because it runs big creatures and Sinkhole and Thoughtseize, sure. But that deck runs nothing but duals and fetchlands; which kind of defeats your initial 'point'.


see play on a regular basis in larger numbers than what you deny and because they do so, they tend to do well.

This sentence doesn't make sense. Are you saying that they tend to do well because they're played more often? Aren't you then saying that it's just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks?


And if they don't, it makes people like Infamous Bear Assassin (obviously on the attack) a sad panda because now he lost the five bucks he was going to spend on some fries and a frosty when he essentially handed it to the fat kid wearing emo clothes across the table round four.

Yeah, I don't want to make fun of you if English is your second language, but you might want to save the trash talking for people who are fluent in the language. Seriously. Right now? This is embarrassing.

If you have a point, please get to it.


It's unfortunate some people (like this guy) still reject the notion consistency constributes to the overall outcome of a match. History has proven that time and time again.

I'm not clear what you mean, nor if you have a point. I'm not sure you even understood what I said when I mentioned that there are several good monocolor decks. They're just not Burn and Sui-Black.


Some people are tired of the same old, same old, and that's fine. Irregardless, facts are facts.

And incomprehensible gibberish is incomprehensible gibberish. Tautologies are fun, no?

Look, I'll cut you a little bit of slack here since I assume you're ESL. I honestly have no idea what to say if you're not. Regardless, if you could post again and try to make an actual point or convey some kind of message this time, that would be super. Or you could not post at all, that would be super too. But this, whatever you're doing now? It's not working.

[nitewolf9]

And incomprehensible gibberish is incomprehensible gibberish. Tautologies are fun, no?

Look, I'll cut you a little bit of slack here since I assume you're ESL. I honestly have no idea what to say if you're not. Regardless, if you could post again and try to make an actual point or convey some kind of message this time, that would be super. Or you could not post at all, that would be super too. But this, whatever you're doing now? It's not working.

I'm suddenly reminded of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81n7acXp0E).

[umbowta]

That's awesome, cause this whole thing reminded me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4).

[FoolofaTook]

Not really. If you evaluate some of the most powerful and consistent decks Magic has ever offered over the years, you'll see that decks like...

Black Suicide
Mono Black Control
Elves
Burn
B.B.S.
Etc.

...have withstood the test of time and can ultimately prove to play spoiler when playing in a large event. You'll notice people take offense when they lose to a deck considered "inferior", simply because you opt to play with one color and they choose, oh, say three. Why do you think almost every control deck has trouble against burn? Or combo decks having trouble against mono black? It's the age old theory of consistency with color selection.

Basics are extremely powerful in a lot of decks. It renders sometimes up to twelve cards useless in the opponents' deck simply because they weren't prepared to take on someone who has no intention on putting on a show, but rather effectively using the most primitive source of power the game has to offer.

I'd think about that, at least.

In the list above you didn't name a single tier 1 deck that has withstood the test of time. None of the decks in the DTB section are in that list, and no decks derived from them are in the DTB section.

The closest that you'll come to tier 1 decks today that are mono-colored are Death and Taxes, Quinn and the traditional mono-red Goblins. Some of the Dreadstill builds are nearly mono-colored but use fetches anyway.

My basic point is that the consistency that playing a mono-colored deck with basics gives you is offset by the fact that you are also denying yourself several other undercosted powerhouses in the splash colors that you could otherwise be playing. Tarmogoyf, Swords to Plowshares, Brainstorm, Thoughtseize, Engineered Explosives@2, etc. You're giving up something that you cannot get easily in your primary color in return for higher consistency in your early turn plays and lower vulnerability to mana denial by the opponent.

Threshold is the perfect example. It's a weak concept in mono-blue, despite the fact that mono-blue does indeed have cheap effective creatures to find (Serendib Efreet and Infiltrator Il-Kor), that gets stronger in Ug with the addition of Tarmogoyf and Nimble Mongoose and is probably strongest in Ugw with the further addition of Swords to Plowshares and maybe Mystic Enforcer.

[Jaiminho]

That's awesome, cause this whole thing reminded me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4).

This was almost predictable. I was expecting the traditional one.

[umbowta]

This was almost predictable. I was expecting the traditional one.
But this time you couldn't Stifle my first turn fetch cuz I took em out.

[Nihil Credo]

Nothing like a good thread lock to come back from a week off.