Balancing issues

[Gui]

First of all, I'm Gui, from Brasil, and I would like to apologize in advantage for my english.
As of most of the players here, i like deck building and balancing it my own way, and figure out what works out and what doesn't... It's been a while that I've been observing the deck building styles, and it seems to be a logical choice to run "4-of's" of the best cards in the deck. It's comprehensible that one chooses to run 4 Force of Will or 4 Tarmogoyfs, which are broken imba in the format. But there are few cards that seems to deserve that hole on few decks, but not onto another few.
The point i'm trying to reach is something I've found in this EVA Green situation:
I used to run 3 Seal of Primordium MD. Then I got upset by when i had to cast it at the End of Turn, and couldn't. So that i switched to Naturalize. Then i thought it would be pretty good if I could get that done without counters, and switched to Krosan Grip. Then, I got upset by the amount of the time i had no mana to play it, though it helped a lot against other matchups...
So that I concluded: If I run one of each, I'll have 3 different cards that do the same thing, each one with a different Advantage/Disadvantage, so that I will have the effect I want, and yet, have a chance to have the Advantage i want by that time... It's obvious that I have the chance to get the wrong advantage, but it seems better than always having 100% chance of having it in few situations... And also, I get the "unexpected" advantage. As in:
- I play naturalize
- He plays Chalice @ 2
- I play Krosan Grip

So, what i want to discuss is: Is it worthy switching few cards which are really good in few situations, for another which is not that good, but could do another job better?
Such as like: Trading a 4 Tombstalkers for 2 Tombstakers + 2 Nantuko in a Team America just because your stalker may break your tarmogoyf, and they both seems good all around anyways...

I shall ask whoever answer this to stick focused to the Situation, not to my examples, though examples can be exposed to show what you mean

[Doks]

Good Point.

In my experience, I always used multiple copies of the card that servers me most in all possible situations and supports my game plan when I was to decide what card to run over another with a similar effect. So in the end I was trying to figure out what card was the better allrounder in the format and then took the risk of not running the card that would have been better in other situations.

I had the above when designing MUC and deciding between Repeal and Echoing Truth. The first usually dodges Counterbalance when X >1 and draws me a card so causing no disadvantage which MUC hates.
The latter could kill multiple tokens of the same type but was very vulnerable to Counterbalane with CC2 and bouncing a single target created card disadvantage.
Because of the fact that I'd see much more counterbalances and single permanents than being in the need of killing multiple tokens I decided that Repeal was the way to go for me (since EE could still take care of DoJ etc).

[Gui]

Good Point.
So in the end I was trying to figure out what card was the better allrounder in the format and then took the risk of not running the card that would have been better in other situations.

I had the above when designing MUC and deciding between Repeal and Echoing Truth. The first usually dodges Counterbalance when X >1 and draws me a card so causing no disadvantage which MUC hates.
The latter could kill multiple tokens of the same type but was very vulnerable to Counterbalane with CC2 and bouncing a single target created card disadvantage.
Because of the fact that I'd see much more counterbalances and single permanents than being in the need of killing multiple tokens I decided that Repeal was the way to go for me (since EE could still take care of DoJ etc).

Yay! That's the point! =)

Your option was made considering the meta, and what were your deck needs, and thus, it was a good option.
Though, there are few times where we don't know what we will see, or even the situation in which we will draw that card.
As seen in:
In a first thought, Thoughtseize effect is much better than Duress effect
Though, losing the game for 2 life points when you chose a non-creature from opponent hand seems a bitter end...
Of course, if your worse match-up is a Tarmogoyf.dec, then go thoughtseize;
But if not realy, then, sould we run 2 thoughseizes and 2 duress instead of going all for the 4-of?

P.S.: Thanks for the reply Doks! xD

[Maveric78f]

That was my very point in this post I made yesterday (or the day before):
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=359599&postcount=302

I probably don't do it enough and when I see the reactions of people here, I think that I do it more than most players.

For instance, I play more and more singletons in SB of my cantripful decks (threshold variants mainly). I feel that I cover better the metagame that way, and have a very specific answers to everything.

The examples you mentionned are even more straightforward since Tombstalker is using a resource that makes the second Tombstalker in hand useless. The same for Shade (except that it's in play).

However there are cards that are good only in multiple because complementary, for instance :
- meddling mage
- cabal therapy
- engineered plague
- ...

[Taurelin]

Is it worthy switching few cards which are really good in few situations, for another which is not that good, but could do another job better?

I would say, if your deck has the ability to filter and find those cards reliably, yes. Otherwise, consistency is better.

Example:
Canadian Thresh often plays 1x Wipe Away and 1x Rushing River main in their bounce-arsenal. Buth work similarly, with a slightly different functionality. Wipe Away is stronger vs Counterbalance and Control-Strategies (Landstill + Humility, for example), Rushing River is the better tempo-card, because it can remove 2 potential blockers at the same time and helps to achieve Threshold faster. Thresh can have this luxury, because with Ponder, Brainstorm + Fetchlands etc. you can reliably find the right card for the right situation.

If you play tutors, it can also be useful to use a variety of silver bullets, e.g. Enlightened Tutor + a mix of Tormod's Crypt and Relic of Progenitus, rather than just 4x Crypt.

In other decks that only operate on topdeck mode, I would avoid this, because it just dependes on chance if you get the right card or the wrong card in a given situation.

[Maveric78f]

In other decks that only operate on topdeck mode, I would avoid this, because it just dependes on chance if you get the right card or the wrong card in a given situation.
The point is that it also prevents you from having twice the bad solution in hand. But your 2nd solution has to be close enough in performance to the 1st, in order to make that argument valid.

[Gui]

The point is that it also prevents you from having twice the bad solution in hand. But your 2nd solution has to be close enough in performance to the 1st, in order to make that argument valid.

Yeah, this is quite the point really. It's more likely to be something like that: Two cards do almost the same thing, except that one has a problem with "A" and the other has a problem with "B", so that if you play one of each, you will still have 50% chance to beat those problems when they happen... The best way to explain it was Naturalize's and Echoing Thruth's issues, but there are other cards that could be used that way too, in highter quantities maybe...
Something like Running 4 Dazes, 4 Force Spikes or 4 Spell Snare... (As in MUC)
Maybe if you cut a few of each, you may end up running a combination of the 3 to have chance to reach each solution, and also get to play as if you had any, if you have enough Poker Face for that...
Here's a question: Which other cards used nowadays could fit this situation?

[Atwa]

I followed this idea while I build my Goyf Control list 2 years ago.

It was build to handle all sorts of decks, so I split the discard to 3 Duress, 1 Funeral Charm, against combo you'd rather have duress, but against Aggro Charm is better most of the time. The Disenchant effects to 2 Seal of Primordium, 1 Krosan Grip.

I also played single cards like Orim's Chant maindeck. Most of the time it worked against a game 1 against combo, although it has also won me games against aggro and control. Most of the time you would board it out for more dedicated hate, but it was nice to have acces to it game 1. Boarding became easier and I was way more easily able to hate out decks, since most cards were effective against most decks/archtypes.

Normally I don't follow this strategy in deckbuilding, but it have proven to me it works in certain decks. When I posted it on the forums, a lot of people told me I should focus the deck more, but it was only thanks to my deckbuilding it became as strong as it was.

So I do agree it's good for a deck to pack certain different cards which work alike but are slighty different. But it only works for certain decks.

For everyone who disagrees, remember Nassif's sideboard at the GP? Same principle.

[Maveric78f]

For everyone who disagrees, remember Nassif's sideboard at the GP? Same principle.
Except that he said that he did it very fast and made it like that because he could not make his mind. Post-tourney, he said how he would run the SB now, and it was a classical one, something like a 3-3-3-3-3 split.

[Goblin Snowman]

Here's a question: Which other cards used nowadays could fit this situation?

Path to Exile vs. Swords to Plowshares in an aggressive deck with Wastelands. (Uw Merfolk, Goblins, possibly Zoo w/Wastelands)

Lightning Bolt vs. Path to Exile. (Zoo)

Deed vs. Wrath. (Landstill)

Maelstrom Pulse vs. Vindicate. (Landstill, Eva Green)

[Gui]

Except that he said that he did it very fast and made it like that because he could not make his mind. Post-tourney, he said how he would run the SB now, and it was a classical one, something like a 3-3-3-3-3 split.

Was it so? Anyway, he could easily find 3 solutions for almost any matchup he would face with that side of him... things like tormod's vs relic can be seen on his side... I think even if that side helped nothing on his winning, at least it shows that it may help even when you don't know what you will face, which can be pretty common to happen...