Why does no one play Doomsday

[Adryan]

Played against doomsday played by Lejay a few minutes ago and i was wondering why no one plays it. Seems like a good and fun deck to play. Is it too complex in the world of S&T or is it inferior to other Stormdecks?

[Koby]

Played against doomsday played by Lejay a few minutes ago and i was wondering why no one plays it. Seems like a good and fun deck to play. Is it too complex in the world of S&T or is it inferior to other Stormdecks?

For the same reason why people prefer to watch a 2 hr movie rather than read a 1000 page novel.
Or order pizza for delivery than cook a 4 course meal for the whole family.

There are about 20 more decision trees to win with DDFT. Without disruption, yes it's academically easy. Against disruption, there likely exists a decision tree that wins, but you need to execute it flawlessly. The risk/reward/learning curve for this deck is so incredibly tough that it doesn't make it fun for most people.

Is it a telling sign that both Lejay and emidln both are putting their efforts into OmniDerp instead?
Winning with a deck that requires a PhD level of decision vs a deck a monkey can pilot.

[lochlan]

Even though you only need 2-3 piles to play it, to play it well you need a much deeper understanding and a ton of experience. It's easily the hardest deck to play, period. I've had a go at it a few times, but I'd rather master a deck with a lower learning curve. I can play TES with maybe (warning: numbers are about to come out of my ass) 80% competency, and I find it very rewarding to get that last 20% ironed out. With Doomsday I can play it with maybe 20% competency, and the rewards of that remaining 80% are hard to see in the face of the huge commitment.

It's also my understanding that Doomsday is also not great in the current discard-heavy format, which I think is part of the reason Lejay is on Omni-Clash.

Finally, a lot of storm pilots--myself included--enjoy winning in the first three turns (speed is one of the reasons these decks are so threatening), and Doomsday is much much slower. (Although substantially more resilient.)

For whatever it's worth I do think that, in a vacuum, Doomsday is the overall "best" storm list.

[lochlan]

Is it a telling sign that both Lejay and emidln both are putting their efforts into OmniDerp instead?

I think it's telling in that Lejay believes Omni-Clash is better positioned. Considering how well he can play the deck already, I don't think its difficulty is really an issue for him.

[Barook]

I think it's telling in that Lejay believes Omni-Clash is better positioned.

Omnitell variants are easier to play and have a way easier time to fight through hate thanks to the wishboard + drawn library.

[Dice_Box]

Played against doomsday played by Lejay a few minutes ago and i was wondering why no one plays it. Seems like a good and fun deck to play. Is it too complex in the world of S&T or is it inferior to other Stormdecks?You would need a whole box of painkillers to deal with the Mental fatigue caused by playing that for 2 days straight. Its not played because it is as rough on the player as it is on their opponent.

[nedleeds]

I don't own 4 x Korean Doomsday's (yet) ...

Was convinced I'd get to drink via the skill intensive game when I read this thread.

Was disappointed.

Wouldn't read again.

[monovfox]

I play doomsday, and I will say that it is one of the harder brain-puzzles I've taught myself how to do.

For me it's about as hard as a normal rubik's cube was when I was first teaching myself how to solve it.

I don't play the deck sanctioned because 3x LEDs, the 2 most expensive decks, expensive dual lands, and I don't have korean doomsdays

also, I have had more success with death and taxes

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

In a sentence, because there is an incalculable amount of cognitive dissonance surrounding the archetype. In 2 paragraphs, because Doomsday has the reputation of an impossibly difficult but immeasurably powerful deck that can win in any situation with any cards against any opponent. If such was true, an above-average chess player would just win every tournament s/he played with the deck and the card would be banned. In Modern, Second Sunrise was what Legacy players want to believe Doomsday is.

In fact, it's a needlessly more-complicated storm variant that can occasionally fight through unlikely situations by getting lucky, sort of like every good deck in the format. The underlying issue I see is that the skill set required to pilot this deck is totally unlike (but certainly no greater) than most other decently complex decks such as RUG, Esper, or Miracles. In other words, any time one spent getting good with Doomsday wouldn't translate, which makes it an erstwhile waste of time for anyone who doesn't intend to dedicate themselves to the archetype.

[emidln]

Largely what makes one competent with Doomsday is knowledge of tightly managing your resources while using cantrips to maximize cards seen. As it turns out, that skill set translates almost directly to OmniHalls. As a bonus, your win condition goes from *stack your best five cards from your deck* to *just draw your deck already*. Instead of complex spell ordering, you abuse redundancy to end up with a SnT or Dream Halls and a kill spell. You then protect that with a bunch of free (or cheap) countermagic/disruption and collect your 3 points.

Doomsday is a complicated deck, but mostly because the vast majority of magic players are awful. This is also why ANT isn't nearly as dominant as the deck could be. The same questions and decisions you need to be awesome at RUG Delver, ANT, or OmniHalls are largely the same that get you into the situation where one of about three common piles KO your opponent with Doomsday. The problem with Doomsday is that by answering any of those questions incorrectly often leads to a game loss. These decisions are very hard to analyze without complete context and this makes getting better with the deck very hard and not very fun. I don't like spending a Sunday paying $40 to do something unfun and it seems most players agree with me. This makes Doomsday much lower EV (for someone who thinks that winning is fun) than RUG Delver (or Deathblade, OmniHalls, etc). Why do all the work and then do some extra work when you can short cut with Enter the Infinite, Ad Nauseam, or turning Tarmogoyf sideways?

The questions, for those who are interested:

Can I win the game right now? (i.e. do I have lethal on board?)
How might my opponent stop me? (i.e. don't walk into a trap)
Is there a way I can make my opponent's potential plays irrelevant? (i.e. path his blocker then swing with lethal; hold up spell pierce to counter a removal spell instead of playing ponder)
If I can't win right now, what puts me in the best position to win this turn? (i.e. should I cast this brainstorm/ponder/etc? should I play this extra threat?)
If I can't win this turn, what puts me in the best position to win in the future? (i.e. do I need to add an extra blocker to make my opponent drawing a blocker into a non-issue?)
Is this a situation where next turn's win will be more guaranteed than this turn's win? (i.e. is brainstorming into a maybe win seeing 2 new cards worse than waiting a turn to get full value out of brainstorm?)

[Lemnear]

Doomsday Tendrils is an outright inferior variant to TES/ANT/TNT but totally underestimated in combination with Laboratory Maniac.

However the Main problem is that those decks need to resolve Doomsday and have to alternative victory routes unlike TES, OmniTell or even Elves.

[HPB_Eggo]

It's a combination of things...

1) DD is incredibly unforgiving. Perfect play is required to do well, while you can occasionally make a mistake or two with more popular combo decks and still win games.

2) DD is flexible and can create a lot of different piles to win in many situations, but other decks can mimic the same flexibility while being much less taxing in terms of required skill and thought. They're also similar in terms of overall power level, so those decks are, while not necessarily 'better' in the strictest sense of the word, are better in practice in nearly every way.

3) It has never been incredibly successful so that, combined with the steep learning curve, means very few people ever pick it up to begin with.

So, yeah, pretty much what emidln said.

[Tammit67]

I enjoy doomsday very much and do not find much difficulty with hate I see coming. It is hate I do NOT see coming that destroys me. For the record DD isn't that much slower than AnT and is much more resilent.

I do not find discard to be that much of a problem, you just need more mana to solve that.

I do not find hate bears to be an issue, bounce can be found/tutored for pretty easily.

I find show and tell to be really hard to beat especially post board when they get leylines. THis is mainly with a 5c doomsday list, I assume the discard heavy lists are better here.

I want to learn the deck but my group is unwilling to help me test it so my only recourse is playing it at weeklies or locals. Those events are usually better served with me playing a deck I'll play at an SCG or at DC in November so that's where my concentration is right now.

[monovfox]

I enjoy doomsday very much and do not find much difficulty with hate I see coming. It is hate I do NOT see coming that destroys me. For the record DD isn't that much slower than AnT and is much more resilent.

I do not find discard to be that much of a problem, you just need more mana to solve that.

I do not find hate bears to be an issue, bounce can be found/tutored for pretty easily.

I find show and tell to be really hard to beat especially post board when they get leylines. THis is mainly with a 5c doomsday list, I assume the discard heavy lists are better here.

I want to learn the deck but my group is unwilling to help me test it so my only recourse is playing it at weeklies or locals. Those events are usually better served with me playing a deck I'll play at an SCG or at DC in November so that's where my concentration is right now.

Against SnT I recommend the "silence Walk"

[Star|Scream]

I tried to teach myself Doomsday on MWS, but found the whole act of exiling the library and graveyard was quite tedious and boring for myself and the other player. MWS is my only real way of playtesting (which is sad) so I just switched to ANT/TES.

[alderon666]

IMO Doomsday is too slow and the manabase sucks. If it could just play 3 colors, I think it would be fine. But needing to play white for Chant and red for Wish, just kills it. Playing a deck that tries to go off turn 3-4 against Show and Tell just seems silly.

[.dk]

I picked up DDFT in January of this year, and I honestly think it's the most fun deck I've ever played. I'm not great at it yet - I'm approaching a moderate level of competence. I still screw up now and then and that sucks - but finding a way to win through whatever bullshit your opponent throws at you has got to be one of the most rewarding play experiences I've had. Your opponents are confused because they don't know what you're doing, and assuming you know your list well and manage your resources effectively, there is a way out of most situations that will get thrown at you since your opponents usually don't know how to play against the deck.

The learning process has certainly been painful at times - I still lose to myself now and then by miscounting mana or fetching the wrong land. But, my local playgroup also usually finds the deck and the puzzles it provides to be interesting, and they have helped me play test for a while. I also have the deck on MODO, which has been great to gain experience with the deck, as resolving Doomsday on MODO is much less painful than in paper.

[Tammit67]

Against SnT I recommend the "silence Walk"

Yeah... but that doesn't work out so well.

They can either

Let silence resolve and go off next turn with counters still in hand for your turn
Counter the silence and go off anyway


It isn't great

[DarkConfidant]

I've been playing UBrg Doomsday for a while now.

Doomsday is more complex than other storm decks I've played. The usual argument against playing Doomsday is the learning threshold is ridiculously high. Koby is just right about the skill level and effort level versus other decks (even other combo decks).

I think the reason I enjoy Doomsday and and have stuck with it is the puzzle aspect and the ability to self improve. The deck creates an intricate set of game states that usually can be solved with proper sequencing and resource management. I find replaying and solving those puzzles to be interesting and rewarding compared to other decks in Legacy. In addition to the puzzle aspect, I think the deck offers a lot of ways to both measure and improve your skill. When playing Doomsday, like most other storm based decks, its easy to develop heuristic shortcuts. However, if you only rise to the level of being able to shortcut the deck, you're missing out on the real strength of the deck. Being able to play out of nearly any situation really interesting and almost impossible to do without putting a substantial amount of effort and practice. For example, cantrip management and fetchland use (both in deck construction & play) are much more difficult than most other decks out there because of the number of variables one has to assess. One can't develop heuristic shortcuts to solve those situations; it requires the ability to quickly assess the on board state, run through the possible decision trees, and commit to a line of play. While this is true of all decks, DDFT does not forgive whereas there is room for pilot error with most other decks.

-Just some random musings-

[Wanderlust]

I picked up DDFT in January of this year, and I honestly think it's the most fun deck I've ever played.

But, my local playgroup also usually finds the deck and the puzzles it provides to be interesting, and they have helped me play test for a while.

It's been fun playtesting against you as you've learned the deck! What I've realized as we test is how hard it is to play ideally AGAINST Doomsday - even though I'm not the one resolving Doomsday, I often have to think through the piles you are likely to make to maximize my own lines of play. It's seriously challenging.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I tried to teach myself Doomsday on MWS, but found the whole act of exiling the library and graveyard was quite tedious and boring for myself and the other player. MWS is my only real way of playtesting (which is sad) so I just switched to ANT/TES.

Sadly that was the last nail into the coffin of me trying the deck.
The usual argument about how it's hard to master the deck is true, but the inability to test it properly, and the extremely difficult learning process, also the need to remember dozens of most necessary piles and be able to build any emergency pile, and the four color manabase, plus the quite slow win and finally the time limit during tournaments were the reasons why I moved my Doomsdays into the trade binder. I might build a DDFT just for the fun of it and annoy with it in our LGS, but honestly, the one who'll be the most annoyed at the end of the day will be me.

[Mr Miagi]

Foremost beacuse under all the "this deck is so skill intensive", "can win through shitload of hate" "Masters of Puzzles" in it's core this is still a bad deck.

Turn it how you want it, but if the deck would be any good it would have more decent placings. Yes it can be a bit more trickier to play it, it takes some , how to say, "skill", but then again there are quite few competent legacy players, we can even narrow it down and say combo players specifically and yet we still see a very niche success ocasinally with this deck.

I'm sorry but this is an indicator that it is not a top tier deck. I'd put it somewhere along with Solidarity in terms where it and its players want it to be and where it actually is.. low tier legacy deck. Period.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Foremost beacuse under all the "this deck is so skill intensive", "can win through shitload of hate" "Masters of Puzzles" in it's core this is still a bad deck.

Turn it how you want it, but if the deck would be any good it would have more decent placings. Yes it can be a bit more trickier to play it, it takes some , how to say, "skill", but then again there are quite few competent legacy players, we can even narrow it down and say combo players specifically and yet we still see a very niche success ocasinally with this deck.

I'm sorry but this is an indicator that it is not a top tier deck. I'd put it somewhere along with Solidarity in terms where it and its players want it to be and where it actually is.. low tier legacy deck. Period.

This reminds me of some Source quote about playing decks without Mystical Tutor and the perceived length of the penises of bad decks players that they mistake for difficult decks.

[Vacrix]

Why doesn't anyone play Doomsday?

For some reason, magic players get a rush playing with cards like Show and Tell. Pathetic really. I bet you think porn is real too.


There are plenty of fantastic decks that nobody plays but there's a point where the deck is only as fantastic as its pilot. Honestly, if you combine a cryptic archetype with a good, dedicated pilot you get a pretty vicious opponent.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Even the best pilot will be exhausted after dozen rounds with a cryptic archetype. That's when he starts to make mistakes and finally goes home without prizes but with a headache.
Some people play Magic for different experiences...

[(nameless one)]

Isn't there a simplified Doomsday list that feature Laboratory Maniac?

[Fossil4182]

Isn't there a simplified Doomsday list that feature Laboratory Maniac?

There was / still is. The list required binning Lab Maniac and then casting Unearth. It was a great strategy until Deathrite Shaman was printed - Abrupt Decay also puts a bit of a dent in the plan was well...

[Julian23]

To be fair, Abrupt Decay changed absolutely nothing about the positioning of the Dommsday-Unearth-Maniac builds. Just like with any other removal spell, you calculate +x instat draw effects like Top or Brainstorm.

[.dk]

There was / still is. The list required binning Lab Maniac and then casting Unearth. It was a great strategy until Deathrite Shaman was printed - Abrupt Decay also puts a bit of a dent in the plan was well...

You can still pretty easily win without Mental Note / Unearth path. You just need 1 more mana to cast Maniac instead.

The larger issue with Menendian's version (IMO) was actually having difficulty finding Doomsday itself. It's only a 4 of in that version, whereas DDFT runs 3 along with 3-4 Burning Wish in the maindeck making Doomsday much easier to find. I tried adding 2 Lim-Dul's Vault in addition to 4 Doomsday, and while I was able to find Doomsday more consistently, the only things I could find to cut were protection which kind of defeated the purpose. You could add red for Burning Wish, but that also gets a lot worse without Lion's Eye Diamond, and then reduces one of the strengths of the UB version being able to play lots of basics.

My thoughts, anyway.

[AEnesidem]

The reason is that you have to work very hard to achieve not much more than another deck could.

It's an interesting deck and it's fun but you have to be damn passionate about it to achieve something with it.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

I picked up DDFT in January of this year, and I honestly think it's the most fun deck I've ever played. I'm not great at it yet - I'm approaching a moderate level of competence. I still screw up now and then and that sucks - but finding a way to win through whatever bullshit your opponent throws at you has got to be one of the most rewarding play experiences I've had. Your opponents are confused because they don't know what you're doing, and assuming you know your list well and manage your resources effectively, there is a way out of most situations that will get thrown at you since your opponents usually don't know how to play against the deck.

The learning process has certainly been painful at times - I still lose to myself now and then by miscounting mana or fetching the wrong land. But, my local playgroup also usually finds the deck and the puzzles it provides to be interesting, and they have helped me play test for a while. I also have the deck on MODO, which has been great to gain experience with the deck, as resolving Doomsday on MODO is much less painful than in paper.

Here's what I did at a recent tournament.

I cast Show and Tell.

With Omniscience in play, I drew my library.

I cast Cunning Wish for Release the Ants.

Opponent has countertop online and reveals a Counterbalance.

I cast Emrakul, miss my trigger and pass the turn.

I win. :eek:

[Kich867]

Did you resolve enter the infinite incorrectly? There's no reason to miss your trigger here, you have a card on top of your library for the next draw step and can repeatedly cast enter the infinite to put a card on top of your library.

[Ogh!]

Doomsday Tendrils is an outright inferior variant to TES/ANT/TNT but totally underestimated in combination with Laboratory Maniac.

However the Main problem is that those decks need to resolve Doomsday and have to alternative victory routes unlike TES, OmniTell or even Elves.

I disagree. How can it be outright inferior when there are plenty of very realistic situations when TES/ANT just scoop it up whereas DDFT just needs to find an additional 1U or Karakas? Yes, I'm talking about you, (T2) Gaddock Teeg. Also, hordes of Ethersworn Canonists, Thalias, Mindscensors and what not die already G1 pretty regularly thanks to BW into Massacre/Virtue's Ruin. On average, TES goes off on turn 2,2-2,4. Claiming that you'll always go off before a hatebear hits, would be a lie. Once there's a hatebear or Leyline on the board DDFT is very likely superior to TES/ANT.

Now, DDFT is slower than TES. That's for sure. Whether it's really slower than ANT, I'm not so sure. The absolute minimum mana requirements (with the minimum number of cards involved) to go off with DD are BBBUU with GP in hand, which is equal to the 5 mana you need to resolve ANT. However, there are numerous combinations that allow you to go off for less. E.g. BBB1 if you have 2 GPs in hand or just BBB if you have GP in hand and SDT in play. Now, DDFT doesn't play Cabal Rituals and fewer Lotus Petals. So, ANT will definitely have more Turn 1s and Turn 2s, however, ANT will also have many more outliers on the other side of the curve. DDFT plays more cantrips plus SDT with fetchlands, which let you find one of your 6-7 business spells much more consistently than ANT. Also, you're much less dependent on your life total with DDFT, i.e. you can sculpt your hand longer and find more mana, which at least partly compensates for the loss in explosiveness. In addition (everybody knows this): Once you resolve DD, there is no variance. Either you win or you lose because you fucked it up. You don't die due to drawing cards in the wrong order. Really, if you're a very good DDFT pilot, I don't see much reason to play ANT over DDFT.

TES is a different animal. It's quick and dirty and I can clearly see why someone would prefer it to DDFT or ANT. Yet, it's not strictly dominant to DDFT. That's a very wrong assertion.

[Lemnear]

You miss 2 important points which smash most of the stuff you wrote.

TES can grapeshot the whole board of hatebears and don't scoop to turn 2 Teeg, Cannonist or Thalia. It does not fold to Leyline of Sanctity due to Chain of Vapor or fancy EtW + Silence-Walk to victory.

DDFT vs. ANT has the Problem of the learning curve and a majority of players prefer the easier and more linear choice here, which is no suprise.

[Ogh!]

You miss 2 important points which smash most of the stuff you wrote.

TES can grapeshot the whole board of hatebears and don't scoop to turn 2 Teeg, Cannonist or Thalia. It does not fold to Leyline of Sanctity due to Chain of Vapor or fancy EtW + Silence-Walk to victory.

DDFT vs. ANT has the Problem of the learning curve and a majority of players prefer the easier and more linear choice here, which is no suprise.

Yes, you can Grapeshot. But on average you'll burn a lot of your resources to do so. +1 due to Thalia for BW + Grapeshot costs you already 6 mana. That's no small feat to achieve for land-starved TES pilots without using your precious rituals/petals (which also cost +1 in case of Thalia). DDFT pilots cast either Massacre for 4 mana and are very able to do so without burning IMS/rituals due to playing more lands or just get the removal spell this turn and cast Massacre the next turn and just go off. By the way, how do you Grapeshot an Ethersworn Canonist?

And to find one of your 2 CoVs via Ad Nauseam to bounce Leyline is not really a 100% chance as it is for the DDFT player building IU-LED-CoV-LED-BW. I also believe you know that much better, but EtW is always a big risk vs. Thalia/Teeg players because of the SFM package. Silence walking your opponent is something that 5C DDFT can do as well. Many 5C lists even play more chant effects than TES.

I do fully agree with your second statement.

[Zombie]

Petal, Grapeshot. Mom makes things gnarly though.

[Ogh!]

Petal, Grapeshot. Mom makes things gnarly though.

True. And Mom does nothing against Virtue's Ruin/Massacre.

I think it's very clear that DDFT is superior most of the time once a hatebear hits the board. That doesn't mean that TES is worse than DDFT. Not at all.

But the biggest reason to play DDFT:
It'is just beautiful. Compared to other Storm decks it's like art. Calling it showboating to grapeshot for 1 million is nothing compared to solving a crazily difficult DD-puzzle. To get the gist of what I mean, try to solve these scenarios (fantastic article, too!):

http://www.starcitygames.com/article/24198_Eternal-Europe---Judgment-Day-Puzzling.html

Compared to what you can read on the stormboards or what you'll encounter from time to time, these are easy ones. Maybe this article convinces some other storm pilots to play DDFT. I loved it :)

[Tammit67]

Doomsday fights better through expected hate than any other storm deck I've played. I've never seen a combo deck give less of a fuck about gaddock teeg.
As a result though, it is a tad slower and surprisingly weaker to cards other similar decks aren't, like Helm of awakening, grindstone, thoughtscour, qasali pridemage, extraction effects, aven mindscensor, krosan grip, burn spells...

[Koby]

Doomsday fights better through expected hate than any other storm deck I've played. I've never seen a combo deck give less of a fuck about gaddock teeg. (1)
As a result though, it is a tad slower and surprisingly weaker to cards other similar decks aren't, like Helm of awakening, grindstone, thoughtscour, qasali pridemage, extraction effects, aven mindscensor, krosan grip, burn spells...

(1) Have you seen Tin Fins? Good lord does it not give two shits about Gaddock Teeg! (attack you with Emrakul) However it is now vulnerable to non-Storm hate cards like DRS. Looking for the mythical Storm deck that doesn't care about anything. Isn't that Belcher?

[Ogh!]

Doomsday fights better through expected hate than any other storm deck I've played. I've never seen a combo deck give less of a fuck about gaddock teeg.
As a result though, it is a tad slower and surprisingly weaker to cards other similar decks aren't, like Helm of awakening, grindstone, thoughtscour, qasali pridemage, extraction effects, aven mindscensor, krosan grip, burn spells...

Most of the time you can disregard Surgical Extraction. I've yet to encounter a player who uses Extraction post-DD for the shuffle effect. Even G2 or G3 after they know what I play. "EoT extract your Brainstorm!" "Nice play, bro, you got me." :)

Although... I remember a cheeky bastard who extracted the DD in my GY at the end of his turn, after he sacced all of his permanents to Annihilator 6 while I just had one card left in my library. Fortunately, it was CoV! :)

[Namida]

Most of the time you can disregard Surgical Extraction. I've yet to encounter a player who uses Extraction post-DD for the shuffle effect. Even G2 or G3 after they know what I play. "EoT extract your Brainstorm!" "Nice play, bro, you got me." :)

Although... I remember a cheeky bastard who extracted the DD in my GY at the end of his turn, after he sacced all of his permanents to Annihilator 6 while I just had one card left in my library. Fortunately, it was CoV! :)

So what you're saying here is that Doomsday isn't weak to cards when you play against people who have no idea how to use their cards against you.

I love Doomsday and the same thing happens to me all the time...people basically shit their pants when they play against me because they think Storm/Doomsday is so hard to play that I must be some sort of Legacy End Boss at events. I just don't know that you can sweep the weaknesses of the deck under the rug with a reason like "Everyone around me isn't good enough to actually think about what the card Doomsday actually does to figure out how their cards interact with it."

[Lemnear]

Yes, you can Grapeshot. But on average you'll burn a lot of your resources to do so. +1 due to Thalia for BW + Grapeshot costs you already 6 mana. That's no small feat to achieve for land-starved TES pilots without using your precious rituals/petals (which also cost +1 in case of Thalia). DDFT pilots cast either Massacre for 4 mana and are very able to do so without burning IMS/rituals due to playing more lands or just get the removal spell this turn and cast Massacre the next turn and just go off. By the way, how do you Grapeshot an Ethersworn Canonist?

And to find one of your 2 CoVs via Ad Nauseam to bounce Leyline is not really a 100% chance as it is for the DDFT player building IU-LED-CoV-LED-BW. I also believe you know that much better, but EtW is always a big risk vs. Thalia/Teeg players because of the SFM package. Silence walking your opponent is something that 5C DDFT can do as well. Many 5C lists even play more chant effects than TES.

I do fully agree with your second statement.

Who Said you have to cast Wish and Grapeshot in a SINGLE TURN? Who Said you have to use Rituals instead of artifacts to increase the stormcount against Cannonist? How is Gaddock Teeg your topic and then you talk about Massacre as a solution to hatebears?

For the leyine/CoV topic I can give you more than enough Real Life experience how I just AN into Whatever to just Wish for PIF, flashback Infernals for LED's, Crack Infernals for UUU and Cycle through the Rest of the deck to find CoV while still having enough mana to humiliate my Opponents by wish for IGG 3 LED's under the effect of Silence for even more mana and storm, create 40+ goblins, flashback PIF, create an Army of 100+ goblins total and still use Wish #3 or #4 for a hilarious grapeshot.

If you face a combination of Teeg, Mother of runes and Cannonist at the same time you've done something wrong tbh.


Considering all the crap Among Mom, Teeg, Thalia, Cannonist and Leyline it's obvious that maniac Doomsday is Miles better then DDFT

[Ogh!]

So what you're saying here is that Doomsday isn't weak to cards when you play against people who have no idea how to use their cards against you.

I love Doomsday and the same thing happens to me all the time...people basically shit their pants when they play against me because they think Storm/Doomsday is so hard to play that I must be some sort of Legacy End Boss at events. I just don't know that you can sweep the weaknesses of the deck under the rug with a reason like "Everyone around me isn't good enough to actually think about what the card Doomsday actually does to figure out how their cards interact with it."

I was joking and not being serious, which I tried to indicate by ":)". But I imagine due to anonymity these kind of things are hard to convey over the Web. I excuse. I agree, SE is a card that can hose a DDFT player and should be taken seriously in any competitive environment.

[Ogh!]

Who Said you have to cast Wish and Grapeshot in a SINGLE TURN? Who Said you have to use Rituals instead of artifacts to increase the stormcount against Cannonist? How is Gaddock Teeg your topic and then you talk about Massacre as a solution to hatebears?

For the leyine/CoV topic I can give you more than enough Real Life experience how I just AN into Whatever to just Wish for PIF, flashback Infernals for LED's, Crack Infernals for UUU and Cycle through the Rest of the deck to find CoV while still having enough mana to humiliate my Opponents by wish for IGG 3 LED's under the effect of Silence for even more mana and storm, create 40+ goblins, flashback PIF, create an Army of 100+ goblins total and still use Wish #3 or #4 for a hilarious grapeshot.

If you face a combination of Teeg, Mother of runes and Cannonist at the same time you've done something wrong tbh.


Considering all the crap Among Mom, Teeg, Thalia, Cannonist and Leyline it's obvious that maniac Doomsday is Miles better then DDFT

Okay, you won. TES > Maniac DD >(xMiles) DDFT in dealing with all "the crap" I've been talking about (the latter inequality being obviously obvious). Thanks for the discussion and keep having fun "humiliating" your opponents with durdling around after you've got the kill and going for infinite storm. What a feat.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

MadZur once made the really good point that it's difficult to objectively and meaningfully differentiate decks that are "really good, but very unforgiving of mistakes" and decks that are "bad."

Certainly, if you take two equally skilled players two decks that are "equally good" if played flawlessly, but one of them is extremely forgiving of mistakes and the other is extremely unforgiving, the player with the former deck will tend to greatly outperform the player with the latter deck. And this is true regardless of what skill level the two players are at because even the best players in the world make plenty of mistakes.

So the answer to the original question of this thread might as well be, from the responses, because the deck is bad.

[Lemnear]

Okay, you won. TES > Maniac DD >(xMiles) DDFT in dealing with all "the crap" I've been talking about (the latter inequality being obviously obvious). Thanks for the discussion and keep having fun "humiliating" your opponents with durdling around after you've got the kill and going for infinite storm. What a feat.

What is this now? You made bold asumptions that TES can't beat Teeg but Doomsday can, I proofed you wrong with the hint to Grapeshot, you changed the topic of the discussion from Teeg to Cannonist and claim it's impossible for TES to handle him or Leyline, I proofed you wrong again (splitting Wish and Grapeshot, artifacts to boost storm, etc) and now you act like a huffy child.

Afaik, you can scoop any time if you are annoyed by my 15 minutes killing sequence I used to pull off if anyone is loud-mouthed consequential how landing Teeg or Leyline is GG against TES (which did happen in the past)

[JACO]

Why doesn't anyone play Doomsday?

For some reason, magic players get a rush playing with cards like Show and Tell. Pathetic really. I bet you think porn is real too.

There are plenty of fantastic decks that nobody plays but there's a point where the deck is only as fantastic as its pilot. Honestly, if you combine a cryptic archetype with a good, dedicated pilot you get a pretty vicious opponent.

Doomsday decks are very powerful and rewarding for skill, but as has been mentioned require near technical mastery and are not as forgiving. I don't think anyone gets a rush playing Show and Tell, but Show and Tell Omniscience and Sneak and Show are both better combo decks, period. They are simpler to protect and harder to disrupt, feature better manabases, and don't rely on the graveyard or much else that is easy to hate. I believe Show and Tell is the best individual card in Legacy at this time, but it's very close, and I believe the field is pretty fair at this time. The blue aggro-control decks are really good with all of the recent tools printed the past few years, and without solid Combo decks like Show and Tell and Ad Nauseam Tendrils they would just dominate Legacy.

[Ogh!]

What is this now? You made bold asumptions that TES can't beat Teeg but Doomsday can, I proofed you wrong with the hint to Grapeshot, you changed the topic of the discussion from Teeg to Cannonist and claim it's impossible for TES to handle him or Leyline, I proofed you wrong again (splitting Wish and Grapeshot, artifacts to boost storm, etc) and now you act like a huffy child.

Afaik, you can scoop any time if you are annoyed by my 15 minutes killing sequence I used to pull off if anyone is loud-mouthed consequential how landing Teeg or Leyline is GG against TES (which did happen in the past)

That's a nice view on the discussion. As far as I remember you are the one who made the bold claim that DDFT is outright inferior to ANT/TES without providing any substantial arguments or any at all in that case. I put forward that there are plenty of realistic and not overly constructed situations in which DDFT fares better than ANT/TES and thus is not outright inferior. Outright inferiority could be interpreted as being strictly dominated in a decision-theoretical sense which is wrong. I wanted to clarify that. Yes, I acknowledge that TES can Grapeshot Teegs and Thalias and even Canonists (the next turn while having artifacts in hour hand) and trust in the two CoVs after boarding or EtW vs. Leyline. But most of the time Massacre/Virtue's Ruin or the 100% probability of drawing CoV via using your storm engine is better. DDFT doesn't even want and need to burn a BW for Gaddock Teeg because you can just build IU-LED-CoV-LED-BW. That's why I started talking about other hatebears.

All I'm trying to say is: Once a hatebear hits, I believe that DDFT has a higher probability of winning that game. I've never wanted to claim that TES(!) auto-folds to hatebears or Leyline, I claim that DDFT deals with them in a superior way compared to TES/ANT, which I believe becomes already pretty clear once you realize that being able to use your storm engine to dispose of at least one hatebear/Leyline is superior to having to burn at least one business spell or trust in a variance card (AdN) to find an out. That is all. Any other implications may be due to my poor writing skills or my tendency to exaggerate to make a point.

Putting TES aside for one moment since my bold assumptions were not about TES but about ANT/TES: In that one T8 match of the last BOM, there was this ANT player who scooped after turn 2 Teeg.

By the way, I act like a huffy child because I dislike your way of conveying information. And because I like being huffy. It's a great feeling.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Also, though a tad clumsy, Doomsday can be tutored up via Personal Tutor, whereas Ad Nauseam cannot. This allows for even more stability with Doomsday, especially in a Hybrid build like back in the days of Mystical.

-ABC

[Acclimation]

DDFT is a great deck that rewards playing extremely tight. The problem? Mistakes can cost you; I've lost games because I simply fetched the wrong land on turn 2. I love the deck though, I've had success with it at my store, and I learned how to play it by banging my head against Tempo Thresh. However, I had more success with Tinfins within the last 2 months of picking up the deck than I had within my 1+ year of playing Doomsday because of how much more forgiving it is (and a large amount of insane luck).

The great thing about taking the time to play DDFT is, is that I can pick up complicated decks a lot easier and play them all day at long tournaments. The deck is one large puzzle, and great for mental workouts.

I should really put the deck back together again, fighting through hate is incredibly satisfying. I feel like fighting through hate with Tinfins is essentially punching as hard as you can, whereas with DDFT is fighting with finesse. Both effective, and both satisfying in their own way.

[Dark Ritual]

The benefit of playing doomsday is that you can actually play through any card generally. Gaddock teeg? Nice card bro, I'll stick this CoV in the pile with top in play to draw with top, chain the top to my hand, copy it bouncing your teeg, and go LED LED top burning wish tendrils of agony targeting you for lethal. You can't do that with ad nauseam being uncastable to teeg so you have to find CoV/decay/an answer before you can do a single damned thing that matters. Oh and meanwhile the opponent is wastelanding your shitty manabase. But I generally don't listen to Lemnear for the fact that he has one of the biggest hard ons for TES on this forum and really thinks that a deck that requires more luck than skill is the best deck in the format. Hint: TES is not the best deck in the format by a long shot.

The reason no one plays doomsday is because the deck is the hardest deck to pilot in the entire game. Winning without having to go through hate is very easy, but at that point most storm decks will actually just win (who knew.) But doomsday is VERY unforgiving. As in if you resolve doomsday and build the wrong stack you actually just lose 99.99% of the time.

Laboratory maniac is only worse with decay and DRS in the format. And the deck is very beatable if you want to beat it. I remember when I first saw the list I cringed. It certainly hasn't aged well and worse still it doesn't run black lotus.

Surgical extraction is answered by a cabal therapy naming surgical or silence/chant. It is possible to win through a surgical extraction in the middle of your combo as well, although you must anticipate it to build a surgical proof pile. The amount of options available when tutoring for any 5 cards is actually close to limitless and in that lies doomsday greatest strength and weakness. Fuck up and you lose. You crafted the perfect pile? Congratulations, you've won.

I did play doomsday for a time, but shelved it due to its intricacies. Definitely the hardest deck to play in the format with ease.

[Lemnear]

Don't see how Lab maniac cares about DRS and Decay. You can hardcast the creature without the Unearth or can stack draw-trigger to fight AD.

Yep, winning 4 fucking tournaments with about 30 contenders in a row piloting though BUG, RUG Delver and S&T variants MUST be luck.

[Ogh!]

Don't see how Lab maniac cares about DRS and Decay. You can hardcast the creature without the Unearth or can stack draw-trigger to fight AD.

Yep, winning 4 fucking tournaments with about 30 contenders in a row piloting though BUG, RUG Delver and S&T variants MUST be luck.

Based on your reports, I'm pretty sure you're a good player and I don't want to question that in any way. But consider this. According to your reports you played 47 games. In these 47 games you took 3 mulligans.

[EDIT: Was wrong about the land thing. You actually opened a 7 without a land four times.]

Some might call that lucky.

[davelin]

Wait a second, there is luck involved with a card game based on random draws???

[Lemnear]

Based on your reports, I'm pretty sure you're a good player and I don't want to question that in any way. But consider this. According to your reports you played 47 games. In these 47 games you took 3 mulligans.

[EDIT: Was wrong about the land thing. You actually opened a 7 without a land four times.]

Some might call that lucky.

I don't have the numbers in my head, so I'll asume you counted correctly :)

While the mulligan number is insanly low on paper it underlines my attitude of being a hardliner then it comes down to mulligans and I just strickly mull hands which have NO initial manasource and work myself into the match with nearly all others (exception MUD and Prison Decks).

You'll notice that I have a much lesser percentage of Turn 1 & 2 kills as promoted in several threads due to that behaviour of not mulling into a miraculous 6- or 5-card-hand.

With the deck being 1/3 Initial manasources while drawing 7 Initial cards out of 60, having a single Initial mana in 44 out of 47 games isn't unreasonable if that's my Minimum requirement to keep it.

Dunno, how that breaks down to luck

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Like do you guys remember the first (Legacy) GP Columbus, where Steve Sadin and Gadiel Szleifer and I'm sure others punted games because they didn't understand the actual Hulk-Flash combo, and then Sadin just won the tournament anyway and the deck just dominated.

I mean there were definitely games where you would lose if you were not very familiar with the deck and win if you were. The deck rewarded understanding. It was not a dumb deck.

But no one said, "Hulk Flash, man it's so good if you play it perfectly," it was just a really fucking powerful deck and in fact so powerful that it could reward you despite imperfect plays.

If you have to pilot a deck flawlessly in order to have a serious chance of winning with it that sounds a lot like saying the deck is bad.

[Koby]

If you have to pilot a deck flawlessly in order to have a serious chance of winning with it that sounds a lot like saying the deck is bad.

I don't often agree with IBA, but he's got a very good point. Assuming masterful skill and a reasonable flexible deck (such as RUG, Esper, or DDFT for example), you could win a fair percentage of the time that you shouldn't.

My position is that the amount of practice required to reach the level where win% becomes 51% is not a good use of time. I don't deny that DDFT has literal million victory paths, only saying that learning the deck is burdensome compared to better decks. For example, assuming the opponent is a goldfish; how much easier would it be to resolve Ad Nauseam vs Doomsday from a mechanic point of view? It's just easier to on your dexterity and mind. Over 9+ rounds that's going to add up significantly.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

I don't often agree with IBA, but he's got a very good point. Assuming masterful skill and a reasonable flexible deck (such as RUG, Esper, or DDFT for example), you could win a fair percentage of the time that you shouldn't.

My position is that the amount of practice required to reach the level where win% becomes 51% is not a good use of time. I don't deny that DDFT has literal million victory paths, only saying that learning the deck is burdensome compared to better decks. For example, assuming the opponent is a goldfish; how much easier would it be to resolve Ad Nauseam vs Doomsday from a mechanic point of view? It's just easier to on your dexterity and mind. Over 9+ rounds that's going to add up significantly.

Actually, you just have to do your homework. Emidln, founder of the StormBoards, wrote an article, among others, that gave 5-card piles, mana costs and how to play it out within their detailed descriptions. Just read, goldfish certain scenarios (there aren't many that vary, if you look at it the right way) to help you remember your piles and make choices that allow you to win fast enough (avg. turn 3), you should be able to pilot it just fine. I did for the 8 months pre-Mystical Banning, FT before that. I don't have a link to the article, but I'm sure its out there.

Also, you would be a fool to abandon the AN path to victory, you should instead play 2 Doomsday, 1 Personal Tutor (This is a better option than B. Wish by a LONG SHOT), 1 AN, 1 PiF and/or 1 IGG (This is actually great with Doomsday in a way that PiF obviously is not), 1 Tendrils, and Grapeshot/Helm combo is awesome and funny in DD builds.

-ABC

EDIT::: I would still be rocking the Doomsday AN Hybrid build, but I sold my LED's at the beginning of Wizards' Mental Misstep Mishap. I haven't had the opportunity to rebuy, but since I just completed Patriot Miracle, they are now my next thing to buy.

[Dark Ritual]

You beat RUG delver with a combo deck? Color me not surprised. I routinely beat RUG delver with ANT, and no it isn't that bad of a matchup if anything it's a good matchup. It only sucks for TES because strip mine is busted and you run shit like chrome mox. Sculpting a winning hand against RUG is definitely not that hard with ANT short of them actually stifling all your fetchlands and wastelanding your nonbasics. It's only really good for TES when they rip the nuts/get lucky, as per usual. TES relies on the pilot running hot to perform, otherwise you'll just draw awkward as shit hands that fold to any meaningful interaction from your opponent. That's why I shelved the deck quite some time ago. Even if you do rip the nuts you aren't guaranteed the win either. I resolved ad nauseam on turn 1 from 19 life at Grand Prix Indianapolis a couple of years back. I FIZZLED and lost to burn. Yup, great deck. My opponent kept a hand with no 1 mana spell to deal me damage with and won.

If you aren't playing your deck perfectly do you really deserve to win anyways? I'd say no.

Gadiel Szleifer and Steve Sadin couldn't figure out how to combo with hulk flash, that's just them being bad honestly. They certainly didn't prepare for the tournament if they never found out how their deck won. They just relied on their opponent scooping to hulk triggering, which is never a good idea. Not to mention it takes a few minutes to figure out how the combo works on their own (grab carrion feeder and karmic guide return hulk. Sack hulk to feeder, fetch kiki-jiki. Activate kiki-jiki targeting guide, in response sack kiki to feeder. Recur kiki-jiki ad infinitum and have a billion 2/2 fliers to attack with. Win.

[Richard Cheese]

Like do you guys remember the first (Legacy) GP Columbus, where Steve Sadin and Gadiel Szleifer and I'm sure others punted games because they didn't understand the actual Hulk-Flash combo, and then Sadin just won the tournament anyway and the deck just dominated.

I mean there were definitely games where you would lose if you were not very familiar with the deck and win if you were. The deck rewarded understanding. It was not a dumb deck.

But no one said, "Hulk Flash, man it's so good if you play it perfectly," it was just a really fucking powerful deck and in fact so powerful that it could reward you despite imperfect plays.

If you have to pilot a deck flawlessly in order to have a serious chance of winning with it that sounds a lot like saying the deck is bad.

MtG is a lot like F1 or WRC in that respect. It's generally a combination of deck power and pilot skill that leads to the big victories. Maybe they should have separate player/builder championships...

[Lemnear]

If you aren't playing your deck perfectly do you really deserve to win anyways? I'd say no.

I get behind this to 100%. While deck choice in a meta sure wields significant advantage (if your bankroll allows this), I dislike games against pure Auto-pilot-decks which anyone can just pickup and play successfully just because the deck is redundant and linear. I like the players being the most important factor.

Ain't no B&R discussion, fellas.

[Smmenen]

I don't get a chance to play Legacy very often, but I've top 8ed every Legacy tournament with a top 8 when I've played Maniac Doomsday, except for SCG Columbus, which I top 32ed a while back. The last being a few weeks ago in Eudemonia:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26365-EUDEMONIA-TOP-8-DECKLISTS-Berkeley-California-July-7th

I was inadequately prepared to win the BUG Matchup, but will be running new sb tech next time. Abrupt Decay is actually not hard to beat -- you have to put Misdirection in the pile.

The mana base is amazing, the deck is incredibly consistent, and it's a ton of fun. And I CRUSH every Show and Tell deck I play. Doomsday is awesome. Not sure what's not to like....

[apple713]

I don't get a chance to play Legacy very often, but I've top 8ed every Legacy tournament with a top 8 when I've played Maniac Doomsday, except for SCG Columbus, which I top 32ed a while back. The last being a few weeks ago in Eudemonia:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26365-EUDEMONIA-TOP-8-DECKLISTS-Berkeley-California-July-7th

I was inadequately prepared to win the BUG Matchup, but will be running new sb tech next time. Abrupt Decay is actually not hard to beat -- you have to put Misdirection in the pile.

The mana base is amazing, the deck is incredibly consistent, and it's a ton of fun. And I CRUSH every Show and Tell deck I play. Doomsday is awesome. Not sure what's not to like....

Im curious what the sideboard tech is? I've been interested in this deck for a while just havent acquired the Doomsdays. I heard 1 card combos are good. Last one got the banhammer...hermit druid.


Have you Ever started a post here for your list and deck?

[Lemnear]

Doomsday is awesome. Not sure what's not to like....

...pairing it with the Storm mechanic these days.

@apple713:

Stephen has released a Pay-for-primer on Legacy Maniac Doomsday. It's worth the 4$ (if I remember correctly) if you are interested in the archtype.

Even if I personally dislike the defensive approach he took, the core interaction is awesome. I have found predict being amazing in the deck, binning Lab maniac and drawing Unearth + PoN or Probe to instantly win off 3 mana in a Pass-a-turn-pile.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If you aren't playing your deck perfectly do you really deserve to win anyways? I'd say no.

I mean the ambiguity of what the Hell "deserve to win" means renders the question somewhat superfluous, but if you think you've ever played a perfect game of Magic you're way behind the curve on where I suppose "competent Doomsday player" is supposed to be.

There isn't going to be a tournament where you play your deck perfectly. Obviously there's room to say that some decks require learning to optimize, but the sheer consistency with which Doomsday pilots self-flagellate rather than suggest any weaknesses in the deck itself makes one suspect Stockholm Syndrome more than any prospect of the deck actually being all that good.

When everyone's posts but Smennen's seems to be a variant of, "It's a wonderful deck really, it only hits me because it wants me to be a better person" one begins to suspect that there's a problem.

[Smmenen]

Im curious what the sideboard tech is? I've been interested in this deck for a while just havent acquired the Doomsdays. I heard 1 card combos are good. Last one got the banhammer...hermit druid.


Have you Ever started a post here for your list and deck?

I wrote a long primer on the deck last year here after I top 32ed the SCG tournament: http://www.eternalcentral.com/?p=2787

You can watch my feature match here: http://blip.tv/scglive/scgoh-leg-rd-5-steve-menendian-vs-tj-heldman-6189244

And then, late last year I published 5 Doomsday Puzzles of increasing difficulty here: http://www.eternalcentral.com/?p=3228

http://www.eternalcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SMIPscreenshot.png

Eternal Central sells both at a 20% discount as a 'combo platter' in their store.

[Smmenen]

I mean the ambiguity of what the Hell "deserve to win" means renders the question somewhat superfluous, but if you think you've ever played a perfect game of Magic you're way behind the curve on where I suppose "competent Doomsday player" is supposed to be.

There isn't going to be a tournament where you play your deck perfectly. Obviously there's room to say that some decks require learning to optimize, but the sheer consistency with which Doomsday pilots self-flagellate rather than suggest any weaknesses in the deck itself makes one suspect Stockholm Syndrome more than any prospect of the deck actually being all that good.

When everyone's posts but Smennen's seems to be a variant of, "It's a wonderful deck really, it only hits me because it wants me to be a better person" one begins to suspect that there's a problem.

No one said the deck is perfect, but I've enjoyed success with it.

I played in a GPT in December that I split (giving the other guy the byes bc I wasn't going to the GP), and ran through the swiss and top 8. That's the only other tournament I've had an opportunity to play it recently.

I can't speak to the other Doomsday variants, but my deck is alot easier to play. It's just countermagic and combo pieces.

I think that's where alot of people have had problems. DDFT may simply be too difficult to play. My deck is far more linear, with infinite dday piles, but only 3-4 main piles (at least game 1).

[Secretly.A.Bee]

I mentioned an article on Doomsday Piles a in my last post. I did a little digging and found one (of many) articles I've read on D-Day piles here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VNOtsMZkZtwYqevrtV64HK2MzB7fKOaAY2a23N50VXY/preview?pli=1). Cheeseburger is a co-author along with Emidln, who I initially gave full credit to. Anyway, some of these piles are outdated, others are ingenius, and a choice few will be ones to practice often as they are and will always be the main ways to victory. I had a couple of favorite piles, and each served a purpose. Hope you enjoy the read, google for more if necessary.

-ABC

[lordofthepit]

I've goldfished with Doomsday decks about twenty times and I still haven't won a game yet.

Best quote ever.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

No one said the deck is perfect, but I've enjoyed success with it.

I played in a GPT in December that I split (giving the other guy the byes bc I wasn't going to the GP), and ran through the swiss and top 8. That's the only other tournament I've had an opportunity to play it recently.

I can't speak to the other Doomsday variants, but my deck is alot easier to play. It's just countermagic and combo pieces.

I think that's where alot of people have had problems. DDFT may simply be too difficult to play. My deck is far more linear, with infinite dday piles, but only 3-4 main piles (at least game 1).

I am not accusing the deck of not being perfect, I am accusing the deck of not being good*. I don't mean that as a slight and I am in fact speaking in the general case as I don't know your own list and apparently it's behind a paywall, but like Bryant Cook has had way better success playing his Tendrils build than you have with Doomsday and I still don't think TES is a very good deck I just think Bryant is a good player that knows the ins and outs of the deck and all its matchups which gives him a tremendous base advantage over the field.

I could always be wrong but what I would look for to indicate the case that I am wrong is a variety of people having success with Doomsday in actual tournaments and not a few skilled die-hards and a bunch of other people that are fans but keep self-flagellating to explain why they can't win with it.

*To clarify by good I mean has a reasonable expectation of showing up to a given tournament in an average player's hand with a 50%+ EV against the field. Like the definitive bad deck is Burn or Affinity which have like a 40-45% against the entire field on the average day even before people pack hate.

[Kayradis]

Just watched the match.
Wow. I don't know why I love combo decks so much!

[Bed Decks Palyer]

There isn't going to be a tournament where you play your deck perfectly. Obviously there's room to say that some decks require learning to optimize, but the sheer consistency with which Doomsday pilots self-flagellate rather than suggest any weaknesses in the deck itself makes one suspect Stockholm Syndrome more than any prospect of the deck actually being all that good.

When everyone's posts but Smennen's seems to be a variant of, "It's a wonderful deck really, it only hits me because it wants me to be a better person" one begins to suspect that there's a problem.

"Yes, he sometimes beats me, but only if I deserve it. And it's only my fault that he cheats me with barmaids."

[Kich867]

Stephen and this thread has inspired me to pick this deck up. I've completed the first four puzzles but the last one really has me, I don't want to look at the solution just yet haha.

[HammafistRoob]

I'm on board with IBA here. I mean seriously, do you know how smart that guy is? I heard he once beat Michael Herbig in a foot race.

[Tammit67]

*To clarify by good I mean has a reasonable expectation of showing up to a given tournament in an average player's hand with a 50%+ EV against the field. Like the definitive bad deck is Burn or Affinity which have like a 40-45% against the entire field on the average day even before people pack hate.

I guess the next logical thing to ask is... "What decks do you consider good then?"

[Smmenen]

@IBA: My deck is not behind a paywall -- I linked to a recent top 8 I made with it on this page.

It's just counter magic, draw spells, and combo parts.

[Smmenen]

Stephen and this thread has inspired me to pick this deck up. I've completed the first four puzzles but the last one really has me, I don't want to look at the solution just yet haha.

Haha, good luck ;)

I created a new Doomaday puzzle for Eternal Central which will be free. I'm just waiting for Jaco to post it. If you want to see it, send a message to Jaco :)

[Kayradis]

I know one of my friend is debating building and playing it!

Can we get you list?

[Zombie]

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?26365-EUDEMONIA-TOP-8-DECKLISTS-Berkeley-California-July-7th

[monovfox]

I am not accusing the deck of not being perfect, I am accusing the deck of not being good*. I don't mean that as a slight and I am in fact speaking in the general case as I don't know your own list and apparently it's behind a paywall, but like Bryant Cook has had way better success playing his Tendrils build than you have with Doomsday and I still don't think TES is a very good deck I just think Bryant is a good player that knows the ins and outs of the deck and all its matchups which gives him a tremendous base advantage over the field.

I could always be wrong but what I would look for to indicate the case that I am wrong is a variety of people having success with Doomsday in actual tournaments and not a few skilled die-hards and a bunch of other people that are fans but keep self-flagellating to explain why they can't win with it.

*To clarify by good I mean has a reasonable expectation of showing up to a given tournament in an average player's hand with a 50%+ EV against the field. Like the definitive bad deck is Burn or Affinity which have like a 40-45% against the entire field on the average day even before people pack hate.

Thanks for the byes!

-every burn player ever... Who play 4x maindeck price of progress.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

@IBA: My deck is not behind a paywall -- I linked to a recent top 8 I made with it on this page.

It's just counter magic, draw spells, and combo parts.

Okay I see. It certainly looks very different from lists I've seen before and is much more redundant. I'll have to test it a few games but for now assume all my comments are directed towards the more common, older Doomsday lists.


I guess the next logical thing to ask is... "What decks do you consider good then?"

I don't see how that's relevant at all actually.



Thanks for the byes!

-every burn player ever... Who play 4x maindeck price of progress.

There are multiple levels on which this is dumb.

[monovfox]

Because going undefeated in the Swiss, and punishing your meta for not running any basics is dumb.


You're totally right, I really should just switch to a deck that loses to these deathrite shaman decks. I apologize for my ignorance.

[Tammit67]

I don't see how that's relevant at all actually.


I suppose it isn't really, just at what point does a deck go from 'a bad deck that a few pilots know in and out better than their opponents and therefore win' to 'a good deck'?

PoP isn't that much of a concern for Doomsday. Although burn as a strategy is reasonable against it, you do still have to contend with leyline and or silence

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Because going undefeated in the Swiss, and punishing your meta for not running any basics is dumb.


You're totally right, I really should just switch to a deck that loses to these deathrite shaman decks. I apologize for my ignorance.

Okay I'm glad you had a good tournament and welcome to the Legacy format. This thread is aimed at serious tournament discussion from what I gather though. Also it's about Doomsday.

@Tammit: When random people start winning with it I guess is a good estimation. Of course if the Hatfields still got data from SCG we would have better answers to that question.

[monovfox]

Okay I'm glad you had a good tournament and welcome to the Legacy format. This thread is aimed at serious tournament discussion from what I gather though. Also it's about Doomsday.

@Tammit: When random people start winning with it I guess is a good estimation. Of course if the Hatfields still got data from SCG we would have better answers to that question.

1) you mentioned burn in passing, saying it was a bad deck. Which is completely false.

2) you started the thread on the mighty Quinn. That deck hasn't been competitive since abrupt decay.

3) I play doomsday tendrils. The deck is fairly solid. Difficult as hell, but that's half the fun. I'd much rather play doomsday and lose than play deathblade and do mediocrely.

4) because playing against Dayv doberne in top 8 is definitely showing of a lack of competition in my metagame. Same deal with some of the people in my meta who have nearly top 8d GPs, won PTQs, etc.

[(nameless one)]

I'll defend Quinn here.

No one plays Quinn since Land Tax has become unbanned in hopes of breaking the card. Unfortunately, Abrupt Decay exists.

I've played both Quinn and Parfait lists in casual Wednesday Legacy. It's not the most competitive but I do face tier 1-2 decks. Quinn has consistency over Parfait but when you have Land Tax going in Parfait, it's impossible for you to lose.

I was about to say Quinn is well positioned in the meta right now but so are ritual-based combo decks (which Quinn is bad against).

Quinn is a meta deck. It's good if you know what you're going against. Burn is a beginner deck. It has game at a certain level.

@ Meandeck Doomsday:

Can't the deck run Lim Dul's Vault, Infernal Tutor, Personal Tutor or Snapcaster Mage?

-Lim Dul's Vault not only can find Doomsday, it can also be a mini-Doomsday in capable hands.

-I haven't played the deck but doesn't this deck do fine with an empty hand? Draw Infernal Tutor with ample land base, set up Doomsday, win? You are playing permission to "slow" the game down.

-Personal Tutor finds Doomsday but it can't find postboard card (unlike Mystical Tutor)

-Snapcaster Mage adds a different dimension to the game. Recurs permission and discarded utility, pseudo-Yawgmoth's Win post Doomsday?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

1) you mentioned burn in passing, saying it was a bad deck. Which is completely false.

When we had actual statistics from the Hatfields they consistently showed burn was a bad deck; even in the month where it won Opens, the stats were still bad.

This is because burn is a bad deck. Categorically. Regardless of the metagame or peoples' sideboards.


2) you started the thread on the mighty Quinn. That deck hasn't been competitive since abrupt decay.

Yes, I started the thread for the Mighty Quinn, July 1st 2007.

I'm not actually convinced that's true- we don't have lots of field testing like we do with burn to confirm the results- but you'll notice I haven't been promoting the deck recently or telling people to play it.


3) I play doomsday tendrils. The deck is fairly solid. Difficult as hell, but that's half the fun. I'd much rather play doomsday and lose than play deathblade and do mediocrely.

You play Doomsday and don't care about winning. Okay. This has been consistent with other observations in the thread so good for you?


4) because playing against Dayv doberne in top 8 is definitely showing of a lack of competition in my metagame. Same deal with some of the people in my meta who have nearly top 8d GPs, won PTQs, etc.

This is some weak sauce bragging.

[monovfox]

1) PVDR said Boggle was a bad deck. Look what it did at the player's championship.

2) I care about winning. If I thought doomsday was a bad deck I wouldn't own it. I don't own bad decks.

3) I was trying to prove that my meta was not underdeveloped and that it was highly competitive. If I was bragging I would say "I 2-0d Dayv, whatever" (which no, haven't won a match against him yet).


I might not be the best player, but I can spot someone who rejects all forms of cognitive dissonance when I see one. Burn is a good deck in the proper meta. That does not make it a bad deck.

[Koby]

If we're going to objectively define bad deck at least let's set up some characteristics:

1) Of all the pilots playing said deck, what is the aggregate match win %?
That is, given a random sampling of all matches, does the deck win more of its matches than loses? This combines the skill of pilot from all points on the spectrum, from Master to Newbie. It also answers the question, "Does this deck require intimate knowledge of Format/Deck/Interactions in order to success?"

2) What is the mean-time to gain a winning record in a tournament setting?
This one is difficult to track since it relies solely on the pilot across multiple tournaments. It answers the question "How difficult is the deck to pilot and win with it?"

3) How many pilots are playing the deck?
Tracks popularity. If a deck is good and rewarding to play, this number should be high. If the number is low, does it trend upwards over time?

IBA contends that both criterion #1 and #2 contribute to negative performance of Doomsday. Point 2 clearly leads into Point 1; however only Point 1 is measurable in the macro sense. Tracking one result from one event does not reveal any meaningful conclusions for the performance of a deck.

[monovfox]

Criterion is outdated IMO. If the deck is winning because it requires intimate format knowledge, but many people struggle with it as well, that does not make it a bad deck. There are many people who absolutely suck at decks that are good in the format. Many people play dredge and other grave-based combo in a format full of deathrite shamans. They do fine, and reanimator (and arguably dredge) don't require intimate format knowledge. Yet, these decks haven't been putting up the results lately because of DRS. These decks are also on the decline. Yet I assume many of you would consider these to be fine (and possibly even good) decks.

Also, doomsday suffers from lack of sample size, and lack of dedicated pilots. But, the deck itself has been seein a little bit more play than it has in the past. This would point to criterion #3 improving. If criterion 3 is improving, than one can assume that people are seeing good results with the deck, and dare I say it: CONSISTENT RESULTS.

Of course, this from the perspective of someone who plays DDFT. Meandeck doomsday does actually have issues with consistency and speed, as well as requiring far too in-depth knowledge of piles and pile mathing. Not to mention mean deck doomsday is weak to more hate than DDFT. The trade off is that DDFT is very sensitive to wasteland. However, labman doomsday is generally overrated IMO,because as I stated: it is susceptible to more hate, and it is more susceptible
To said hate. You can atleast play around wasteland in DDfT if necessary, and even combo through double wasteland. Labman's piles and hands are diluted by one-ofs, making it harder to play through blue decks packin hate.

[HammerAndSickled]

Wait, are people actually arguing that for a deck to be good it has to win even in the hands of bad pilots? That's completely absurd. If anything, I'd say if a deck wins despite it's pilot often enough to win tournaments then that deck is potentially a problem (currently only Show falls in this category.) With every deck, a good player can enjoy success and bad players will lose.

one of our local players shelled out the cash to play Jund in Modern, which was objectively the best deck in the format at the time. On two separate occasions he made a cripplingly-atrocious misplay that was so had he deserved to have his DCI card revoked:
1)He Thoughtseized his opponent turn 2 on the draw, after his opponent had played a Thalia. He saw Thalia, Wilt-Leaf Liege, Smiter, Path, and another card I can't recall. Obviously he's not taking Thalia. Having never seen Liege before, he takes a moment to read the card before proclaiming "Fuck that, I'm taking Smiter!"

2)His opponent has an unleveled Coralhelm Commander in play. He plays Bloodbraid, and cascades into Jund Charm. He tries to put the counters on the Bloodbraid, but a judge is called because Bloodbraid is still on the stack. They rewind to the point in the cascade trigger where you decide whether to cast Jund Charm. This is made explicitly clear to both opponents. He says "I guess I'll put the counters on your guy."

so was that deck "bad" because a shitty player couldn't play it competently?

[monovfox]

That is exactly the "logic" IBA likes to use. Death and Taxes does t do well in the hands of poor pilots, same with high tide, and just about any ther deck.

Refuting Hatfield data: burn is an inexpensive deck, new players will play it. New players are mediocre at best when playing a new deck to them, in a format that is unfamiliar to them.

[Koby]

I'm offering some metrics by which to measure if a deck is bad. Obviously a M14 Intro Deck is going to be in that category, but what criteria would we use to prove it?

Can we safely assume that a deck with under .500 win rate would be a bad deck?
I suspect this is the easiest to endorse.

What other criteria can we all agree on so that at least we have equal ground to have meaningful discussion?

[monovfox]

I'm offering some metrics by which to measure if a deck is bad. Obviously a M14 Intro Deck is going to be in that category, but what criteria would we use to prove it?

Can we safely assume that a deck with under .500 win rate would be a bad deck?
I suspect this is the easiest to endorse.

What other criteria can we all agree on so that at least we have equal ground to have meaningful discussion?

We need a way to find the average player CURRENTLY playing the deck. One event doesn't count towards the number of people who actively play the deck. The problem is, how do we determine average skill of the average player of certain archetypes?

[Koby]

We need a way to find the average player CURRENTLY playing the deck. One event doesn't count towards the number of people who actively play the deck. The problem is, how do we determine average skill of the average player of certain archetypes?

Assume it is equally average? Or slight below average? That is a hard question to answer due to the lack of data. Assume we have all the matches played with DDFT. I posit that the game and match win % is best metric to determine the deck's relative strength.

[FTW]

Wait, are people actually arguing that for a deck to be good it has to win even in the hands of bad pilots? That's completely absurd. If anything, I'd say if a deck wins despite it's pilot often enough to win tournaments then that deck is potentially a problem (currently only Show falls in this category.) With every deck, a good player can enjoy success and bad players will lose.

one of our local players shelled out the cash to play Jund in Modern, which was objectively the best deck in the format at the time. On two separate occasions he made a cripplingly-atrocious misplay that was so had he deserved to have his DCI card revoked:
1)He Thoughtseized his opponent turn 2 on the draw, after his opponent had played a Thalia. He saw Thalia, Wilt-Leaf Liege, Smiter, Path, and another card I can't recall. Obviously he's not taking Thalia. Having never seen Liege before, he takes a moment to read the card before proclaiming "Fuck that, I'm taking Smiter!"

2)His opponent has an unleveled Coralhelm Commander in play. He plays Bloodbraid, and cascades into Jund Charm. He tries to put the counters on the Bloodbraid, but a judge is called because Bloodbraid is still on the stack. They rewind to the point in the cascade trigger where you decide whether to cast Jund Charm. This is made explicitly clear to both opponents. He says "I guess I'll put the counters on your guy."

so was that deck "bad" because a shitty player couldn't play it competently?

I think the contention is that a majority of players who are good at Legacy and good at Magic are still bad at Doomsday. Your Jund player is just plain bad at Magic. Different story. When a deck is only successful in the hands of a small few even among those who are otherwise generally competent at Magic and the format, it begs the question whether a different combo deck with an equally specialized pilot could have done as well or better in the same matches and events, and that question is virtually impossible to answer due to small sample size of "good enough" pilots.

It's easy to compare the performance of say Manaless Dredge vs LED Dredge in different metas because there are enough competent pilots playing it to gather statistics on matchup performance. If you want to compare TES and DDFT and you have to narrow down to looking at matches from Bryant Cook and emidln to ensure you're only looking at good players, you don't really have adequate data to draw the same conclusions. Clearly this is hyperbole, but hopefully the point is clear.

EDIT: I'm implicitly defining "good" as "as good or better than the analogous mainstream option".

[(nameless one)]

Didn't emidln change decks from Doomsday to OmniTell? That tells me a lot about Doomsday.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I might not be the best player, but I can spot someone who rejects all forms of cognitive dissonance when I see one. Burn is a good deck in the proper meta. That does not make it a bad deck.

Sure, like if no one is playing anything but 1997 Sui Black.


That deck is not bad which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons maybe everyone will show up playing Death's Shadow.dec

In most probably realities burn is a trash deck and Doomsday builds are also apparently bad. I don't know about Smennen's list although the few games I played on Cockatrice didn't woo me.

[FTW]

In most probably realities burn is a trash deck and Doomsday builds are also apparently bad. I don't know about Smennen's list although the few games I played on Cockatrice didn't woo me.

It looks simpler to play but also a lot more linear, easier to disrupt. He should have lost feature match game 1 if opponent didn't misplay. Although Smennen had perfect information pre-Doomsday... it's not encouraging that he has no Doomsday piles to beat 2 removal spells aside from bluffing the opponent. Maybe there's a way to optimize his list to have more play options to get around hate. Teeg shuts off Force and Misdirection and then he's stuck banking on 1 Pact to stop Surgical Extraction, removal, etc..

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I just found that it couldn't actually race RUG very well, although I don't suppose that's supposed to be a good matchup.

[Cthuloo]

Assume it is equally average? Or slight below average? That is a hard question to answer due to the lack of data. Assume we have all the matches played with DDFT. I posit that the game and match win % is best metric to determine the deck's relative strength.

This is almost a Gedankexperiment, but the only way to have a definitive answer would be to look at the winning % of a given player with the deck vs the overall number of matches played. Then you should expect to see a skewed distribution where there's a bunch of players with a losing record and a low number of total matches and a long tail of expert players with a winning record and a large number of total matches.

A decent proxy could be just the total winning % of any player. Again, you should expect a negative average but with a fat tail, originated by the "masters" of the deck playing it to his full potential. This could possibly be done with the SCG data, I guess.

[Fossil4182]

It looks simpler to play but also a lot more linear, easier to disrupt. He should have lost feature match game 1 if opponent didn't misplay. Although Smennen had perfect information pre-Doomsday... it's not encouraging that he has no Doomsday piles to beat 2 removal spells aside from bluffing the opponent. Maybe there's a way to optimize his list to have more play options to get around hate. Teeg shuts off Force and Misdirection and then he's stuck banking on 1 Pact to stop Surgical Extraction, removal, etc..

To be fair to Smennen, he covers a lot of this in the primer. Regarding the particular match he "should have lost", the situation he was in was a result of his poor mana management (according to him).

You are correct, the primer doesn't list any piles explicitly designed to beat two removal spells. However, I don't believe that's the optimal way to evaluate or play this deck. The initial 10 - 12 piles are designed to be relatively simple so the pilot doesn't have to memorize a +500 entry spreadsheet worth of piles to answer any given situation. The # of pile is small making it quick to comprehend and easy to customize once you memorize the initial piles.

To your point about beating two removal spells, the addition of Predict to the deck allows it to draw into more protection spells to answer removal (or anything else really). The deck has plenty of ways to beat two removal spells. Between Flusterstorm, Spell Pierce, Force of Will, Misdirection, and Pact of Negation, the deck has between 10 - 14 counter spells with which to beat removal. In addition to the countermagic, each instant speed draw effect (IE Brainstorm & activating Top) can be used as answers to removal since you win in response to the removal spell.

Regarding Surgical Extraction, or anything else really, the density of countermagic is on par with some of the more control oriented decks in the format. This, in my experience, is usually sufficient to answer most situations.

[Smmenen]

It looks simpler to play but also a lot more linear, easier to disrupt. He should have lost feature match game 1 if opponent didn't misplay. .

I actually misplayed myself, since I should have had double countermagic up. I fetched out the wrong land the turn before, or I would have had double counter up.

Beating two removal spells: all you need is another Top in play or another draw trigger to stack.

[Smmenen]

To be fair to Smennen, he covers a lot of this in the primer. Regarding the particular match he "should have lost", the situation he was in was a result of his poor mana management (according to him).

And it wasn't even a match I should have lost -- just a game. I won that match 2-0. But if you look at the fetchland I fetched the previous turn, I fetched the wrong one.

[Deviruchi]

@TheInfamousBearAssassin:

It is a tough matchup but as the best say you should get to the point where you win more than 50% of matches vs rug. I have got a little bit rusty since March and because of it I have played testing marathon vs RUG. I pulled 58 win percentage and I'm sure Storm Board admins would pull it up.

@topic:

DDFT is a difficult deck to play but it is also very rewarding and great in developing your skills. By testing it you can improve your cantrip skills, improve skill to think way ahead and test yourself in many puzzles. Knowledge is there, well written, you just have to find time for all of this. After that hard work you will get more knowledge about the format, about combo decks and you won't even think about need to play LM. Ad Nauseam, Griselbrand and Enter the Infinite are probably more cool ways to win and for sure easier. I don't think it is a bad deck but if that statemant sticks I will be more than happy.

Greetings and keep adding storm

[FTW]

To your point about beating two removal spells, the addition of Predict to the deck allows it to draw into more protection spells to answer removal (or anything else really). The deck has plenty of ways to beat two removal spells. Between Flusterstorm, Spell Pierce, Force of Will, Misdirection, and Pact of Negation, the deck has between 10 - 14 counter spells with which to beat removal. In addition to the countermagic, each instant speed draw effect (IE Brainstorm & activating Top) can be used as answers to removal since you win in response to the removal spell.

Regarding Surgical Extraction, or anything else really, the density of countermagic is on par with some of the more control oriented decks in the format. This, in my experience, is usually sufficient to answer most situations.

I only said he should have lost "feature match game 1", as in 1 game, not the whole match. Was there a Spell Pierce in hand too? Didn't see it on camera... but yeah, a Sea > Swamp in that case.

Anyway, long story short, I think DDFT is more resilient -- don't have to pass the turn and fewer ways to interact with the win condition.

[Lemnear]

I only said he should have lost "feature match game 1", as in 1 game, not the whole match. Was there a Spell Pierce in hand too? Didn't see it on camera... but yeah, a Sea > Swamp in that case.

Anyway, long story short, I think DDFT is more resilient -- don't have to pass the turn and fewer ways to interact with the win condition.

It doesn't matter how many removal they have as long as you have an equal number if draw triggers. A basic Drawstep, SDT and Brainstorm/Predict/etc. beat a whooping 3 removal spells.

[Star|Scream]

Okay everyone. I think this thread has done a good job of explaining why no one plays Doomsday, but can it explain why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

[Lemnear]

Okay everyone. I think this thread has done a good job of explaining why no one plays Doomsday, but can it explain why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Anyone working @ Starbucks around to answer this?

[Koby]

Anyone working @ Starbucks around to answer this?

DIABEEEETTTUUUSSSSS

Also, sugar.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Actually, I think to summarize this thread, a lot of people don't have the mental capacity to play Doomsday to it's fullest potential. It's too much work for the large remainder, but overall, Doomsday is actually very playable and very hard to beat IF the player is making wise and insightful plays. And Cinnamon Toast Crunch sucks; little kids also like cold hot dogs. They have bad taste and I wouldn't trust their judgement on food for an instant.

-ABC

[KevinTrudeau]

I'm playing Doomsday tonight at Monster Den in Minneapolis. Gon' be off tha' hook'.

Don't listen to them; even though optimal Doomsday (ahem, TheInfBearAss) lists are 4c with basics, the manabase is still, like, really really good (esp. with 2 Volcs over 1 Volc, 1 Badl; optimal aggregate four land configuration on turn four being Swamp, Plains, Volc, Volc).

Versus Canadian Thresh, you're trying to cast Empty the Warrens via Burning Wish on turn three. That's how we win versus them all the damn time.

Minneapolis is such a taste city, y'all.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I mean the ambiguity of what the Hell "deserve to win" means renders the question somewhat superfluous, but if you think you've ever played a perfect game of Magic you're way behind the curve on where I suppose "competent Doomsday player" is supposed to be.

There isn't going to be a tournament where you play your deck perfectly. Obviously there's room to say that some decks require learning to optimize, but the sheer consistency with which Doomsday pilots self-flagellate rather than suggest any weaknesses in the deck itself makes one suspect Stockholm Syndrome more than any prospect of the deck actually being all that good.

When everyone's posts but Smennen's seems to be a variant of, "It's a wonderful deck really, it only hits me because it wants me to be a better person" one begins to suspect that there's a problem.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Versus Canadian Thresh, you're trying to cast Empty the Warrens via Burning Wish on turn three. That's how we win versus them all the damn time.



How many of them usualy? Because turn 3 on draw might be too late if you make less than twelve tokens: they'd tap Delver/s (the one/s they already tapped; maybe they were already flipped) and then Bolt you out of game.

[Smmenen]

I top8ed the last Legacy tournament I played in with Doomsday and won a side event this weekend at GP Oakland with Maniac Doomsday.