[Article] Unlocking Legacy--Building A New Legacy

[TheAardvark]

Chris takes a look at deckbuilding in the new format, and discusses some of the reasons for the changes taking place. He talks about the shift in power between Goblins and Threshold, and some of the consequences this has on design. Also included is a Landstill decklist!

Click it or lick it (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14771.html).

[Di]

I'm fairly certain those Tundras in the UGR Threshold list are supposed to be Volcanics. Fairly certain.

[DragoFireheart]

I'm fairly certain those Tundras in the UGR Threshold list are supposed to be Volcanics. Fairly certain.

I am also certain that they are really Volcanic Islands. :laugh:

[Meekrab]

Seeing as Counterbalance comes in versus everything but Goblins, and Goblins are a rapidly decreasing percentage of the format, wouldn't it make sense to play it in the main deck? The Pitch Long principle?

[Nihil Credo]

I disagree on playing Crucible instead of Loam in a Landstill deck with both Deed and EE.

Goof stuff otherwise.

[Happy Gilmore]

This article is excellent, most competitive magic players getting into this formant can catch up real quick by reading this. I would make one suggestion about your landstill list:

-2 Spell Snare
+2 Stifle

[aTn]

To paraphrase what I said on the SCG board:

I don't know if it's me who's cranky today, but I didn't like the article too much. I found the Threshold list to be a little oldish looking.

I'm getting tired of articles with an analysis of shifts in the metagame when these shifts have already occurred months ago (to which many people have already found a theory explaining them).

I'd like it more if the Legacy articles on SCG where addressed to competitive Legacy players directly (like they do with Standard, etc.) - by competitive players I don't mean players with a 1900 rating, I mean players who playtest, play tournaments and keep up to date with tournament results, etc.. I don't think writing broad articles about Legacy brings a lot of new blood to the format anyhow.

[Cabal-kun]

To paraphrase what I said on the SCG board:

I don't know if it's me who's cranky today, but I didn't like the article too much. I found the Threshold list to be a little oldish looking.

I'm getting tired of articles with an analysis of shifts in the metagame when these shifts have already occurred months ago (to which many people have already found a theory explaining them).

I'd like it more if the Legacy articles on SCG where addressed to competitive Legacy players directly (like they do with Standard, etc.) - by competitive players I don't mean players with a 1900 rating, I mean players who playtest, play tournaments and keep up to date with tournament results, etc.. I don't think writing broad articles about Legacy brings a lot of new blood to the format anyhow.

I found the article much more enjoyable of a read than one posts a Tier 2 Extended port and claims it has a decent game against the field.

[Fred Bear]

I'm torn in my feelings about this article...

On one hand, I really liked it and it was a very on-the-level look at the state of the format. I think anyone who is getting into the format will gain a lot of insight by reading this article. I don't know if the information is necessarily 'new' to anyone who has been paying attention to the format as of late, but Chris did an excellent job of articulating and shedding reasonable light on what a lot of players are realizing which makes this an excellent 'building forward' resource. Great job, Chris!

But... on the other hand... I was left wanting more. Because much of this was 'known' information, I wanted to know what the next great thing will be (just like they have in Standard and Extended articles when Chapin/Flores/other releases a 'new' decklist). I wanted Chris' answer to the question - 'Where does Legacy deckbuilding go from here?' and I wanted a list or at least several 'solution' card suggestions. Suggesting deckbuilders 'design naively and test see which assumptions about Legacy still hold' felt like a cop out, especially when there are a lot of professional players currently testing the format for Worlds. I'm not saying I needed a netdeck like Standard, but I felt like this is what the article was building towards.

All-in-All, though, it was an outstanding article. Thanks for a great read!

Fred Bear...

[aTn]

I found the article much more enjoyable of a read than one posts a Tier 2 Extended port and claims it has a decent game against the field.

Me too, I totally agree with you. But I felt as if the Threshold part of the article (especially the list) was X years old and didn't take into account any of the changes brought by Gencon, etc.

Fred Bear's post sums up most of what I was trying to say but didn't manage to because I was jacked up on deadly expressos mixed with a good case of crankamotion.

[Machinus]

I put a lot of thought into this article and I am surprised to see such negative responses. I am having a hard time telling the difference between responses motivated by tournament ignorance, and those based on legitimate objections. It is difficult to take people seriously who say that the Threshold list is outdated, and want to point me to the Gencon lists. Apparently you don't realize that I have been working on the deck continuously since then, that I was at Gencon, and I spoke to Peter and Lam about their deck at length. I am aware of their design choices, and the fact that it won the tournament does not guarantee that it is the best version of the deck. Legacy is very different from Standard, and one cannot just copy the latest PT or Flores article and call it development.

I would love to provide you guys with the next step in the evolution of the format, but I don't see how anyone could think that's even possible. The best I can do is take a serious look at where Legacy is now and why, and predict how it might change in the future. I think the evolution away from Aggro and towards Control is going to make a very big difference in terms of design and tournament results, but it is impossible to predict how that is going to manifest itself in specific decklists. It seems like people want me to have the entire future of the format mapped out, which is impossible.

I am sensitive to people saying they want me to go farther in my discussions, but I am always getting asked to go in different directions. I can't go into more detail on every topic; I have to pick the most important things and discuss them. Last month I talked about my work on Threshold and Breakfast specifically, and my performances with those at Gencon. This month I thought I would give some perspective to the Gencon results and motivate future designs for the renewed interest in the format due to Worlds later this year.

I want to make you guys happy, but I know I can't do everything people ask for. Please, help me understand your requests by giving me some context about your Legacy experience and your perspective on reading about the format.

[TheAardvark]

I felt that it was pretty much your run-of-the-mill Legacy article. Part of that is due to half of the article discussing Thresh; I'm just so tired of reading about it. The people who play Legacy KNOW how good Thresh is, so having every other article (seemingly) revolve around it is frustrating, and it also might make players new to the scene believe that there is one overwhelmingly dominant deck in the format, which isn't true.

I guess I am just disappointed in the lack of innovation; not in the format itself, but in articles about it. Highlight decks other than Thresh, Goblins, and Landstill; discuss underutilized cards/strategies; build and TEST new decks against relevant competition, not via solitaire on MWS or hackneyed theory. Those are subjects worth exploring and unlocking.

I am not saying that I hate the writers, because I don't; with one exception, I feel that the writers are perfectly fine. I just dislike the subject matter more often than not.

But that's just me, I guess.

[Machinus]

For the record, it is important to note that "Legacy" doesn't mean what a lot of people want it to mean, e.g. a standardized, consistent distribution of innovation and archetype cycles. I try to write for the format that is shared among different metagames, but it is difficult to write about serious testing without a regular tournament schedule. The absence of the D4D circuit this year has been frustrating for me and the kind of articles I write.

I think there is a lot that Legacy tournaments in different places have in common, but I think people should be aware that one cannot just take everything for granted. The lack of consistent demonstrations of development means we cannot interpret tournament results the way you might in reading about another format.

[Bardo]

This was a fine article. Well done. I would say that I agree with about 85% of it, which is good enough for me.

I'm in particular agree with regards to the beneficial impact of Goblins on the format--forcing decks to innovate and focus or perish. That is, overall, a benefit if we want a legitimate tournament format (not strictly casual), which many of us would like to see. Everything else you said about Goblins I'm with you on, though the last paragraph about Lorwyn and its possible impact on the deck was lacking and could have been a lot more interesting. I can easily see black becoming a important part of the deck, for Cabal Therapy, Mad Auntie, maybe Boggard Birthright or Patriarch's Bidding. Boggart Shenanigans also seems like it may be nutty--especially in a Dirty Kitty, combo-Gobs shell. If Shenanigans is adoped, Pyroclasm is looking a lot less sexy. Otherwise, right on.

While the new cards will open up new avenues for design exploration, I can only wonder what kind of tribal hosers R&D is going to throw into the next four sets to keep things from getting out of control is something is degenerate.

Regarding Threshold, you hit most of the aspects of the deck's success, which is a fairly well-mined topic in the first place. But a large part of the deck's success is being able to play the game on two simulateneous strategic fronts: commiting vastly undercost beaters to the board while controlling the stack with Daze, FoW, Spell Snare and Counterbalance. Most decks have to pick a single strategy, just due to the limits of deck design. You can combo out (Belcher), play land and keep Counterspell mana open (MUC, Landstill), drop dudes and swing (Sligh and its ilk); but only a few decks allow you to do a couple of these things in the same turn. Goblins can do it (Vial + Port), as well as Thresh (Goyf + Daze). Basically, it's the hybrid nature of these decks that account for a large measure of their success.

About your sideboard plan for Goblins when playing Red Thresh--I would definitely keep the Bolt and Dragons. Removing the fliers leaves you with only 8 guys that can only win on the ground. Dragon's x/3 butt, even without threshold can be a savior, as can winning the game in a turn or two in the late game. I'd sooner drop SDT, which is slow, mana-intensive against a deck that is always messing with your mana, and often underwhelming in multiples or without Counterbalance to combo with. And obviously Counterbalance is quite awful vs. Goblins, due to the wide variance in casting costs (unlike Threshold which is lumped at 1 with some 2s).

The only thing that struck me as bullshit was Section V:


One very clear sign of this ist that Goblin Lackey is no longer a critical threat. It does not have to be answered on turn 1 and design can shift away from fast Aggro strategies

I feel that Goblins is a lot like Affinity in 2004 Extended. The hate would keep it at bay for just long enough that people felt comfortable not devoting any cards against it or even testing for it--and then the smart players would realize the shift and format vulnerability and clobber the unprepared with Ravagers and Disciples. This would precipitate another wave of anti-Affinity defenses, and so on. And then Disciple and Vial were banned and that deck is no longer that powerhouse it once was.

Goblins, I think, will have the same sort of pendulum effect. People will feel safe, get beat stupid by Lackey/Warchief/et al., the hate will rise, Goblins will retreat to their burrows, and so on.

Other than that, nicely done.

[Machinus]

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what is happening with Goblins. The change in the format is the result of several factors.

Goblins didn't just become a "bad" deck. It is the same deck it was before. But there are two main reasons why it's not the focus of design anymore.

The first is that there are a lot of Combo decks out there that Goblins can't stop, and there isn't much the deck can do about it without sacrificing it's main strengths. This is now a big risk for all Goblins players, and one that I don't think is worth taking.

The second is that every deck has a good plan for Goblins now. And these plans don't revolve around killing Goblin Lackey before it triggers. Decks have evolved beyond that simplistic solution, and incorporate stronger and more consistent responses to Goblins' plan. The decks themselves have become better, and most of the time they have the capacity to deal with Goblins even though they haven't committed themselves to killing a 1/1 on turn 1.

So of course design can focus on something other than Goblin Lackey. Most decks' plans for beating it are good, and some are very good, such as with Combo decks. This means that for almost any deck, it's matchup against Goblins is better than it has been in the past, and it's a much less likely deck to play against. This is precisely the scenario where design shifts to target the deck which is the more serious problem, in this case Combo and Aggro-Control.

I really detest your comparison to Affinity because this is not Extended, and the factors that cause the apparent similarity are completely different. Goblins was good in Legacy because people didn't develop good answers for it outside of pro tournaments for a very long time. Affinity was good in Extended because the particular phase of competitive metagaming was at the right point. These are absolutely different things and there is really no fundamental connection. There is no reason to suspect that Goblins (without new, better cards being printed) will be good in the future as decks have incorporated better strategies than they used before. Combo and Aggro-Control are not going away and they are permanently going to limit the success of Goblins.

[TheAardvark]

For the record, it is important to note that "Legacy" doesn't mean what a lot of people want it to mean, e.g. a standardized, consistent distribution of innovation and archetype cycles. I try to write for the format that is shared among different metagames, but it is difficult to write about serious testing without a regular tournament schedule. The absence of the D4D circuit this year has been frustrating for me and the kind of articles I write.

I think there is a lot that Legacy tournaments in different places have in common, but I think people should be aware that one cannot just take everything for granted. The lack of consistent demonstrations of development means we cannot interpret tournament results the way you might in reading about another format.

Not sure I buy this. There are a lot of places with local tournaments, which is pretty much the lifeblood of competitive players. There are large portions of the year where Standard and Extended are not "relevant" (lack of PTQ season/Regionals, etc.), but people still write about them for a variety of reasons. Hell, even Kyle Sanchez goes to FNM locally and writes about it. By "lack of consistent demonstrations of development" I am assuming you mean "lack of large-scale tournaments"; does that mean that the only development happens at such events? That seems ludicrous to me. Development and innovation is ALWAYS going on in Legacy, but it simply doesn't get discussed until X deck finishes in the T8 of a large tournament. On the one hand I understand that, as large tournaments are sometimes (often?) the best way of determining what is or isn't a good deck. However, that does a disservice to the development of decks by people in other regions because, aside from GPs, these evnts don't have much reach in a geographical sense. A large tournament held in New York is going to have a different meta than one held in San Diego, or Chicago, or whatever.

I understand that, by definition, Legacy does not have the number of players that Standard or even Extended does, but that does not mean that there aren't a lot of players out there who have their local tournaments weekly/monthly. I just think that completely ignoring tournament results under 50 people is an egregious error when discussing development of the format, because those small tournaments is where a lot of T8 decks begin their "journey", so to speak. I realize that this is what the N&DDF is for, but things are often dismissed out of hand by others there for whatever reason, and a lot of development/innovation is cut short/stopped due to that.

I am obviously in the minority when it comes to this line of thinking, so I guess I'll shut up now. I just hope that I made sense and was able to coherently make my point.

Oh, and as far as this goes:


Affinity was good in Extended because the particular phase of competitive metagaming was at the right point.

Affinity was good in Extended because Disciple + Ravager was too degenerate even WITH the proper answers. Just saying.

[Ewokslayer]

There are large portions of the year where Standard and Extended are not "relevant" (lack of PTQ season/Regionals, etc.), but people still write about them for a variety of reasons.

I have very rarely seen this occur.
There hasn't been a block article since the PTQ season ended. SCG writers stopped talking about that and have switched to Extended.
The next PT is Extended, so that isn't surprising.
After that there will be Standard articles for States.

Besides reviews of what did well and Tournament reports we won't hear about Extended after the PT for awhile.

[aTn]

I put a lot of thought into this article and I am surprised to see such negative responses. I am having a hard time telling the difference between responses motivated by tournament ignorance, and those based on legitimate objections.

I'm sorry if my response came as totally negative, as I said earlier, I don't like some of your card choices in your UGR-Threshold list and I was a bit disappointed that you devoted space to describing metagame shifts that were more than a month old and that were analysed a lot already.

I play about two or three 20+ players Legacy tournaments a month, playtest every two days and read all the tournament reports, articles, etc. I can get my hands on, so let's not go with the ignorance argument.

I appreciate the fact you worked hard, there's no doubt about it and I enjoyed your article as a whole, but I was a bit dissapointed by the direction you took and disagreed with card choices.


It is difficult to take people seriously who say that the Threshold list is outdated, and want to point me to the Gencon lists. Apparently you don't realize that I have been working on the deck continuously since then, that I was at Gencon, and I spoke to Peter and Lam about their deck at length. I am aware of their design choices, and the fact that it won the tournament does not guarantee that it is the best version of the deck. Legacy is very different from Standard, and one cannot just copy the latest PT or Flores article and call it development.

I agree with/understand/was aware of all of what you say here and frankly find most of the remarks a bit condescending/obvious.

Here are some honest questions that will make me understand your card choices:

1) Why do you play 3 MD Needles ? I find that number a bit high (for my meta anyways). What meta did you have in mind when you made this choice. Why do you side them out against Landstill (they seem to help you play the tempo role by stopping their Deeds; they also stop M.Factory, N.Monastery and EE).

2) What justifies going back to playing Fledgling Dragon and why play two ?

3) What justifies going back to 3 MD Counterspell instead of say Spell Snare or Counterbalance. Is the Counterspell choice partially justified by an anticipation of high numbers of Landstill. If so, isn't it a bit premature.

4) Why aren't there Stifles in the SB or MD ? I know storm-based combo wasn't present at Gencon, but many people (including me) play in metas where TES or Belcher are present.

5) Why don't you play a fourth Predict ? It seems natural since you run 4 Brainstorms, 4 Portents and 3 MD Tops.

6) Blood Moon in the SB: Until Landstill becomes dominant in my meta I wouldn't devote slots to Blood Moon, but you might have a good reason doing so. If so, what is it ?

7) I can live with the fact that you didn't play Fire/Ice in order to play a more controlish role instead of the tempo role (tapping/burning creatures to make sure yours connect and having more burn to go for the kill).

8) Siding-out Bolt and Dragon vs. Gobs seems like a bad idea as was pointed out already.

If you think my questions are ignorant/etc., tell me why and I'll be happy to listen.

Again, I liked your article overall and appreciate what you are doing for the community by taking the time to write.

[TheAardvark]

I have very rarely seen this occur.
There hasn't been a block article since the PTQ season ended. SCG writers stopped talking about that and have switched to Extended.
The next PT is Extended, so that isn't surprising.
After that there will be Standard articles for States.

Besides reviews of what did well and Tournament reports we won't hear about Extended after the PT for awhile.

Standard right now is useless to discuss pre-rotation, and there have been a couple of articles recently.

And you will hear about Extended from now until March, as the PT sets up the PTQ season starting in January.

[Machinus]

1) Why do you play 3 MD Needles ? I find that number a bit high (for my meta anyways). What meta did you have in mind when you made this choice. Why do you side them out against Landstill (they seem to help you play the tempo role by stopping their Deeds; they also stop M.Factory, N.Monastery and EE).

6) Blood Moon in the SB: Until Landstill becomes dominant in my meta I wouldn't devote slots to Blood Moon, but you might have a good reason doing so. If so, what is it ?

Needle is necessary to have answers to stuff you can't counter, like turn 1 Vial, Belcher, etc. Game one in Legacy is also about the most random game ever, and you need to be able to stop a ton of different cards.

Blood Moon is about a million times better than Pithing Needle, so obviously they are exchanged.


2) What justifies going back to playing Fledgling Dragon and why play two ?

3) What justifies going back to 3 MD Counterspell instead of say Spell Snare or Counterbalance. Is the Counterspell choice partially justified by an anticipation of high numbers of Landstill. If so, isn't it a bit premature.

I don't know what you mean "back." If they left the deck I was not aware of it.


4) Why aren't there Stifles in the SB or MD ? I know storm-based combo wasn't present at Gencon, but many people (including me) play in metas where TES and Belcher are present.

You don't need Stifle to beat combo.


5) Why don't you play a fourth Predict ? It seems natural since you run 4 Braistorms, 4 Portents and 3 MD Tops.

I'd like to have Predict #4, but not as much as I want to not cut any of the other cards in the deck. It's one of the cards on the short list, however.


8) Siding-out Bolt and Dragon vs. Gobs seems like a bad idea as was pointed out already.

Okay, you want to keep all the cards in the deck. What are you going to take out instead of the dragons?

[Finn]

I just think that completely ignoring tournament results under 50 people is an egregious error when discussing development of the format, because those small tournaments is where a lot of T8 decks begin their "journey", so to speak.On this point, PR decided not to include one of the 50-plus tournaments this past month anyway. Can't say why. The system still seems flawed anyway. Certain areas have a bustling scene, but will always remain under the 50-person mark, and we don't get an accurate picture since those metas are never represented.

Chris, I still say it was fine work, but you are crazy if you think Stifle isn't key to beating combo. It is probably the single best anti-combo card out there.

[Machinus]

Of course Stifle is good against Combo. Where did I say it wasn't?

What I said was Threshold doesn't need Stifle to beat combo. You can already do it very well and you are better off using SB space for harder matchups.

[Bardo]

Chris, I still say it was fine work, but you are crazy if you think Stifle isn't key to beating combo. It is probably the single best anti-combo card out there.

He said it wasn't "necessary," which I agree with. Enough counters and a quick clock is usually enough.

Edit - 'Beat me to it. :)

[Zach Tartell]

The first deck I played competitively was a UGrb thresh, and, I must say, I found having like ten or twelve burn spells was pretty pimp. Why is it that everyone is only running four bolts anymore? Fire/Ice should be huge, you'd think. 1 to the goyf that blocked my goyf, one to your face. Not to mention that Ice taps down sutured ghoul if everything else fails. And magma Jet has savage synergy with predict (and dark confidant, for that matter).

Just seems to me that those were the good old days. Before freaking Counterbalance. What's up with that? I guess I just socratically diffused my own argument, but do you guys miss the way it used to be? Shit, UGr thresh used to be able to beat like... wombat (read: any sort of conrtol) just by pointing burn at their head. What happened?

[APriestOfGix]

I put a lot of thought into this article and I am surprised to see such negative responses. I am having a hard time telling the difference between responses motivated by tournament ignorance, and those based on legitimate objections. It is difficult to take people seriously who say that the Threshold list is outdated, and want to point me to the Gencon lists. Apparently you don't realize that I have been working on the deck continuously since then, that I was at Gencon, and I spoke to Peter and Lam about their deck at length. I am aware of their design choices, and the fact that it won the tournament does not guarantee that it is the best version of the deck. Legacy is very different from Standard, and one cannot just copy the latest PT or Flores article and call it development.

I would love to provide you guys with the next step in the evolution of the format, but I don't see how anyone could think that's even possible. The best I can do is take a serious look at where Legacy is now and why, and predict how it might change in the future. I think the evolution away from Aggro and towards Control is going to make a very big difference in terms of design and tournament results, but it is impossible to predict how that is going to manifest itself in specific decklists. It seems like people want me to have the entire future of the format mapped out, which is impossible.

I am sensitive to people saying they want me to go farther in my discussions, but I am always getting asked to go in different directions. I can't go into more detail on every topic; I have to pick the most important things and discuss them. Last month I talked about my work on Threshold and Breakfast specifically, and my performances with those at Gencon. This month I thought I would give some perspective to the Gencon results and motivate future designs for the renewed interest in the format due to Worlds later this year.

I want to make you guys happy, but I know I can't do everything people ask for. Please, help me understand your requests by giving me some context about your Legacy experience and your perspective on reading about the format.

I want to see an artical that goes in depth about one aspect of Legacy. This did an amazing job of showing how Legacy has evolved.

Everyone, you must understand that if somebody is going to write in depth, they must focus on one topic, unless you want a 100 page artical, and then you'll complain about the legenth.

It might be nice to see what you think about the diffrent arch-types. Like a mini-series. Comb, what decks are viable in the metagame and why? How does it do against the other arch-types, is it arch-type even playable. Then next wee you do Aggro, Control, Aggro-Control, Combo-Control (Breakfast), etc.

It might be nice to hear what other people have to say about the shifts in the format.

[JACO]

I'm always excited to see new Legacy content/articles, but this was lacking for a number of reasons.

1) Towards the beginning of the article, you talk about the decline of Goblins, which is true, yet fail to pinpoint the real reason(s) why. Any good player back in 2005 also had an answer to a potential first turn Lackey. That hasn't changed. The printing of Tarmogoyf has pushed Goblins out, and essentially made Threshold the aggro-control deck of choice among serious Legacy players, taking the mantle from Goblins. Instead of an aggro approach backed by mana denial, the aggro approach is now backed by library manipulation and counterspells.

2) As has already been mentioned by others here, the UGR Thresh list leaves quite a bit to be desired. Why not main deck the Counterbalances (or at least 3 of them)? They're good against pretty much everything except Goblins. Also, you play 2 basic lands in your deck, and hope to capitalize on Blood Moon. Yeah. When people talk about development, they should be talking about moving forward with a decklist. What do you think is going to be in 65% of the decks you face in tournaments currently? Tarmogoyf and counterspells.

3) You present a Landstill list, and seemingly offer it up as your own creation, citing no work or how it came to be. My teammates and I don't need credit for anything, but I'm not sure how you could see yourself as a legitimate writer and not recognize and cite other people's work, or the performance the deck has put up in tournaments the past couple of years as a way to present it to the audience. Your list is BHWW's 4C Landstill list, with 2 changes that I recommended, which I wrote about here (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=158304&postcount=5) in URABAHN's GenCon report, and in which you posted in:
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6841

I wrote this at the time:
Explosives is a good choice for the 'utility' (aka Disenchant slot)...This list is very close to ours, but I'll give you a hint and tell you how fantastic Spell Snare is in this deck.

From your shiny new article:

The more flexible maindeck slots are Spell Snare and Engineered Explosives.

Way to NOT credit where you get ideas from, or even the entire deck or its origins, or people's recent performance with the deck, which is how you probably got exposure to it in the first place.

4) In the aforementioned Landstill part of the article, you wrote
With help from Stifle to protect dual lands, this is an effective strategy against different amounts of land disruption."
...
Landstill needs to begin the game by stopping any early threatening cards from the opponent, either through counters, removal, or attempting to stunt mana development through the use of Stifle.Both of these points might be true if the list actually contained Stifle. I have a feeling that's not your fault though, as the decklist appears to be only 57 cards. I'm guessing the 3 unlisted cards would be Stifle. ; )

5) Finally, Goblin Lackey is still a critical threat. If it wasn't, why would you even talk about sideboarding vs. Goblins, and include 4 Pyroclasm in your UGR Threshold sideboard, and 4 Engineered Plague in your BHWW 4C Landstill sideboard? Why would every deck list that you and everybody else presents contain answers for a first turn Lackey and for Goblins as a whole? The answer is because Lackey is still a critical threat, and Goblins will still kick your ass if you're not prepared for it.

[aTn]

As you can see, I have a lot of free time today (sick and not working), so I'll try to answer some of Machinus' comments:


Needle is necessary to have answers to stuff you can't counter, like turn 1 Vial, Belcher, etc. Game one in Legacy is also about the most random game ever, and you need to be able to stop a ton of different cards.

Yes, this is all obvious. My question was concerning the Number of Needles. Why 3 ? Two seems enough.


Blood Moon is about a million times better than Pithing Needle, so obviously they are exchanged.

Yes against Landstill, but Blood Moon is less versatile in general.


(About F. Dragon) I don't know what you mean "back." If they left the deck I was not aware of it.


They were on the decline from top8s of major events since GP Columbus (see P. Nicolo's list). All Gencon top8 Threshold lists did not run F. Dragon.


You don't need Stifle to beat combo.
Cret Belchered much ? Against a deck who combos out turn1-2, it seems like you need to have answers in your opening hand. Having Needle, Pyroclasm AND Stifle (and FOW to counter the mana generating spell that get them to 4 mana or to counter Belcher) makes it more likely you'll have an answer in hand to ETW (which will probably be their favored kill if they know what you play) without having to mulligan to 2. If you can manage that matchup without Stifle fine, I like the extra security.


Id like to have Predict #4, but not as much as I want to not cut any of the other cards in the deck. It's one of the cards on the short list, however.

I can't argue with that since it's your list and you can play it like you want to suit your play style. (EDIT: Wow, ugliest sentence ever written.)


(About not siding out Bolt and Dragon vs. Goblins) Okay, you want to keep all the cards in the deck. What are you going to take out instead of the dragons?

As was suggested by Liek (P. Nicolo, GP Columbus 6th with UGR-Threshold) on the SCG forum, you can take out cantrips.

I agree (like a lot of people I guess) with -3 Counterspell. Then you can take out three cards between Portent, Top and Predict. Personally, I'd go with -2 Top and -1 Portent or -3 Top if I'm feeling lucky.

[Finn]

Of course Stifle is good against Combo. Where did I say it wasn't?

What I said was Threshold doesn't need Stifle to beat combo. You can already do it very well and you are better off using SB space for harder matchups.This is true. It doesn't need yet another combo hoser, but what I have not been able to understand is why the Meddling Mages are in since Stifle is the better combo hoser. I say that it goes in that spot. Am I missing something? Is it a breakfast thing?

[Cait_Sith]

Shit, UGr thresh used to be able to beat like... wombat (read: any sort of conrtol) just by pointing burn at their head. What happened?

Burn sucks against Combo is what happened. For those you need Cantrips, Counterspells, and Stifle. With the format currently saturated in Combo (it seems to be getting better though) running heavy burn is suicide.

[Fred Bear]

The arguments over this card and that card in these decklists don't seem to be very worthwhile in the abstract. If you identify a better card for a decklist because it works in your area of the country or world, by all means change it. But be cognizant of why the change works and don't annoint it as the be-all and end-all of the deck.

Chris makes a good point in an earlier post... Legacy is not a cookbook format (and, honestly, thank god for it!). What works in one meta may be crap in another or vice versa. There will probably never be one decklist (for any deck/archetype) to rule them all simply because the format has a lot of cards available and thus has a lot of 'solutions'. We (as a collective) could try and analyze every 8-man legacy tournament across the country, but I think on some level you have to draw the line and rule out budget zombies as a significant tournament threat (at least for 'general' discussion) and even recognize that basic land threshold is sub-optimal even though they probably place very well locally in certain situations. That isn't to say that there are probably some very good 8-man formats out there. But, again, if you want to know which deck is the best looking at longer tournaments minimizes randomness (i.e. mana screw/flood, excessive mulligans, etc.)

These guys write articles that are applicable across the board. I think Legacy, moreso than any other format, has more 'meta' slots in any maindeck simply because the format varies so much meta-to-meta. Everybody has pet cards because they win versus the decks they see. But when it comes to preparing for Worlds, you are going to see 'top' decks and decks that compete against those decks. Articles prepping the community for that meta will hopefully be what we see for the next couple of months...

Fred Bear...

[aTn]

The arguments over this card and that card in these decklists don't seem to be very worthwhile in the abstract. If you identify a better card for a decklist because it works in your area of the country or world, by all means change it. But be cognizant of why the change works and don't annoint it as the be-all and end-all of the deck.

I don't think anyone meant their suggestions to be "the be-all and end-all of the deck" (all the arguments I saw were done in the context of match-ups and a given meta). Frankly, I can't imagine any serious player making a statement like "this must be played, period" or "this is the way to do things and there is no other way".


Chris makes a good point in an earlier post... Legacy is not a cookbook format (and, honestly, thank god for it!). What works in one meta may be crap in another or vice versa.

I think nobody here disagrees with that, it's quite obvious that card and deck choices are not absolute, but should be done in reference to given metas. I think we all find these kind of general statements about the format obvious and personally I take them almost as insults. Nothing in this world is cookbook, not even cooking.



There will probably never be one decklist (for any deck/archetype) to rule them all simply because the format has a lot of cards available and thus has a lot of 'solutions'. We (as a collective) could try and analyze every 8-man legacy tournament across the country, but I think on some level you have to draw the line and rule out budget zombies as a significant tournament threat (at least for 'general' discussion) and even recognize that basic land threshold is sub-optimal even though they probably place very well locally in certain situations

I agree totally here. As a collective, we could make our thought process about card choices open to others so we can find the single best deck that will win forever (I'm kidding of course ;)).


These guys write articles that are applicable across the board. I think Legacy, moreso than any other format, has more 'meta' slots in any maindeck simply because the format varies so much meta-to-meta. Everybody has pet cards because they win versus the decks they see. But when it comes to preparing for Worlds, you are going to see 'top' decks and decks that compete against those decks. Articles prepping the community for that meta will hopefully be what we see for the next couple of months...

In my opinion, this article does not present a UGR-Thresold decklist that is applicable across the board, that's the source of most of the questions here - for example, 2 Blood Moons in the SB is fishy, 3 Needles MD seems to me like overkill, etc.

I think discussions over card choices are really important. For example, my questions were aimed to see what choices Chris made were metagame choices and which were not. If Chris plays three Needles (instead of the "traditional" 0-2) MD because he has a new strategy (and not because of a single match-up), then I think it helps to know what motivated his choice. I think questions concerning card choices are what help us understand what metagame slots are available and what can be changed in prevision of such and such. I'd say this is very relevant to Worlds (and I asked these questions because I plan on attending Worlds and want to understand Chris' and anybody else's choices to help mine). Anyhow, I have a tournament to attend to...

[Shugyosha]

We should not forget about the Gencon Legacy Prelims when judging the Threshold deck in the article. Look at the Hatfield lists that made Top8.

http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10322

Besides the lands my list is practically the same (+1 Cspell -1 SDT) so I like it and the article as well.

Bloodmoon against Landstill is quite interesting. Thanks for that idea.

[Machinus]

3) You present a Landstill list, and seemingly offer it up as your own creation

I never claimed to have designed the deck. I can see why you might want to be offended, but don't start making assumptions about the article that you can't substantiate.

I didn't read your explanation of the deck, or your posts, or anything else you wrote. I looked at tournament results. I couldn't find a strong enough recent performance with the deck so I had to present a general list. I don't ask people where the design came from and I don't usually talk about that in my articles. Join the large club of people who did design work and didn't get personally thanked for it when their deck became relevant to a format.

Once the deck reaches a certain amount of success, it doesn't belong to you anymore. That's how competitive metagaming works. I am happy to support your claim or anyone else's for the development of the deck, but I don't do development credits in my articles and that's just how it is.



2)When people talk about development, they should be talking about moving forward with a decklist.

Feel free to play whatever Threshold deck you think is best. The deck I presented has an extremely strong record and I am confident in recommending it. If you are looking for untested ideas, go peruse the rest of this forum.



1)The printing of Tarmogoyf has pushed Goblins out

This is incorrect and I gave several reasons why in the article.

[Bane of the Living]

"Tarmogoyf (http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardsearch.php?singlesearch=Tarmogoyf) has replaced Werebear (http://sales.starcitygames.com/cardsearch.php?singlesearch=Werebear) in most builds of Threshold, due to its resistance to removal. However, it is not necessarily true that this change makes Threshold better in the format."

What? Define necessarily.

I like where you mention 400$ Solution without really mentioning it per say. I think now would be a great time for the deck to come back from the dead. Id love to see you put your efforts into Stacks development again.

Oblivion Ring looks like a very solid addition to the deck.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Good article. Nice snapshot of the format.

Edit: By the by, what the fuck is up with the jungle at SCG? Do they even have moderators anymore, or do they just not care that their forums are infested with ass holes and trolls?


"Tarmogoyf has replaced Werebear in most builds of Threshold, due to its resistance to removal. However, it is not necessarily true that this change makes Threshold better in the format."

What? Define necessarily.


I had the same reaction, but then I read the follow-up logic and it made sense. Goyf is so flexible it raises the standard, not just one deck.

[Whit3 Ghost]

Good article. Nice snapshot of the format.

Edit: By the by, what the fuck is up with the jungle at SCG? Do they even have moderators anymore, or do they just not care that their forums are infested with ass holes and trolls?

Goddamn, you're 100% right on that one.

[aTn]

Edit: By the by, what the fuck is up with the jungle at SCG? Do they even have moderators anymore, or do they just not care that their forums are infested with ass holes and trolls?

Goddamn, you're 100% right on that one.

Yep, I agree on that one. Saying you don't agree is one thing, but being an ass about it without giving explanations sucks.

Machinus, I reread your article and like it even more. I still disagree on some card choices but overall it's great. Hope to see you at worlds (if my girlfriend doesn't chain me to my desk to prevent me from attending).

EDIT: Sorry if I came on like a dick on that one, I guess I should have slept on it.

[moxpearl]

I will echo others comments to ignore the negativity on the SCG boards.

Speaking as a player who only has time to focus on one format (Vintage) but has always kept an interested ear to Legacy, I appreciated your article in keeping me up to date with what's going on with the metagame. I can't even speak to the intricate nuances of certain card switches, but I can say I appreciated a general explanation of why goblins has declined, threshold is everywhere and difficult to hate, and how a deck like landstill can now shine. If someone wants to argue card choices of a deck archetype, they can do that in the Decks-to-Beat boards, but for a SCG article that has a much broader audience (and trying to get new players interested in the format), your article does a fine job.

[JACO]

I never claimed to have designed the deck.Actually, by presenting the deck and ignoring the work of others done before you, that's about as close to passing it off as your own creation as you can get. When journalists do that it's referred to as plagiarism.
I didn't read your explanation of the deck, or your posts, or anything else you wrote. I looked at tournament results. I couldn't find a strong enough recent performance with the deck so I had to present a general list.First of all, if you couldn't find a strong enough recent performance with the deck, then how would you have posted in URABAHN's thread where I specifically wrote that, and where he placed 12th with the deck at Legacy Worlds, and Marty T8'd with the deck. Is top 8 and top 12 at Legacy Worlds not a "strong enough recent performance with the deck" for you to cite where you got a list from? How would you have gotten a deck that's nearly card for card the same? You just contradicted your own statement. Just doing a quick search here (http://www.germagic.de/dc/list.php?type=Landstill&format=Legacy) (http://www.germagic.de/dc/list.php?type=Landstill&format=Legacy) will yield quite a few recent top 8 finishes of 4C Landstill.
- 4th @ Bazaar Liga Legacy September 2007 (76 people) (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10823)
- 7th @ Legacy Tunier Speyer (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10810)
- 12th @ Legacy Worlds 2007(17x people?) (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10704) - URABAHN's report (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6841)
- 1st @ Trader Liga Legacy September 2007 (78 people) (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10695)
- 1st @ Germany Legacy Open 2007 (175 people) (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10647)
- 2nd @ Legacy Trial 08/27 (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10561)
- 3rd @ Legacy Turnier Berlin (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10391)
- 7th @ Legacy Worlds 2007 (17x people?) (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10335)
- 4th @ Iserlohn Legacy July 2007 (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=10100)
- 3rd @ Legacy Berlin 07/21/07 (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=9738)
- 2nd @ Legacy Berlin 07/21/07 (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=9737)
- 1st @ Legacy Trial 06/20/07 (http://www.germagic.de/dc/deck.php?id=9303)

All those are from within the past 3 months. We'll ignore all the other finishes from over the past two and a half years. But you're probably right. It's difficult to find results that are relevant (when they're all around you). You don't have to credit me or Nick with the deck's creation, but you could at least just cite where you get decks from, or the success they've been putting up across the globe maybe. You know, for the sake of completeness, or being professional.



1) Towards the beginning of the article, you talk about the decline of Goblins, which is true, yet fail to pinpoint the real reason(s) why. Any good player back in 2005 also had an answer to a potential first turn Lackey. That hasn't changed. The printing of Tarmogoyf has pushed Goblins out, and essentially made Threshold the aggro-control deck of choice among serious Legacy players, taking the mantle from Goblins. Instead of an aggro approach backed by mana denial, the aggro approach is now backed by library manipulation and counterspells.
This is incorrect and I gave several reasons why in the article.How is that at all incorrect? You provide no real reasons why, other than alluding to the fact that people are playing Threshold with Pyroclasm, which they were doing before Lille. No shit. Tarmogoyf is the card du jour, and will continue to be for quite a while, and recent tournament results tell us that the deck that exploits it best at the moment is Threshold.


One common misconception about Threshold is that it is successful due to the printing of new cards, in particular Tarmogoyf. The new cards do change the deck, but they are not responsible for the deck becoming stronger in the format.You are wrong about this as well. Insulting comment deleted. - Zilla After a few months of people getting their asses whipped by Empty the Warrens, the figured out that Engineered Explosives was all they needed. It wasn't like Threshold was the answer to ETW combo. Actually Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance are the two top reasons why the deck has become stronger in the format. The difficulty in removing Tarmogoyf (outside of Swords), and the extremely short clock that it puts opponent on for a measly 2 mana are the number one reason for the deck's success. Werebear is good, but it's not nearly as good, big, or punishing as quickly as Tarmogoyf, which is what is pushing Threshold towards the top now.

[Machinus]

Actually, by presenting the deck and ignoring the work of others done before you, that's about as close to passing it off as your own creation as you can get. When journalists do that it's referred to as plagiarism.

No, actually, it's not. Posting a deck in an article doesn't mean that the author designed it. It means it's relevant to the format, and competitive players are interested in this kind of information.

My articles are about format analysis. I'm not interested in explaining who designed what, and it's not my problem if someone feels uncredited. The relevant information is the cards in a deck and how they work. I don't want credit for someone else's design, and the tournament players who read my articles don't care.

[Bane of the Living]

Yea the whole crediting deck designers thing is just worthless in magic. Who knows who started playing with these decks. Hell Ben from my team claims to have invented thresh back during extended years ago. You cant claim ownership over a pile of cards aside from having piloting it to a good standing.

[goobafish]

I thought the article was good for players who want to catch up to the format, and give some information as to the direction the format has been heading recently. The sections about goblin's decline, the rise of control are great information for players who need a quick catch up, let's say just before an event or just for information.

I also agree with some of the comments regarding Gencon. It seems as through you have discounted the new threshold lists that have appeared in the Gencon Prelims, Gencon Champs, German Champs, the last 3 large tournaments. I really don't see how you can recommends a list like the one you proposed when, for half of the article, you talked about how threshold is advancing, so you recommend a list that does not really seem to have the advantage in the mirror. You run pithing needles, when the only decent target for them against thresh (if they run CB/Top) is Top, which shuts off your own tops. Also for a format that is quite artifact light, it is weird that you are recommending 2 ancient grudges on top of the 3 grips. Fledgling Dragon seems unnecessary. Also it seems as through the only answer to a goyf standoff are bolts, which are not too versatile, is the strategy in the mirror to stall the ground and eventually drop a Dragon? That would seem like a poor plan in the mirror, especially against snare builds who can snare an early goyf, or break a goyf stall with various burn spells. There is a good chance that if you attempt that plan you will be at too low of a life total to get lethal with the dragon.

What do you see as the future of thresh? I am curious as to why you would recommend this list unless you thought it was the best list.

[Machinus]

As I said before, that Threshold deck has a very strong performance record and it is easy to recommend based on that. I think it is as good as the two-color lists.

There are several threads on this site where people are already talking about the best way to build threshold and why. I would just be repeating those discussions here.

[URABAHN]

I loved the article! It was engaging, informative, and I found myself devouring every word. Best Unlocking Legacy article I've read since Mr. Nightmare's and 100% better than your Legacy on a Budget nonsense. In defense of Chris, he did attend GenCon with Hatfield x 2, and I. In doing so, he was exposed to lots of opinions on Thresh and BHWC Landstill. I'm sure part of "Building a New Legacy" is drawn from discussions he had with Team Supreme and Team Unicorn.

[Deep6er]

Yea the whole crediting deck designers thing is just worthless in magic. Who knows who started playing with these decks. Hell Ben from my team claims to have invented thresh back during extended years ago. You cant claim ownership over a pile of cards aside from having piloting it to a good standing.

I'm not totally in line with this school of thought. I would have to say that people can still be credited but it's, by necessity, something that's picked up by the majority. As an excellent example, me and Solidarity. I claimed credit, and then was credited later by the majority. So, it's actually an issue of somehow aligning your name to be synonymous with the deck. If you accomplish that JACO, then there should be no worries. Just my interpretation of this whole subject.

[Volt]

Superb article. Maybe the best one from you yet, Chris. Well done.

[Zilla]

Fledgling Dragon seems unnecessary. Also it seems as through the only answer to a goyf standoff are bolts
Has it occurred to you that these two statements might be related somehow?

[Machinus]

I loved the article! It was engaging, informative, and I found myself devouring every word. Best Unlocking Legacy article I've read since Mr. Nightmare's and 100% better than your Legacy on a Budget nonsense. In defense of Chris, he did attend GenCon with Hatfield x 2, and I. In doing so, he was exposed to lots of opinions on Thresh and BHWC Landstill. I'm sure part of "Building a New Legacy" is drawn from discussions he had with Team Supreme and Team Unicorn.

Thanks for the kind words.

As for the Budget series, I told you already that they were a specific request. Anytime there is an opening for more Legacy content I am going to take it.

Besides, they were all in addition to my regular monthly column.

[goobafish]

Has it occurred to you that these two statements might be related somehow?

Not really. I just don't see why dragon is better than playing utility cards like fire//ice, which fix the goyf standoff problem, and provide other varying functions.

Edit: Not to mention costing double red and only having 4 red sources in the deck. This means that if the opposing deck runs wastes and or stifles, it will be pretty hard to hit.

[Zilla]

Edit: Not to mention costing double red and only having 4 red sources in the deck. This means that if the opposing deck runs wastes and or stifles, it will be pretty hard to hit.
This simply isn't accurate. Having played a build running 2x Dragon with 4 red sources (and 8 Fetches) for a couple years, I feel confident in saying that the deck has no significant problems attaining RR in the mid-late game, even against decks with Wasteland and Stifle. (I do run a basic Mountain, however.) Incidentally, I agree that cutting F/I is a questionable move for the reasons you suggested, although in the end that's going to be a metagame call more than anything. I'm simply pointing out that Machinus' list has more than just 4 Bolts to end a Tarmogoyf standoff. Fledgling Dragon is strong specifically because it decisively ends stalemates on the ground - not just in the mirror but also against Goblins and other aggressive decks.

[goobafish]

This simply isn't accurate. Having played a build running 2x Dragon with 4 red sources (and 8 Fetches) for a couple years, I feel confident in saying that the deck has no significant problems attaining RR in the mid-late game, even against decks with Wasteland and Stifle. (I do run a basic Mountain, however.) Incidentally, I agree that cutting F/I is a questionable move for the reasons you suggested, although in the end that's going to be a metagame call more than anything. I'm simply pointing out that Machinus' list has more than just 4 Bolts to end a Tarmogoyf standoff. Fledgling Dragon is strong specifically because it decisively ends stalemates on the ground - not just in the mirror but also against Goblins and other aggressive decks.

If you run a basic mountain then the odds of being able to play him are significantly higher because you can't waste it, that is like having 25% more hard red sources, plus it doesn't get destroyed. We are discussing the list in the article. It is hard to get 2 red sources to stick when playing against a deck with a full set of both wastes and stifles when all of your red sources are wasteable. I don't see why it isn't more effective to save your slots and pack cards that prevent the stalemate from occurring, like Spell Snare, Burn and the land destruction which can keep opponents off specific colors.

[aTn]

I guess we're going towards the Dragon, Counterspell, Stifle, Spell Snare and Wasteland discussions which started when two clearly different UGR-Threshold builds appeared, the tempo build (Liek@ GP Columbus, Goobafish and others @ Gencon) and the controlish build (i.e. the Hatfields').

I agree with Goobafish on the problem with Dragon + the manabase and the Needle discussion.

In Chris' list, taking out the Needles and Dragons will make space for the 4th Predict and for up to 4 x Counterbalance/Spell Snare, which (to me) would make more sense if you expect a Threshold infested meta. From a personal preference, I'd also take out the Counterspells to make space for Fire/Ice. If I really wanted a hard counter like Counterspell (which I probably wouldn't but that's just me) for match-ups like Landstill, I'd put it in my SB (since from my point of view it's very unlikely Landstill will be more present than ******** at Worlds, but hey, I might be surprised).

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't play Blood Moon in my SB unless I expect a hell of a lot of Landstill (or 43-Lands, etc.). In that scenario, I'd go with Needle for that SB slot (way more versatile and it does the job against Landstill).

[dicemanx]

Is it possible that we're overestimating the power of Fire/Ice or Lightning Bolt in ending Tarmogoyf stand-offs (in Threshhold mirrors)? If a Nimble Mongoose is in play on the opposing side, attacking into another Tarmagoyf will put you on a losing 2 for 1 play if your goal is to kill it.

The more interesting question is what to do post-SB - Nimble Mongoose is a card you want to SB out in the mirror from what I've been told and what I've experienced first hand, and yet it would precisely increase the strength of F/I and Bolt in ending Tarmogoyf stand-offs.

[Zilla]

Is it possible that we're overestimating the power of Fire/Ice or Lightning Bolt in ending Tarmogoyf stand-offs (in Threshhold mirrors)? If a Nimble Mongoose is in play on the opposing side, attacking into another Tarmagoyf will put you on a losing 2 for 1 play if your goal is to kill it.
Mongoose just continues the standoff. It's rare that an opponent is going to attack into a Goyf and Goose. Even if he has two Goyfs, it's a bad proposition, because you're going to trade a Goose for a Goyf and each end up with one. He'll have forced through some damage, but unless he has a way to capitalize on it immediately, it was probably a bad trade.

[dicemanx]

Mongoose just continues the standoff. It's rare that an opponent is going to attack into a Goyf and Goose. Even if he has two Goyfs, it's a bad proposition, because you're going to trade a Goose for a Goyf and each end up with one. He'll have forced through some damage, but unless he has a way to capitalize on it immediately, it was probably a bad trade.

Right - in other words, Lighting Bolt and Fire/Ice might likely not factor in heavily in terms of resolving Tarmogoyf stand-offs in Threshhold mirrors. This is where the UG version comes in - it eschews the direct damage suite, and utilizes cards more relevant in the match-up. As Machinus indicated however, this isn't necessarily the "ideal" version of Threshhold if something like that can even be generalized - it was designed to do certain things very well in certain metas, and was able to come through on at least one occasion (Gencon).

I suspect that some players might use F/I and/or Lightning Bolt as "crutches" - theoretically they are strong and relevant against certain archetypes (Goblins for instance), but whether they are necessary to generate strong results against certain aggressive archetypes is another matter. I suspect we'll see more data in the coming months from those that care to try UG.

[Citrus-God]

I always saw Fire // Ice as a crutch, but I never saw Lightning Bolt as one. Being able to play mind games with the opponent when swinging with Goyf gives other Burn cards much more value as the game goes on, even if you only run 4 Lightning Bolts in the deck.

Although, I want to respond to this statement Paul Nicolo made over at the SCG forums.


I disagree with your sideboarding vs Goblins. You're taking out Lightning Bolt and Fledging Dragon, two cards that do something to the board. Sensei's Top, Predict, and Portent don't do anything to the board. Just take out whatever the worst cantrip effect is and leave in all of your action cards.


Generically, we dont care about Fledgling Dragon or Lightning Bolts that are being sided out. We use cantrips and such to find the Pyroclasms, and stabelize. Running more cantrips also allow us to dodge LD and find more Volcanic Islands and keep Pyroclasm going meanwhile, your guys apply pressure.

[/End Response]


But I do disagree with siding out 3 Counterspells however. I think only 1 Copy should be sided out. Counterspells are there for your midgame incase you havent gone the distance after the 1st-2nd Pyroclasm. I think you should've sided like this, because all you really need in the Maindeck are 13 cantrips when up against Goblins.

-1 Predict
-1 SDT
-1 Counterspell
-1 Lightning Bolt/Pithing Needle/Daze
-2 Fledgling Dragon


But I love the article so far. If I ever needed to read a Threshold article, I'd go for this, the archived goodness of Threshold by Bardo, and the old Primer written by Jesse Hatfield.

And presenting the idea of Blood Moon as an SB option intrigued me. Right now, I might

-1 Tropical Island
+1 Island

Just to make Blood Moon more effective against other decks, besides Landstill, such as 43 Land.