[Article] UGr Canadian/Tempo Threshold Primer by David Caplan

[emidln]

This thread is to discuss David Caplan's primer on Threshold available here http://magiceternal.com/legacy/Legacythresh.html



Threshold is what most people believe to be the best deck in the format, yet there is no universally accepted list. By writing this primer, I want to make the argument that this Threshold list, whatever you want to call it, is likely one of the best Threshold lists to play in the current metagame and I hope to answer the questions which I am constantly asked when people see this list.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I seldom reply on these article threads because I seldom feel that there's much more worth contributing, but I just want to congratulate Mr. Caplan on a very strong and well-written primer. I was impressed.

I've only recently started encountering Thrash (or whatever--but I like "Thrash") in my own testing, and I was quite surprised at first (actually, in my first game I was somehow--how exactly beats me--beaten to death with just a Trygon Predator. No other creatures. What are the odds? :tongue: ). It's great to find such a great (redundant, I know) source of information on the deck.

[Whit3 Ghost]

Great deck and great article, Dave! I firmly believe that this deck is one of, if not the premier deck in the format right now. And thanks for the mention :wink:.

-Will.

[Eldariel]

It was a good read, I thoroughly enjoyed it and it kind of confirmed what I had always suspected about this type of Threshold (that it does not roll over versus Landstill et al. and can definitely hold its own in the mirror).

One thing I found odd were the explanations given for Lands and Ichorid not Top 8ing: "they aren't played in relevant numbers" is probably a better explanation than "they have flaws, which make them unlikely to Top 8"; there still isn't too much combo around looking at the metas of the last tournament, so Lands shouldn't be really any more affected by the bad combo match-up than Threshold is affected by the bad Ichorid match-up, and Ichorid has been Top 8ing a lot in Extended and often enough in Legacy to be a DTW here, so I don't think it can really be written off any gauntlets at the present.

I also don't think Goblins can be considered a 'random deck'. But that's all semantics, it doesn't detract from the contents of the article, just the specific points raised here.

[Nihil Credo]

Mostly a solid article.

One issue: it gives a list of options and recommendations to build your own meta-tuned SB, which is fine. However, it also includes a 12-card (!) SB with the decklist, and when discussing matchups it gives exact bring-in/take-out instructions as if the SB were fixed. These problems need to be addressed.

Another one: it claims that the 4C Landstill MU is even, while the U/W one is slightly favourable. I can't find a justification for this: U/W has a better manabase against Stifle/Waste, runs a sweeper (Wrath) that isn't vulnerable to Grip, Needle or Predator (or bounce), and many builds can even access Pulse of the Fields to get out of burn range. It seems to me that it has every advantage.

[Brehn]

Ichorid is a very shaky deck in any format that it is played, it rarely sees top 8 action and almost never wins.

WHAT?

Maybe it doesn't fit into your plan of world domination with Threshold.dec...

[goobafish]

Thanks for the comments everyone.


Mostly a solid article.

One issue: it gives a list of options and recommendations to build your own meta-tuned SB, which is fine. However, it also includes a 12-card (!) SB with the decklist, and when discussing matchups it gives exact bring-in/take-out instructions as if the SB were fixed. These problems need to be addressed.


Actually the whole sideboard was put into the article, it was just mistakenly taken out by the person who posted it. I have asked them to fix this. In the meantime the missing cards are:
2 Pithing Needle
2 Red Elemental last
2 Pyroblast

Edit: It is now fixed in the article.



Another one: it claims that the 4C Landstill MU is even, while the U/W one is slightly favourable. I can't find a justification for this: U/W has a better manabase against Stifle/Waste, runs a sweeper (Wrath) that isn't vulnerable to Grip, Needle or Predator (or bounce), and many builds can even access Pulse of the Fields to get out of burn range. It seems to me that it has every advantage.

Actually that is not what I have found at all. 4cc Landstill has access to certain cards that are devastating against Threshold. They have Nantuko Monastery, Pernicious Deed (I know that it can be Stifled, but stilfes are needed against too many cards in the deck to always have one), Engineered Explosives and Innocent Blood. I have seen sideboards that run Perish, which is certainly better than Wrath. They have access to Duress coming out of the board. Monastery is out of burn range, and very difficult to deal with.


WHAT?

Maybe it doesn't fit into your plan of world domination with Threshold.dec...

I don't know what else to say. It has many flaws and, at least in my experience does not see very much play, and does not Top8 very often.




One thing I found odd were the explanations given for Lands and Ichorid not Top 8ing: "they aren't played in relevant numbers" is probably a better explanation than "they have flaws, which make them unlikely to Top 8"; there still isn't too much combo around looking at the metas of the last tournament, so Lands shouldn't be really any more affected by the bad combo match-up than Threshold is affected by the bad Ichorid match-up, and Ichorid has been Top 8ing a lot in Extended and often enough in Legacy to be a DTW here, so I don't think it can really be written off any gauntlets at the present.


That is a better explanation for Ichorid, but how often do you see a 43 Land deck at a tournament? I have seen very few. Ichorid is still in my gauntlet, it is just that I accept a loss to it, which is perfectly fine with me. If people playing this deck are worried about it then, then they just need to sideboard Tormod's Crypt.



I also don't think Goblins can be considered a 'random deck'. But that's all semantics, it doesn't detract from the contents of the article, just the specific points raised here.

That would be the Vintage player in me, I think a random aggro deck and I automatically write Elves and Goblins. When I say random deck, I mean a casual player or semi-competitive player who comes with a fun aggressive deck like a non-perfected Goblins list or aggro Elves, or even a Type 2 deck. I wasn't referring to a competitive Goblins list, which is of course not random.

[FoolofaTook]

Good article about a good deck. The weaknesses are obvious: Blood Moon and Back to Basics. Back to Basics doesn't see a lot of play so the deck probably plays very well, acting in some cases like Threshold and in others like a classic mana denial deck.

[Bovinious]

So what happens if an opponent plays Wasteland/Stifle against you? You only have 14 real lands, seems very risky. In Extended Dredge i run exactly 14 lands and need to ship back about 15-20% of openers b/c they do not have a land, this must be the case for you as well...

[emidln]

So what happens if an opponent plays Wasteland/Stifle against you? You only have 14 real lands, seems very risky. In Extended Dredge i run exactly 14 lands and need to ship back about 15-20% of openers b/c they do not have a land, this must be the case for you as well...

Statistically, you're only going to have about 2% of your hands that don't contain a land. Perhaps you need to shuffle better or invest in a lucky charm.

[goobafish]

So what happens if an opponent plays Wasteland/Stifle against you? You only have 14 real lands, seems very risky. In Extended Dredge i run exactly 14 lands and need to ship back about 15-20% of openers b/c they do not have a land, this must be the case for you as well...

Well, Stifles perform many functions. They can be used to disrupt an opponent's manabase or to protect your own. Also, opposing Stifles can be countered by dazes, the deck has quite a few tools to protect it's manabase. I was about to try to figure out the odds of not having a land, but Emidln beat me to it.

[Krikkit]

Statistically, you're only going to have about 2% of your hands that don't contain a land. Perhaps you need to shuffle better or invest in a lucky charm.

QFT

I guess it was a good article, but I have 2 major problems with it. First, and most importantly, you say that you have made major finishes with minor changes to the list, including day 2 of GP: Columbus (Flash). But if I recall, Future sight was not legal for GP: Flash, so are you saying that the transition of werebear into goyf was minor? Could you argue that the list does not need goyf, seeing as it is only a minor change?

my second problem, and a little bit more trivial, is it's spelled color and favorable. There is no secret 'u' that is hiding from us Americans, I guarantee it.

[Brehn]

I don't know what else to say. It has many flaws and, at least in my experience does not see very much play, and does not Top8 very often.


It's totally okay that you're willing to accept a loss against Ichorid, and it's also okay that you built a sideboard that doesn't feature Ichorid hate. However, a sentence like:


Ichorid is a very shaky deck in any format that it is played, it rarely sees top 8 action and almost never wins.

should definitely not belong in any article. First, you're dismissing Extended Ichorid, which put up no fewer than 11 PTQ-Wins (not Top8-finishes. Wins.) during this season. Second, you're dismissing Vintage Ichorid, certainly not the best deck in that format, but still omnipresent and one of the main reasons why Leylines of the Void is the most played sideboard card.
And, you're dismissing Legacy Ichorid. Look at this:


October Iserlohn Legacy Tournament
Iserlohn, Germany
October 7, 2007
Top 8 decklists
75 players

Top 8:
1. Ichorid
2. UWGB Landstill
3. RGU Beats
4. UGRW Threshold
5. GWBU Survival
6. UGB Aggro-Control
7. Loam Pox
8. Ichorid

Cividale (UD) Legacy Tournament
Cividale (UD), Italy
October 14th
Top 8 decklists
33 players

Top 8:
1. Ichorid
2. Vial Goblins with white splash
3. UW Landstill
4. Solidarity
5. Vial Goblins with white splash
6. Burn
7. Deadguy Ale
8. UGW Fish

Finnish Legacy Champs
Helsinki, Finland
November 18, 2007
Top 8 decklists
51 players

Top 8:
1. Ichorid
2. Cephalid Breakfast
3. BHWC Landstill
4. Iggy Pop
5. BWG Deadguy Rock
6. Solidarity
7. BGW Rock
8. UG Threshold

There's no other archetype besides Landstill and Threshold that pulled off 3 Historical-Top8-tournament wins in the period of Oct-Jan. Not to mention the 12 Top8-appearances in that time.

I didn't have much time today in the morning when I've found this article, so I just read through it diagonally and I stumbled over that sentence. Reading just this one line made me seriously consider not reading through the article again. Why? Because that sentence is just plain wrong - see Historical Top 8 Thread - and it's not even hard to find out, so there's two options:
1) The writer's knowledge about the format is pretty limited, he doesn't even know the best decks ("Ichorid has many flaws" - in your hand or in the hand of a good pilot?). I don't need to waste my time reading a primer written by a guy that doesn't know the format.
2) The writer knows the format, but has written the primer poorly. He didn't think about Ichorid being a successful deck (maybe because it's not present in _his_ meta) and didn't check. Checking took me approx. 1.5 minutes, that's not too much. I don't need to waste my time reading a poorly written primer.
EDIT: Also, coincidentally, Ichorid is one of the deck's worst matchups. The technique of ignoring the bad matchups or saying "these decks don't get played anyway" while focussing on the good ones is quite well-known, I guess. And it's definitely not a good style. How should I know whether you've done this on purpose or not?

But other users have given positive feedback, so that single sentence was probably just some kind of brainfart and the rest of the primer is good. I will read through it as soon as I can find some time. But please, please stop writing sentences like this.

[Bovinious]

Statistically, you're only going to have about 2% of your hands that don't contain a land. Perhaps you need to shuffle better or invest in a lucky charm.


Well, Stifles perform many functions. They can be used to disrupt an opponent's manabase or to protect your own. Also, opposing Stifles can be countered by dazes, the deck has quite a few tools to protect it's manabase. I was about to try to figure out the odds of not having a land, but Emidln beat me to it.

Wrong, statistically the chance of seeing 0 land is 13.85%. I guess my estimate of 15-20% was a bit high, but we all know real life doesnt always exactly fit probability.

i P
0 0.138590680871280
1 0.339547168134636
2 0.322983891640263
3 0.153801853162030
4 0.039344660111217
5 0.005365180924256
6 0.000357678728283
7 0.000008886428031

Thats the table I got for hypergeometric distribution, size space 60 (60 card deck), desirables 14 (14 lands), and sample size 7 (7 cards). Anyways, I think it is reasonable to ask about mana troubles, automatically shipping about 14% of your hands, combined with hands that are otherwise unplayable, seems like a big drawback for the deck.

[emidln]

I did some math very wrong. I stand corrected.

[goobafish]

QFT

I guess it was a good article, but I have 2 major problems with it. First, and most importantly, you say that you have made major finishes with minor changes to the list, including day 2 of GP: Columbus (Flash). But if I recall, Future sight was not legal for GP: Flash, so are you saying that the transition of werebear into goyf was minor? Could you argue that the list does not need goyf, seeing as it is only a minor change?

my second problem, and a little bit more trivial, is it's spelled color and favorable. There is no secret 'u' that is hiding from us Americans, I guarantee it.

Goyf is obviously a considerable change in the list. Future Sight became legal the day after the GP if I recall correctly. Stating the GP as an accomplishment of the deck is simply showing some of my credentials for writing the primer and showing some history for the deck. The deck does not "need" goyf if there was no goyf ever printed, but it certainly helps the deck against cards like Tormod's Crypt and Leyline of the void.

And as for your second issue in Canada, we spell it Colour and Favourable.

@ Brehn

I am not going to quote your post as it is a little long, but I will address your concerns.

I understand that you are a proponent of Ichorid, as I see that many of your posts have been in that thread. I agree with you that the quote is very general and as written, is not true. I play Vintage and Legacy. I dismissed Extended simply because I have absolutely no knowledge of that format. I was reffering to Vintage and Legacy. I play a ton of Vintage and it is common fact that the deck never wins and is not too commonly played.

I would like to point out that every single one of the three lists you listed are European tournaments. I claim to have knowledge of the North American metagame, I have played in many events and have rarely seen them. Correct me if I am wrong, but according to that data Ichorid has only top8ed 3 times in all of the North American events. I am not here to discuss the differences between the North American legacy scene and that of Europe, but this article is informative based on my experiences which have been in Canada and in certain parts of the states. The reason I have regarded Ichorid as such, is because that is simply how it is in North America, maybe we have less skilled pilots, or the deck is simply not as popular.

So technically there is a third option to the two quite harsh ones you have presented.


Also, coincidentally, Ichorid is one of the deck's worst matchups. The technique of ignoring the bad matchups or saying "these decks don't get played anyway" while focussing on the good ones is quite well-known, I guess. And it's definitely not a good style. How should I know whether you've done this on purpose or not?

I don't think that is a fair assessment. I simply stated the truth, I said that I was WILLING to take a loss to it in the swiss and that it does not appear often in top 8s.

I believe you are judging my writing unfairly based on your bias towards a deck you play or are trying to promote.

I hope that answer was sufficient enough, the sentence in the primer is incorrect because of the fact that I did not take into account extended, which is fine. This does not change my opinion on the deck, it simply does not see too many top 8s in the North American metagame.

@Bonvinious

It is good to have the correct percentage. Thanks for calculating it
.
The deck is not perfect, all decks have weaknesses, in this deck, the benefit of not drawing too many lands outweighs the drawback of running only 14 coloured sources and needing to take an Auto-mulligan 13.85% of the time.

[Brehn]

I don't think that is a fair assessment. I simply stated the truth, I said that I was WILLING to take a loss to it in the swiss and that it does not appear often in top 8s.
I believe you are judging my writing unfairly based on your bias towards a deck you play or are trying to promote.


I didn't make any assessment, nor did I judge your writing (I haven't even read the primer yet thoroughly...). I just wanted to give you some feedback about how that single, maybe thoughtless sentence nearly stopped me from reading the entire article and how some people could possibly judge it (I don't).

[goobafish]

Then I await for your verdict after you have read the primer :). Perhaps the sentence should not have been so general, but is not far off from the truth.


Also:
Brainburst (now TCG Player) has accepted this as one of their feature articles and it will be published there as well.