[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Redesigning Threshold

[Zach Tartell]

Link (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15695.html)

Christopher Coppola looks at recent developments in Threshold design and discusses playing with multiple splashes.

It was okay, I think. A little pretentious to cite your own decks, 'specially when they only did amazing the one time (Split with Dief at TMLO:III).

Also, for non-source members, the whole "multiple references to 5c Thresh" without a list or link might be a little confusing.

Three forks.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I suppose I should have expected the full-of-self-ness from the guy who wrote down "Machinus" on his Deck Registration sheet.

[BreathWeapon]

It was too short and it seemed to lack a developed/developing thesis, I didn't find it informative or enjoyable to read.

[Tacosnape]

Does The Source even have a 5C Thresh list? Last I checked we were still waiting/hunting.

[Zach Tartell]

5 Color Thresh
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Thoughtseize
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Force of Will
4 Counterbalance
3 Sensei’s Divining Top
3 Daze
1 Portent
1 Fact or Fiction
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Mystic Enforcer
4 City of Brass
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
2 Tropical Island
2 Tundra
1 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
60 cards
4 Pyroclasm
3 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Krosan Grip
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Fact or Fiction
15 cards

[SilverGreen]

5 Color Thresh
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Thoughtseize
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Force of Will
4 Counterbalance
3 Sensei’s Divining Top
3 Daze
1 Portent
1 Fact or Fiction
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Mystic Enforcer
4 City of Brass
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
2 Tropical Island
2 Tundra
1 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
60 cards
4 Pyroclasm
3 Blue Elemental Blast
3 Krosan Grip
2 Ancient Grudge
2 Red Elemental Blast
1 Fact or Fiction
15 cardsWe have a good example of the Syndrome of the Cool Things here. Perhaps we could also add in some slivers and City of Brasses...

[Arsenal]

5 Color Thresh
...
4 City of Brass
...

It's already there. Danger of Cool Things? I don't think so, but that list looks pretty raw and unrefined. Who/When has this been tourney tested?

[kabal]

We have a good example of the Syndrome of the Cool Things here. Perhaps we could also add in some slivers and City of Brasses...

Your 1 step away, since the Cities are already there.

[Nightmare]

It's already there. Danger of Cool Things? I don't think so, but that list looks pretty raw and unrefined. Who/When has this been tourney tested?
It's the list Alix and Jesse Hatfield played to top 8 in the recent NoVA tourney.

[Bovinious]

It's already there. Danger of Cool Things? I don't think so, but that list looks pretty raw and unrefined. Who/When has this been tourney tested?

Both of the Hatfields top8ed the NoVA Legacy Draft 2 a few weeks ago with that list, both losing to myself with Ichorid in the top8/4. This deck seems pretty refined to me and not "dangerous", the only shortcoming to me seems to be forsaking moon effects entirely I guess with the 0 basics, but thats what FoW and Daze are for I guess.

[Arsenal]

It's the list Alix and Jesse Hatfield played to top 8 in the recent NoVA tourney.

Any more results than just that? Also, the article says that 5-color Thresh has many advantages.... but doesn't really list them or go into depth as to pros/cons over traditional 3-color builds.

EDIT: Raw and unrefined is what I was alluding to when takling about manabase rape. You only have 4 cards on the draw to deal with resolved Moon/Magus, 8 cards if you're on the play. That's pretty risky if you ask me.

[Zach Tartell]

Any more results than just that? Also, the article says that 5-color Thresh has many advantages.... but doesn't really list them or go into depth as to pros/cons over traditional 3-color builds.

EDIT: Raw and unrefined is what I was alluding to when takling about manabase rape. You only have 4 cards on the draw to deal with resolved Moon/Magus, 8 cards if you're on the play. That's pretty risky if you ask me.

Only seven if you're on the play.

The advantage is this:

Close your eyes. Think of every single card you've ever wanted to sideboard. Now open your eyes. You can now.

REB/Pyroblast effects are pretty sweet, and Grip, and Pyroclasm, and Grip, and Plague (if they chose to play it), and Extirpate.... you can play every single card.

[Bovinious]

Any more results than just that? Also, the article says that 5-color Thresh has many advantages.... but doesn't really list them or go into depth as to pros/cons over traditional 3-color builds.

EDIT: Raw and unrefined is what I was alluding to when takling about manabase rape. You only have 4 cards on the draw to deal with resolved Moon/Magus, 8 cards if you're on the play. That's pretty risky if you ask me.

My guess would be that they didnt think there would be many Moon effects around that day, and they were right, I think there were 2-3 Dragon Stompy decks, none of which were near the top tables, so I can see why 5c Thresh wasnt too risky on that particular day, everyone was playing Islands so there wasnt even much chance of Moons out of the SBs of red decks. On a day with more DS/Mountains, Moon Thresh would probably be a better call but 5c worked fine that day.

[Nightmare]

Uh, how about 11 on the play? I see FOW, Daze, and StP all being good vs. Magus on the play.

[Arsenal]

Uh, how about 11 on the play? I see FOW, Daze, and StP all being good vs. Magus on the play.

11 versus Magus, 7 versus Moon. As a DS player, I'll take those chances. I have CotV, 3SPhere, and 8 Moon effects on my side.

Again, I don't think 5-color offers phenomenal advantages when those advantages are largely dependant on meta/decks still in tourney as Bovinious alluded to.

EDIT: My point is this; Legacy decks have horrid manabases, that's the very reason decks like DS can exist (and why MUC is still relevant). Decks were just starting to maindeck more basics to combat the rising tide of Moon/B2B nonsense. What does 5-color Thresh do to address this weakness that plagues even 3-color decks?

[from Cairo]

5 Color definitely has some perks, like baritone pointed out you can run any answers SB you want.

But in an unknown meta I don't think I would want to risk packing it to Bloodmoon, and at the same time in a known meta I feel like you could evaluate your needs and run the 3-4 colors that would serve you best. So I'm not sure I really see the point to it beyond it being 'cool'. Clearly with the Hatfields' experience with Thresh in general they are going to pilot it better than most and probably accomplish more with such a list than an average player.

I could be completely wrong though, maybe 5 Color's strengths really outweigh its weaknesses and it is the best call for most metas.

[Nihil Credo]

The advantage is this:

Close your eyes. Think of every single card you've ever wanted to sideboard. Now open your eyes. You can now.
The first thing that made me pop my eyes when I saw the Hatfields' list was not the playset of Cities, or the singleton FoF; it was the lack of Extirpates in the board. That card does so fucking much for Thresh, it's on par with Thoughtseize and Confidant as far as reasons for the black splash go.

Which made their defeat at the hand of our beloved Ichorid-wielding Bovi all the more appropriate.

[Mad Zur]

The most important matchup in Legacy is the Threshold mirror match. Many different approaches to winning the mirror match have been developed, but if we restrict ourselves to three colors, we cannot make use of very many of them. Given the ease of splashing colors in Legacy, there is little reason not to run both black and white in Threshold if the primary goal is to improve the mirror match. Thoughtseize is an amazing card, but Mystic Enforcer and Swords to Plowshares are much better than black alternatives. To really maximize Threshold for the mirror match, you need both. This has been done before with some success (i.e. Pat Chapin's list from Worlds).

But there is a glaring weakness in both white and black that only becomes worse when you combine them and run a less resilient manabase. They are both relatively weak against Goblins, which has recently gotten much better and is gaining in popularity. The best tool Threshold has against Goblins is still Pyroclasm, which is still red.

Therefore, a black/white Threshold list can be vastly improved against Goblins by splashing red, if the manabase can support it.

Let's examine a typical four-color manabase:

4x Polluted Delta
4x Flooded Strand
4x Tropical Island
3x Tundra
3x Underground Sea

This has 18 blue sources, 12 green sources, 11 white sources, and 11 black sources. A minimum of three lands are required to give it access to all of its colors. Compare to a five-color manabase:

4x City of Brass
4x Polluted Delta
4x Flooded Strand
2x Tropical Island
2x Tundra
1x Underground Sea
1x Volcanic Island

This has 18 blue sources, 14 green sources, 14 white sources, 13 black sources, and 13 red sources. It only needs one land to have all its colors and consequently can play the vast majority of its spells with only two.

Before considering nonbasic hate, the second manabase appears to be more consistent. (Of course, one could build a four-color manabase with City of Brass, replacing the Volcanic Island, which would be very slightly more consistent. The slight gain, however, would be overshadowed by the blow to the Goblins matchup.)

So let's consider nonbasic hate. They are equally vulnerable to Blood Moon, since they have no basics (though a five-color deck can actually run red cards, so the deck may actually be slightly less vulnerable). What about Wasteland, which is much more common? I would argue that the second manabase is much better against Wasteland than the first (and this is my biggest complaint with the article). It is much easier to avoid being cut off of your colors if you have more sources of each of them, particularly if you can play one land that gives you all your colors. City of Brass is a great way to recover from land destruction -- much better than excess Tundras and Underground Seas when you have a Tarmogoyf in your hand. There are a number of other factors (such as the number of fetchable sources) that impact manabase stability, but in my experience, they have been less important to this deck. There are also other forms of nonbasic hate, but they are extremely rare.

In summation, the five-color manabase is at least as stable as the four-color manabase. In fact, these same arguments apply when you compare five colors to three. The only significant difference is that three-color manabases can run a few basic lands. This helps a little against Wasteland, although the best way to play around Wasteland usually involves managing your nonbasics carefully, not trying to live on a Forest and an Island.

So now we come to Blood Moon. Why play four or five colors and essentially lose to a resolved Moon when you could play three colors and have an Island for Blue Elemental Blast or a Forest for Krosan Grip? Because it is better to greatly improve your chances in the mirror and against Goblins than to slightly improve your resiliency to one occasionally played card.

This format has not nearly reached the point where the threat of Blood Moon should prevent a deck from splashing for the best cards it can run against the opponents it is likely to face. It is simply not common enough, and the advantage Threshold gains against it by running one or two basic lands is not great enough. Blood Moon is a serious problem for other builds of Threshold, and a first turn resolved Blood Moon on the play (which seems to be the fear in this thread) will almost always win the game against any build of Threshold.

Of course the five-color manabase is noticeably weaker against Blood Moon than the white or red manabase (and a little weaker than the black manabase, which can not effectively run Forest). In return, it grants access to all the best answers to Blood Moon, to Blood Moon decks, and, much more importantly, to the rest of Legacy.

If my opponent is playing one of the few decks with Moon effects, he wins the roll, he plays a first turn Moon effect, and I don't have a Force of Will, I will lose the game. That is well within the category of acceptable risks to take going in to a tournament. I consider this an extremely low risk with an extremely high reward. I will gladly sacrifice a few percentage points against an uncommon deck for vast improvements in most of my other matchups.

[Tacosnape]

EDIT: My point is this; Legacy decks have horrid manabases, that's the very reason decks like DS can exist (and why MUC is still relevant). Decks were just starting to maindeck more basics to combat the rising tide of Moon/B2B nonsense. What does 5-color Thresh do to address this weakness that plagues even 3-color decks?

It doesn't. Instead, it just maximizes how much power you're getting out of a shitty manabase. It's the whole concept behind 4C Landstill, sort of. If you're going to scoop to Blood Moon, you might as well maximize your chances of winning every other game you're in.

@Mad Zur: Love the concept. How do you compensate for all the lifeloss in this deck, though? Thoughtseize, Force of Will, 8 Fetchlands, and City of Brass all seem like an incredible amount of pain to go through.

[Machinus]

I would argue that the second manabase is much better against Wasteland than the first (and this is my biggest complaint with the article). It is much easier to avoid being cut off of your colors if you have more sources of each of them, particularly if you can play one land that gives you all your colors. City of Brass is a great way to recover from land destruction -- much better than excess Tundras and Underground Seas when you have a Tarmogoyf in your hand. There are a number of other factors (such as the number of fetchable sources) that impact manabase stability, but in my experience, they have been less important to this deck. There are also other forms of nonbasic hate, but they are extremely rare.

In summation, the five-color manabase is at least as stable as the four-color manabase. In fact, these same arguments apply when you compare five colors to three. The only significant difference is that three-color manabases can run a few basic lands. This helps a little against Wasteland, although the best way to play around Wasteland usually involves managing your nonbasics carefully, not trying to live on a Forest and an Island.

When playing against Goblins, Threshold has to be able to set up it's engine and play defensively while digging for hate. Volcanic Island is of critical importance in this matchup so that you can cast Pyroclasm and stay alive. If the opponent uses Wasteland on it, you can no longer fetch out a way to cast your hate card, and must rely on just drawing City of Brass. In the four-color version, if your Underground Sea gets destroyed, you still have eight fetches which can find the two seas left in the deck. The four color manabase is better in thise case because it gives you more than twice as many ways to cast your hate cards under normal circumstances (at least one nonbasic disruption card on the part of the opponent).

[Mad Zur]

The first thing that made me pop my eyes when I saw the Hatfields' list was not the playset of Cities, or the singleton FoF; it was the lack of Extirpates in the board. That card does so fucking much for Thresh, it's on par with Thoughtseize and Confidant as far as reasons for the black splash go.

Which made their defeat at the hand of our beloved Ichorid-wielding Bovi all the more appropriate.
We (correctly) predicted about two Ichorid decks in about fifty people, so we decided that dedicating slots to graveyard hate would have been a bad idea. I don't see Extirpate helping the most relevant matchups in a field like that. What would you replace with it, and why?

@Mad Zur: Love the concept. How do you compensate for all the lifeloss in this deck, though? Thoughtseize, Force of Will, 8 Fetchlands, and City of Brass all seem like an incredible amount of pain to go through.
The deck does a lot of damage to itself, but it comes just short of being a problem against most decks. I doubt it could handle any more life loss, but the current amount has been acceptable.

When playing against Goblins, Threshold has to be able to set up it's engine and play defensively while digging for hate. Volcanic Island is of critical importance in this matchup so that you can cast Pyroclasm and stay alive. If the opponent uses Wasteland on it, you can no longer fetch out a way to cast your hate card, and must rely on just drawing City of Brass. In the four-color version, if your Underground Sea gets destroyed, you still have eight fetches which can find the two seas left in the deck. The four color manabase is better in thise case because it gives you more than twice as many ways to cast your hate cards under normal circumstances (at least one nonbasic disruption card on the part of the opponent).
Not having the opportunity to play around Goblins' mana denial is an abnormal circumstance. The only way for that scenario to occur is for you to draw the Volcanic Island, need to play it before playing Pyroclasm, and not find a City. I don't think it's accurate to say that the four-color manabase, which actually has a diminished chance of finding the right color of mana for its hate card in the first place, is better against Goblins.

[Machinus]

We (correctly) predicted about two Ichorid decks in about fifty people, so we decided that dedicating slots to graveyard hate would have been a bad idea. I don't see Extirpate helping the most relevant matchups in a field like that. What would you replace with it, and why?

The deck does a lot of damage to itself, but it comes just short of being a problem against most decks. I doubt it could handle any more life loss, but the current amount has been acceptable.

Not having the opportunity to play around Goblins' mana denial is an abnormal circumstance. The only way for that scenario to occur is for you to draw the Volcanic Island, need to play it before playing Pyroclasm, and not find a City. I don't think it's accurate to say that the four-color manabase, which actually has a diminished chance of finding the right color of mana for its hate card in the first place, is better against Goblins.

Actually you're going to want to cast multiple Pyroclasms or Ancient Grudges. Once you fetch the first one it its almost certainly going to be turned off by Wasteland and Rishadan Port. That is a common circumstance in the matchup and having ten more sources of black mana is stronger than having only four more sources of red mana.

The diminished chance of having the right colors, by which you mean eleven black sources as opposed to thirteen red sources, is not nearly as important as having redundant sources of mana. You also want to use the Volcanic Island multiple times, and you will probably have fixed your colors by the first time you want to use it.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Actually you're going to want to cast multiple Pyroclasms or Ancient Grudges. Once you fetch the first one it its almost certainly going to be turned off by Wasteland and Rishadan Port. That is a common circumstance in the matchup and having ten more sources of black mana is stronger than having only four more sources of red mana.
A single Pyroclasm is often enough to win the game, and I don't think I've ever seen a Goblins player hold onto a Wasteland until after Threshold gets into a winning position.

It's true that Ancient Grudge strains the manabase, since you want to kill Vial as early as possible. However, Goblins is rarely able to immediately use a Wasteland after losing an Aether Vial. If they do, it will make it much harder for them to avoid simply being killed by Tarmogoyfs, while the Threshold player can still find a City of Brass to generate red mana, if it is necessary. Protecting the Volcanic with Daze (while countering an important spell, of course) is also possible.


The diminished chance of having the right colors, by which you mean eleven black sources as opposed to thirteen red sources, is not nearly as important as having redundant sources of mana. You also want to use the Volcanic Island multiple times, and you will probably have fixed your colors by the first time you want to use it.
The first Pyroclasm is the most relevant Pyroclasm, and you must destroy Aether Vial quickly, therefore having greater access to your first red source is more important than having redundant fetchable sources.

Ideally, you play the red cards with Cities, anyway.

[Bardo]

Back to the article: I really liked it. The pacing was great; you covered a lot of ground efficiently; and you dropped the haughty tone that bugs me about some of your articles. Really though, this was a fine, well-written article that I enjoyed. Well done.

Being critical, I would have linked to the 5c Thresh list to avoid reader confusion -- but that's minor, since you clarified it in the discussion thread.

Anyway, good article.

As for the 3 vs. 4 vs. 5-color debate, I have a tendency to be risk-adverse when it comes to color combinations because I hate not being able to play my cards when I have them in hand but the mana hasn't come together. It's a matter of risk vs. rewards and taking a gamble when you feel it will pay off. I'm actually less concerned about the Wasteland / Blood Moon concerns than about the deck vs. itself conflict. But I'll give the manabase a shot and see how it goes.

[etrigan]

Snip.

Excellent write up. Thank you.

[kiwi]

I think that this new build of threshold is good but I think that is weak againts moon efects and this deck needs some sideboard cards againts dredge decks.

[Arsenal]

It doesn't. Instead, it just maximizes how much power you're getting out of a shitty manabase. It's the whole concept behind 4C Landstill, sort of. If you're going to scoop to Blood Moon, you might as well maximize your chances of winning every other game you're in.

I didn't approach the deck with this mindframe, very interesting. I just assumed that whatever weaknesses 3-4 color decks had, the 5 color version would try to address them. Instead, it goes the opposite direction and piles on the strengths and positives while not addressing the weaknesses and negatives. In that case, I like the 5-color list for what it can do, not for what it can't.

[Nightmare]

Is it weird that I'm just kinda stoked I can use my City of Brasses again?

[Arsenal]

No TES love??

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing how/when the Hatfield's utilized Thoughtseize in this deck.

[Nightmare]

No TES love??

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing how/when the Hatfield's utilized Thoughtseize in this deck.
Oh, I'm fine with TES - shit, I made that manabase work - but it's not my personal cup-o-tea.

I would imagine they played Thoughtsieze as a means to pre-emptively remove threats from their opponent's hand, depending on what they felt they could deal with at the time.

[Arsenal]

Oh, I'm fine with TES - shit, I made that manabase work - but it's not my personal cup-o-tea.

I would imagine they played Thoughtsieze as a means to pre-emptively remove threats from their opponent's hand, depending on what they felt they could deal with at the time.

I commented on TES because it uses 4x City of Brass. But if you don't play it, then you're right; Cities are dust-collectors.

Lol, thanks for pointing out what Thoughtseize does. I was actually trying to get a better understanding of how a proactive card gels with a mostly reactive deck. How often was is used turn 1 to nab a Moon/Magus/B2B on the play? Did they take chances and Thoughtseize with no counter backup to force the opponent to play their Instant right then? How often did Thoughtseize's lifeloss add up with all the other lifeloss in this deck (2 pts is an awful lot). Was a reactive card tested in Thoughtseize's place, but Thoughtseize (even being proactive) was that much better? Thoughtseize is pretty much the only slot I'm curious about; everything else seems pretty standard Thesh fare.

[Nihil Credo]

We (correctly) predicted about two Ichorid decks in about fifty people, so we decided that dedicating slots to graveyard hate would have been a bad idea. I don't see Extirpate helping the most relevant matchups in a field like that. What would you replace with it, and why?

Fine then - Ichorid aside, I tend to forget that Life from the Loam is banned in the USA :wink:.

In a metagame with more graveyard decks, I would probably cut the 2 REB and the FoF from the sideboard for 3 Extirpate, since two copies can come in against control decks.

[Machinus]

Thoughtsieze has been used in Threshold for six months now. It was a natural fit for the deck.

It allows Threshold to deal with threats which might be difficult for it to answer other ways. It also slows down the game which helps Threshold take advantage of its engines.

[Arsenal]

I understand that Thoughtseize has been used in Thresh for awhile... but in UGb Thresh; a totally different beast than 5-color. I was wondering how it fared in the far more reactive 5-color list, and if anything else, reactive in nature, was tested in that slot (rather than just, "let's combine all the 3 color lists").

[Obfuscate Freely]

I understand that Thoughtseize has been used in Thresh for awhile... but in UGb Thresh; a totally different beast than 5-color. I was wondering how it fared in the far more reactive 5-color list, and if anything else, reactive in nature, was tested in that slot (rather than just, "let's combine all the 3 color lists").
I'm not sure what makes you think UGb Thresh is "a totally different beast." The deck that Machinus took to the finals of The Mana Leak Open was the latest Threshold list Mad Zur and I had worked on, incorporating black over other colors in order to play Thoughtseize. The design of the deck still had its roots in all of our previous Threshold lists, just as 5c Thresh follows from UGB.

Threshold is a single archetype, and it follows a linear path of development. Even Moon Thresh fits along the same design path as UGB and 5c; for that event, we had to decide not to run Thoughtseize, and to instead run Blood Moon.

[Arsenal]

I'm not sure what makes you think UGb Thresh is "a totally different beast." The deck that Machinus took to the finals of The Mana Leak Open was the latest Threshold list Mad Zur and I had worked on, incorporating black over other colors in order to play Thoughtseize. The design of the deck still had its roots in all of our previous Threshold lists, just as 5c Thresh follows from UGB.

Threshold is a single archetype, and it follows a linear path of development. Even Moon Thresh fits along the same design path as UGB and 5c; for that event, we had to decide not to run Thoughtseize, and to instead run Blood Moon.

Using your logic, I should be able to pickup and play Canadian UGr tempo Threshold exactly, and to identical results, like I would traditional UGw Threshold. We both know that this is not the case, because while both share some archetype traits and cards, they play completely different. Hence, my "entirely different beast" comment.

UGb is a different deck than 5 color. You don't play them exactly the same, in fact, you can't due to card selection.

[Bardo]

To a degree, sure, but the essential strategy remains unchanged: exploit the tempo advantages inherent in Thresh (i.e. the free counters and relatively undercost / overpowered creatures) while other subsets of the shell control different aspects of your opponent's game. Hand disruption and land disruption are not altogether vastly different strategies in Thresh: both approaches are disrupting your opponent's resources (hand and mana production) and slow their game while your counters and Goyfs/Geese beatdown.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Using your logic, I should be able to pickup and play Canadian UGr tempo Threshold exactly, and to identical results, like I would traditional UGw Threshold. We both know that this is not the case, because while both share some archetype traits and cards, they play completely different. Hence, my "entirely different beast" comment.

UGb is a different deck than 5 color. You don't play them exactly the same, in fact, you can't due to card selection.
Canadian Thrash is indeed a different deck. It's closer to Ponza than Threshold.

As for UGB and 5c, I still don't know where you're coming from. Why don't you compare the two lists?

TMLO3 (UGB).....................NoVa Draft 2 (5c)

4x Brainstormthese are the same 4x Brainstorm
4x Ponderand of course these are4x Ponder
3x Sensei's Divining Topyup same3x Sensei's Divining Top
3x Portent alright we cut these 1x Portent
and this probablyshouldn'tbehere1x Fact or Fiction

4x Thoughtseizenotgoinganywhere 4x Thoughseize
4x Force of Will well obviously 4x Force of Will
3x Counterbalancebumped uptofour4x Counterbalance
3x Dazestillcouldn'tfitthefourth3x Daze

4x Nimble Mongoosenothingnewhere4x Nimble Mongoose
4x Tarmogoyfduhduhduhduhduhduhdu4x Tarmogoyf
3x Sea Drakeupgraded to enforcer2x Mystic Enforcer

4x Ghastly Demiseanother upgrade4x Swords to Plowshares

4x Polluted Delta eight fetches 4x Polluted Delta
4x Flooded Strand in both lists 4x Flooded Strand
4x Tropical Islandtherestof the 2x Tropical Island
4x Underground Seamanabase cuts 1x Underground Sea
1x Islandweremadetofitthecities 1x Volcanic Island
Thisisthemostsignificant change 4x City of Brass
ClickMe!ClickMe!ClickMe!ClickMe! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g&feature=related)2x Tundra

As one of the people responsible for the development of both of these decks, I'm telling you they were designed in the same way, and that they play out in a similar fashion because of this. Care to explain what sort of differences you see that I don't?

[Nihil Credo]

While we're at it, care to say a few words about the two copies of FoF in the list?

[Bardo]

@ Alix -What's up with the lone Fact? :) Are you keeping it around? I messed around with it back when I started building it (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/8731.html) and it was quickly shaved because, well, it costs 4 mana and doesn't you the game.

Edit - Nihil beat me to it. Also, love the invisitext. :)


stillcouldn'tfitthefourth

Re: Daze #3. The first thing I'd cut for Daze #4 is Fact #1.

[Arsenal]

Canadian Thrash is indeed a different deck. It's closer to Ponza than Threshold.

As for UGB and 5c, I still don't know where you're coming from. Why don't you compare the two lists?

TMLO3 (UGB).....................NoVa Draft 2 (5c)

4x Brainstormthese are the same 4x Brainstorm
4x Ponderand of course these are4x Ponder
3x Sensei's Divining Topyup same3x Sensei's Divining Top
3x Portent alright we cut these 1x Portent
and this probablyshouldn'tbehere1x Fact or Fiction

4x Thoughtseizenotgoinganywhere 4x Thoughseize
4x Force of Will well obviously 4x Force of Will
3x Counterbalancebumped uptofour4x Counterbalance
3x Dazestillcouldn'tfitthefourth3x Daze

4x Nimble Mongoosenothingnewhere4x Nimble Mongoose
4x Tarmogoyfduhduhduhduhduhduhdu4x Tarmogoyf
3x Sea Drakeupgraded to enforcer2x Mystic Enforcer

4x Ghastly Demiseanother upgrade4x Swords to Plowshares

4x Polluted Delta eight fetches 4x Polluted Delta
4x Flooded Strand in both lists 4x Flooded Strand
4x Tropical Islandtherestof the 2x Tropical Island
4x Underground Seamanabase cuts 1x Underground Sea
1x Islandweremadetofitthecities 1x Volcanic Island
Thisisthemostsignificant change 4x City of Brass
ClickMe!ClickMe!ClickMe!ClickMe! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g&feature=related)2x Tundra

As one of the people responsible for the development of both of these decks, I'm telling you they were designed in the same way, and that they play out in a similar fashion because of this. Care to explain what sort of differences you see that I don't?

Using the lists you cite, there aren't many.

However, most UGb builds I've seen being tested/run include Confidant, EE/Deed, and Extirpate. Just skim through the last 3 pages of the UGb thread to get an idea of what I'm talking about. And people still run Sea Drake in UGb? That's news to me.

Maindeck Confidant, Thoughtseize + Extirpate, and EE/Deed change the style of the deck to heavy proactive, instead of the typical UGw heavy reactive style. I don't need to tell you how this ultimately effects opponent's decisions, pace of game, SB choices, etc...

I'm getting a bit tired of trying to explain that UGb plays differently than UGr, which plays differently than UGw; 100% due to card choices within the available color pool. As part of the development team, I would expect you to know that.

EDIT: This is akin to the Landstill debate. Using your logic, since there are zero differences between any of the variants of Thresh, I should be able to pick up and play any variant, play it exactly the same as the others, and come to identical results. Applying your logic to other archetypes with different splashes/card choices (Landstill, Loam, etc), I should be able to do the same. This is not going to happen. Different colors = different cards that fulfill/serve different functions = different style of play/gameplan for the deck. True story. I'm done. Let's agree to disagree and move on... or not. I suppose we could take this to PMs. Thanks

[Obfuscate Freely]

Using the lists you cite, there aren't many.

However, most UGb builds I've seen being tested/run include Confidant, EE/Deed, and Extirpate. Just skim through the last 3 pages of the UGb thread to get an idea of what I'm talking about. And people still run Sea Drake in UGb? That's news to me.
I'm using the lists that I have experience with, and the ones that were discussed in the article this thread is about. To my knowledge, our list was the first Threshold deck to play Thoughtseize.


Maindeck Confidant, Thoughtseize + Extirpate, and EE/Deed change the style of the deck to heavy proactive, instead of the typical UGw heavy reactive style. I don't need to tell you how this ultimately effects opponent's decisions, pace of game, SB choices, etc...

I'm getting a bit tired of trying to explain that UGb plays differently than UGr, which plays differently than UGw; 100% due to card choices within the available color pool. As part of the development team, I would expect you to know that.
As "part of the development team," I'm telling you that Threshold cannot be categorized by color, at least in any meaningful way. This is based on my experience with and understanding of the archetype, and on the way we have been designing it for several years. This has a lot to do with why we have finally made the leap to playing all five colors; doing so grants us access to all of the tools in the format that fit into Threshold's overall strategy.


EDIT: This is akin to the Landstill debate. Using your logic, since there are zero differences between any of the variants of Thresh, I should be able to pick up and play any variant, play it exactly the same as the others, and come to identical results. Applying your logic to other archetypes with different splashes/card choices (Landstill, Loam, etc), I should be able to do the same. This is not going to happen. Different colors = different cards that fulfill/serve different functions = different style of play/gameplan for the deck. True story. I'm done. Let's agree to disagree and move on... or not. I suppose we could take this to PMs. Thanks
Colors are not strategies. If you are having difficulty adapting your in-game decision-making to functionally identical cards across colors, that may indicate that there are factors other than "style of play" that can affect one's ability to succeed with a deck. It does not mean that switching Ghastly Demise to Swords to Plowshares begets a new deck with an entirely different gameplan.

Also, agreeing to disagree is unproductive, and this discussion is worth having publicly.


While we're at it, care to say a few words about the two copies of FoF in the list?
@ Alix -What's up with the lone Fact? :) Are you keeping it around? I messed around with it back when I started building it (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/8731.html) and it was quickly shaved because, well, it costs 4 mana and doesn't you the game.

Re: Daze #3. The first thing I'd cut for Daze #4 is Fact #1.
The Facts (there was another in the board, after all) were there to help against Landstill, while still being decent in the mirror and against other slower decks, like Survival.

The problem isn't so much that Fact is bad, but that the deck really wants more one-mana cantrips. That's why I doubt we'll end up fitting the fourth Daze in any time soon; since the NoVa Draft we've tested a list that cuts the maindeck FoF and trims a Counterbalance in order to fit another two Portents in.

FoF is probably still a good call in some metagames, though. Just be prepared to pitch it to Force a lot.

[goobafish]

Canadian Thrash is indeed a different deck. It's closer to Ponza than Threshold.

When I read the article the first time over I was very tempted to ask why that list wasn't included in the evolution of threshold, but after thinking about it for a few minutes I came to the same conclusion as you, it isn't the same deck, and does not use the same strategy. I wouldn't, however call it ponza.

[Machinus]

The different splash colors of Threshold are absolutely not different decks. In fact they are almost exacly the same deck. I explained this in my article - threshold design is modular and you can move between the single splashes with only minor differences in functionality. The only major difference is Thoughtsieze, which is not new tech, and is so good that I'd probably rather play black over the other two splashes for it.

The other difference in Threshold, even when playing four or five colors, is the manabase, but the deck basically plays identically, just with more life loss and less basics.

[Arsenal]

I'm using the lists that I have experience with, and the ones that were discussed in the article this thread is about. To my knowledge, our list was the first Threshold deck to play Thoughtseize.

I am sorry if you are using lists that others, particularly in the UGb thread, are not. I would suggest you read through that thread to get a better understanding of where others, myself included, are coming from.


As "part of the development team," I'm telling you that Threshold cannot be categorized by color, at least in any meaningful way. This is based on my experience with and understanding of the archetype, and on the way we have been designing it for several years. This has a lot to do with why we have finally made the leap to playing all five colors; doing so grants us access to all of the tools in the format that fit into Threshold's overall strategy.

If Threshold cannot be catagorized by it's color; UGr, UGb, UGw, 5-color, then how are we to easily distinguish and seperate the variants and builds?


Colors are not strategies. If you are having difficulty adapting your in-game decision-making to functionally identical cards across colors, that may indicate that there are factors other than "style of play" that can affect one's ability to succeed with a deck. It does not mean that switching Ghastly Demise to Swords to Plowshares begets a new deck with an entirely different gameplan.

I beg to differ, and I actually had this discussion ages ago in the Eva Green thread. Color, when utilizing it's unique attributes per the color wheel, are strategies. Or rather, they become part of your strategy. I agree, switching something as negligible as Ghastly Demise/Smother to StP is nothing to write home about; but that's a situation where the color switch did not utilize it's unique attributes for that respective color (also why I did not use this example to illustrate my earlier point, I thought this was obvious).

Switching between Thoughtseize and Spell Snare is something to note and discuss, as this (a.) illustrates the clear difference between colors and what they offer, and (b.) serve roughly the same purpose, but through entirely different means (which can effect the style/tempo of the game due to opponent not expending/expending resources on the targetted card, sharing information of future plays, etc).

Switching between a 2cc instant for CA is quite different than using a 2cc creature for CA. How many resources do you use to protect the CA creature? The creature now can swing in for some points; if left unchecked, he will win you the game. How many resources does your opponent now use to destroy him? Can he even? This again illustrates the difference between the colors and their respective pro's/con's, and how it works into your overall strategy and gameplan.

RE: creature control, I concede EE can be used by anyone, but Deed still stands; it's a permanent that is used to pre-emptively "answer" threats and forces your opponent to (a.) play around it, or (b.) use resources finding an answer to it. The implications of a Deed left unchecked versus any deck in the current meta is huge and drastically alters the roles each deck plays at the that moment of resolution.


Also, agreeing to disagree is unproductive, and this discussion is worth having publicly.

As you wish.

EDIT: @ Machinus

Taken from article:

Currently, Threshold is a very open-ended design question. There are multiple good options available for both threats and removal, and this makes the construction of the deck a complex and metagame-dependent process. The different variants of the deck have their own strengths and weaknesses, and it is essential to understand why each has been successful in order to make good design decisions.

This does not sound like a description to a deck that differs marginally between colors. In fact, it sounds like a deck that is complex to construct and highly-meta dependant; with the meta dictating your card selection, which in turn will affect your style/strategy/gameplan.

[Obfuscate Freely]

When I read the article the first time over I was very tempted to ask why that list wasn't included in the evolution of threshold, but after thinking about it for a few minutes I came to the same conclusion as you, it isn't the same deck, and does not use the same strategy. I wouldn't, however call it ponza.
Haha, I hope you didn't take any offense to my comparing the deck to Ponza. I mean, Ponza was a great deck in its day, and I think Thrash is the best Ponza deck, ever.

If you are instead saying that the Ponza label is inaccurate, you could very well be right (my knowledge of Ponza is limited). Is it better to just call the deck Thrash? Do you have another name you'd rather we used?

[goobafish]

Haha, I hope you didn't take any offense to my comparing the deck to Ponza. I mean, Ponza was a great deck in its day, and I think Thrash is the best Ponza deck, ever.

If you are instead saying that the Ponza label is inaccurate, you could very well be right (my knowledge of Ponza is limited). Is it better to just call the deck Thrash? Do you have another name you'd rather we used?

No offense taken, I understand what you meant. It does have some Ponza-esque qualities, it also has some Thresh like qualities, there really isn't a label that I would attach to it.

I don't really care what it is called. The first time I played the deck I accidentally wrote the name down as Thrash instead of Thresh, and I have called it that since. Canadian Threshold, Tempo Threshold, Stifle-Waste Threshold, really doesn't matter as long as people know what you are talking about.

[Machinus]

This does not sound like a description to a deck that differs marginally between colors. In fact, it sounds like a deck that is complex to construct and highly-meta dependant; with the meta dictating your card selection, which in turn will affect your style/strategy/gameplan.

As a general matter, Threshold design is complicated. But once you chooose one of the very good 3-color versions, switching between them is pretty simple - you change the removal and finishers and some sideboard cards. Their modular design means they are functionally the same, although the different cards do have slightly different effects, and therefore may be a little better or worse depending on the metagame. But this has nothing to do with strategy, which is always the same. Play undercosted threats, undercosted disruption, and draw them more often with cantrips.

[Arsenal]

I understand. It's just like with my ol' love, MUC. In aggro heavy metas, I would maindeck lots of Shackles, Kegs, and Propagandas. In aggro light metas, I'd probably opt for something more stack/instant heavy. In the end, I am trying to achieve the same thing; lay lands, gain card advantage, deal with threats (via counters or permanent-based control cards), then win with a solid win condition. However, my strategy and gameplan are different depending on the meta; my maindeck cards are different, the options I have are different, the card dig opportunites are different, my opponent's options are different, a lot important sequences are different.

My point is this; due to the inherent nature of archetypes and decks within those archetypes, there will be similarities and overall strats that are the same; Landstill, Sui, Stax, Stompy variants can all attest to this. However, to say that Angel Stompy plays exactly like Dragon Stompy is absurd. To say that UW Landstill plays exactly like 4c Landstill is not accurate either. Colors, and the color-unique cards chosen within the color pool, can greatly affect your overall gameplan, which in turn, can affect your overall strategy.

I think that we are both agreeing on the same thing; I just see it slightly different than you all regarding how different each build plays. To me, UGb plays very differently than traditional control UGw, and different than Canadian tempo UGr, even though we all end up swinging with Goyf.

[Bardo]

My point is this; due to the inherent nature of archetypes and decks within those archetypes, there will be similarities and overall strats that are the same; Landstill, Sui, Stax, Stompy variants can all attest to this. However, to say that Angel Stompy plays exactly like Dragon Stompy is absurd. To say that UW Landstill plays exactly like 4c Landstill is not accurate either. Colors, and the color-unique cards chosen within the color pool, can greatly affect your overall gameplan, which in turn, can affect your overall strategy.

Whatever disagreement there is, has more to do with terminology than anything else.

No one is saying Red Thresh "plays the same" as 5c Thresh, though they operate using the same strategy (tactics differ): draw/see lots of cards; counter key cards; beat your opponent down with your high-powered/low-cost threats. No one is saying you'll have the same results playing one build over another.

The history of Threshold in Legacy is a series of evolutionary steps and adaptations to the shifting metagame. Red Thresh, for instance, was in large part a reaction to the rise of Goblins; where Pyroclasm is a game-turner and Lightning Bolt is better than StP. White Threshold is strong (though not necessarily better) in a wide-open metagame where you can also expect to see a lot of combo. Black Thresh is an evolution of the deck toward new cards that are entering the format (e.g. Thoughtseize, Dark Confidant), while keeping an expected metagame focused in its plan (Engineered Plague; Extirpate).

But the underlying game-plan has remained the same since the deck's roots in Comer's Turbo Xerox -- it's the design of the deck that's adapting to external factors.

[mercenarybdu]

he just showed more or less of how the plans have evolved over s very short period of time. Yet it didn't give us much analysis of what they would all look like in the modern age of the game.

White and Red are both very out of date while the rest seemed to be more in tuned for today's meta. Thus he needs to address them all rather than just how the deck came to be over time.

[AnwarA101]

I wish this article had included some Threshold decks from the Grand Prixs in 2005. While those events are somewhat old they still represent a good starting point for discussing the development of Threshold in Legacy (I know Legacy Threshold predates those events, but those events were important in popularizing the deck in this format). It would be even more interesting if the discussion could have mentioned the move away from weaker cards like Mental Note and Meddling Mage and to stronger cards like Ponder and Counterbalance.

The article was fine, but perhaps I am too familiar with the mentioned lists for it provide anything new to me.