What mark sun said. I suggest pierce main, but in addition to stifle.
Printable View
What mark sun said. I suggest pierce main, but in addition to stifle.
I also think that Spell Pierce works better with Stifle than without it. Although I think that I'd pick more Forked Bolt over Spell Pierce. I still like Snapcaster as a 2-of in the deck, especially with Forked Bolt. 3-for-1ing someone has a certain appeal to it. Ideally, I'd like to run 3 Stifles, 2 Pierce, and 2-3 Forked Bolts, but room is tight and Snapcaster is more versatile than Spell Pierce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstalker
I suppose I could drop the 4th Ponder and the 3rd Forked Bolt for 2 Spell Pierce. Dropping to 3 FoW seems highly counterproductive for a tempo deck, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable on only 18 lands without the full set of Ponder.
I have to agree with you that Snapcaster can still fit in the deck. I'm still running him in my md and haven't been disappointed so far. I'm running 3 forked bolts and 3 Snaps, the configuration just beats the hell out of aggro decks. Are you still running main deck spell snares? Or have cut them in favor of spell pierces?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzra
I still MD 3 Spell Snares for now and I can't really see cutting them further. At the moment, I'm also running 3 Forked Bolt but have gone down to 2 Snaps (my list is in my sig). Would going down to 3 Ponders be out of the question with only 18 land? It seems very greedy, but I don't know where else to squeeze in Spell Pierce.
I used to run a configuration with only 3 ponders, it didn't have that much of an effect, but I will not endorse modifying the 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder core of this deck. I'm now running the full four again, it helps smoothen out draws and ensures that delver always transforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzra
Yay we finally got a good thread-name - for those who care :)
I was thinking of putting in 4 Leylines of the Void - in order to beat this damn GY-based decks with consistency. It does weaken our MU vs HighTide as we can not board in any extraction effects any more but I think thats okay.
Greetings
Nooooo don't play Leyline. You have no way of casting it, so every one after the mulligan will be a completely dead draw. Play Tormod's Crypt (and maybe a Surgical Extraction or two). With Ponder and Brainstorm, you'll be able to find it early on if you don't have one in your opener. Against a deck like Reanimator, you don't want to be mulliganing into oblivion just to find one piece of hate. You're better off keeping an 'okay' hand with a few Spell Pierce, FoW, Daze, etc. to counter their Entomb/Careful Study. And even against Dredge, you generally have a couple turns to set up and defend yourself -- if you're on the play, you can keep a similar hand and stop their early discard outlets while you search for a Crypt. These GY decks generally have a way to destroy/circumvent Leyline, so it's actually one of the weakest pieces of hate in Legacy in my opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipp802
I agree with wcm8. On ponder I've dropped to 3 recently but I have missed the 4th here and there so I brought the 4th back. I run 3 of pierce snare fow and 4 daze/4 stifle plus full cantrip engine but that puts me at 61. Its either that or go down to 3 stifle which seems appealing, only 2 snare or only 3 ponder. All the 3-ofs are perfect otherwise. I will say that if running 4 of everything then 1 ponder may not hurt much but 3-ofs as virtual 4-ofs probably needs the full engine. The easiest fix would be to drop the 3rd forked bolt but its been amazing so far so I hate to do that and 7 burn feels optimal. Also props to who ever suggested taiga, its way better than the basic island or 4th trop.
I am a fan of mixing up the number of snare/pierce/daze/fow/... or also maybe cutting down Ponder to 3.
With stifle I am not that sure if 3 is ok or if it should be a 0 or 4 card. My buddy brought this up saying: "Stifleing the first land has the most value". I am not that sure about it... stifleing the 3rd/4th land WHILE delver/goyf is attacking is also pretty good.
How do you feel about the 0 or 4 question?
I think it applies to stifle much more than to the other counterspells... maybe daze as well.
I also heard this simplified rule of thumb:
4: you want it in starting 7 and multiples are not bad
3: you want it in startin 7 but no multiples
2: you want it at some point in the game
1: tutor target
Daze and Stifle are spells where 2 are not an option for me and 4 might be necessary since they are strongest in the early game.
I really agree with catmint that Stifle and Daze are crucial in the early 4 turns then we have to board the playset or just dont use them!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
Is really good Forked Bolt??? I see much better Chain Lightning for the last 3 burn slot (+1 dmg may help)
Here is my argument -against- Stifle I posted in my UBr Team Grixis thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by catmint
-Most decks are constructed with better mana bases these days, including playing a more reasonable number of lands
-The curve of Legacy in general is lower right now, so unless your opponent kept an incredibly loose hand, Stifling a fetch or two isn't usually game-winning by itself
-The card is just bad on the draw. I personally seem to have pretty bad luck with winning die-rolls
-Maverick and other similar decks are playing a fair number of acceleration slots in the form of Noble Hierarch, GSZ -> Dryad Arbor, etc. Stifle at best might slow them down for a turn (maybe two), but its very unlikely to ever completely mana screw these sorts of decks. With Maverick positioned as one of the tier 1 DTB, why would you want to play 4 of a card that is nearly useless in the matchup?
-Making room for Spell Pierce and/or Spell Snare makes us essentially pre-boarded against a lot of combo decks (including the dreaded Burn matchup, which is nearly unwinnable for classic TA lists). [This also frees up SB space, including less incentive to waste space on the Counter/Top package and instead focus on other matchups]
Stifle is either utterly back-breaking, or complete garbage. It's tempting to play a card that can quite literally win the game for one mana, but these cases are few and far between -- and if a player is bad enough to keep that poor of a hand/play into your Stifle, you'd probably be beating them anyways, right? Further playesting for you is just going to show you the remarkable inconsistency of the card -- that, or you end up letting 'confirmation bias' get the best of you. The card that would be taking its slot, Spell Pierce, is generally always a welcome sight and more versatile in its applications.
- - -
To add to this, someone may counter with 'But look at tournament results! 2 of the RUG decks that made top 8 in Indianapolis played all 4! Plenty of RUG decks that top 8 in other tournaments play 3/4!'
The first point regarding GP Indy is somewhat ridiculous for a few reasons. First of all, Caleb Durward's list is a pretty radical departure from traditional RUG lists and plays off-the-wall stuff like maindeck Scavenging Ooze and Green Sun's Zenith. While I don't think these ideas are without merit, his list is pretty different from the norm. He's a great player though and could probably top 8 with any deck. I would want to know how often Stifle was critical towards winning a game and how often he ended up siding them out before deciding conclusively that it is a must-have for his deck.
Second, Kenny Castor seems to me to be a mediocre player who happened to get extremely lucky for the entire tournament. He -should- have won the finals against Martell, but instead decided to over-extend with his Mongeese and played right into Perish. Again, I would want to know how often Stifle was the key for him winning games and how often he ended up siding them out before saying definitively that the card was such a key element for his success.
Tournament results do not conclusively mean that any particular list is the 'best'. It simply means that that particular list was best for that particular day AND got the luckiest in that tournament (this includes things like personal mulligans, opponent mulligans, topdecking the right card at the right time, not getting paired against bad matchups, etc). Great players put themselves in a position to capitalize on luck, but without *some* amount of good luck they aren't going to win a tournament.
If I were playing only 18 lands in RUG, hell yeah I'd want to play 4 Stifle, because I don't want to get blown out by Wasteland. However, I think everyone should be playing at least 19 lands. 18 really seems to me to be a holdover from the days when the deck was running Werebear and a higher density of cantrips to compensate for the extremely low land count.
Regarding the all or nothing argument about Stifle: I think an interesting approach towards playing stifle would be to use the DAZE TACTIC. Basically, you have some blue decks running just one (maybe two) Daze as a way to randomly blow out an opponent not expecting it. Once that first Daze is played, the opponent begins to second guess themselves -- should I play around it? Are they holding one? Likewise, with just the first Stifle cast, you still enjoy the benefits of the random blow-out, but you aren't filling up your deck with a card that gets progressively less useful as the game goes on. The psychological advantage you then gain from having an untapped Island and a card in hand plays out for the remainder of the game, regardless of whether or not you have one in hand or are even playing multiples.
Compare that to Spell Pierce/Spell Snare, which are going to stop an opponent's play regardless -- you either have them or you don't, and both are critical towards stopping game-winning plays.
You realize there are other targets besides Fetches for Stifle, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by wcm8
Are you just being a dick, or do you seriously think I didn't consider that? I've played the card for years, as a 4 of, in a variety of decks. I am well aware of its utility. I also used to think it was a 4-of auto-include until I started doing more extensive testing. I don't think the card is useless, nor do I think it doesn't have a -place- in modern tempo decks. I do question its current power-level in the modern metagame though, and whether it needs to be a 4-of or even included at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpT
Ask yourself which card you'd rather be holding in the following scenarios:
Stoneforge Mystic : Stifle, or Spell Snare?
Oblivion Ring: Stifle, or Spell Pierce?
Jace/Elspeth/Liliana/etc. : Stifle, or Spell Pierce?
Swords/Bolt your guy: Stifle, or Spell Pierce?
You lost the die roll: Stifle, or Spell Snare/Pierce?
Price of Progress? Stifle, or Spell Snare/Pierce?
Lingering Souls?
Thoughtseize? Hymn to Tourach?
Trinisphere? Chalice of the Void? Argothian Enchantress? etc. etc. etc.
My point here is that I'd look into maxing out the other counterspells before considering Stifle in a list.
How do you feel then about decks that run a full compliment of counterspells in addition to the stifles? For instance my deck runs 3 FOW, 3 Snare, 4 Daze, 4 Stifle, 3 Pierce. I am very much liking the large compliment of counterspells, and it's been good to me so far. I top 4ed last night at a local tournament, and did the same last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by wcm8
P.S. Stifle is actually better against Oblivion Ring because you can counter the comes into play trigger, where as with Pierce, they might have 2 mana avaliable.
O-ring vs Thresh seems like a dubious venture at best. If your opponent brings it in, you should congratulate them for misboarding. I mean, 3 mana removal spells to kill 1 or 2 mana creatures can't be the right way to approach the matchup.
In a deck that plays Tarmogoyf, wouldn't you like to give them +1? If we're talking about TURN 5+, and they can afford to pay for Spell Pierce, you are probably losing this game anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pherion
I started my scenarios with things that are 'okay' Stifle targets, but then progressed to mentioned things where Stifle is useless.
As I said, I think Stifle is a fine card to consider running maindeck, but I would probably want to max out the other counterspells before running 4 Stifle. Hell, I'd probably rather run more Bolts before maxing out Stifle.
Ive been in this camp for a long time but now im re-evaluating stifle. For me daze will never change.Quote:
How do you feel about the 0 or 4 question?
I think it applies to stifle much more than to the other counterspells... maybe daze as well.
wcm8- wont quote your post its too long but I will say that while you have good points and I agree on the manabase issue specifically, but I dont think that stifle should be removed from the main. Rather the count should be questioned, im considering 3 rather than 4 for testing. Sure its at its best in the early game but is still relevant later on.
True manabases are more resilient but wasteland is omnipresent and stifle deals with things that get through our counterwall from jitte triggers to engineered explosives/pernicious deed, storm, plainswalkers, emrakul annihilator 6 triggers and so on. We all know how broad its applications are.
I also feel that in the mirror the deck that runs stifle is favored. Its pretty much the only card for U that can (conditionally) fill the roles of counterspell, removal, destroy permanent and so on. Its still good enough to be in the 60 IMO.
Edit- I roll the full compliment like pherion so its not a matter of stifle vs. pierce
To address your points specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstalker
Jitte counters: Fair enough, but we ideally don't let this ever land by a) countering the stoneforge, b) countering the jitte itself, or c) burning the creature when they go to equip it. Stifle is only a temporary measure. In post-board games we should be bringing in some Ancient Grudges to aid in our other methods of dealing with the card.
Wasteland: maindeck Life from the Loam and/or Sylvan Library are better ways of dealing with this card if it's a real concern. Also, playing a minimum of 19 lands helps a lot with not getting wasted out of a game. Keep fetches unbroken if you can help it, or use Daze to protect lands if you *really* need to (e.g. play a Brainstorm in response, Daze your own Brainstorm by returning the land being targeted with Wasteland, pay for the Daze to resolve your Brainstorm -- Daze thus functions as a defensive Stifle). If you're playing against a deck with its major strategy revolving around recurring Wasteland (e.g. Aggro Loam, BUG Planeswalker Control), a couple Stifles are really not going to help you win this matchup as it's already going to be an uphill struggle to begin with.
Explosives: Okay, at 1 it's annoying if you have Mongoose out. 0 is bad if you have flipped Delver out. 2 is bad if you have Tarmogoyf. Do you see the pattern? Our threats are spread out all over the CMC spectrum, so unless we over-extend this card isn't that big of a deal. In this regard, EE is just another removal spell that happens to hit our Geese, but like all removal spells, you either have the FoW/Spell Pierce/Daze, or you don't.
Deed: Spell Pierce. If you've made it to the point of the game where they can resolve this and still pay for Pierce, you've likely already lost.
Storm.dec: They tend to play cards like Silence/Orim's Chant, Thoughtseize/Duress, Xantid Swarm, and Ill Gotten Gains, so hoping to catch them at the last possible moment is highly unlikely unless your opponent is pretty dumb and goes all-in. Having more Spell Pierce/Snare to disrupt their earlier lines of play is a much safer method of winning these matchups.
Planeswalkers: Spell Pierce/FoW/Burn/Attacking with our creatures. You don't want these to resolve, ever.
Emrakul 6 Trigger: Seriously? Seriously. Seriously?? 99% of the time that this is happening, you've already lost the game. Don't you wish you had Spell Pierce for that Show and Tell?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I know the card can be awesome, believe me. But there are just so many instances and matchups where I'd much rather have other 1cmc blue cards in my hand.
I think with RUG moving more towards the AGGRO side rather than the Control side of being an Aggro-Control deck, we want spells that aren't used for purely defensive measures. We want to be the aggressor and make the opponent answer US, not the other way around.
I agree with ur statements, the only real thing holding me back is that u have to keep 1landers/short on land hands and can get blown out by waste. I've had it so many times where I play a dual like volc where they shouldn't waste u if u got mana open,but still do so(no respect for potential stifle). I understand the merits of pierce,I'm playing 2md right now,but I can't see myself cutting stifle from md. I mean sure it's less good vs some decks but it's an easy target to board out also... The argument about playing around stifle isn't a valid one as sometimes they have to try to fetch to stay in game.
I like wcm8 arguments against stifle.
Especially not beeing good agains DTB#1 maverick. I think it is important to evaluate cards for the most common situation and not the ones you remember like "I was outtapped when he cast deed, but had stifle to win the game... "
In fact I like pierce against Maverick more than Snare, since they need swords/punishing, GSZ, Equipment, sylvan, choke,...
On the other hand I don't see manabases beeing a lot more stable: Stilfe is good against the new 22 land esperblade build. Piercing lingering souls feels often very bad...