[DTB] Vial Goblins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

@ Nessaja
The point was that it sounds odd to accuse me of theorycrafting because we've basically outlined the same strengths (even if we have differing opinions on just how relevant those strengths might be).

---

I stated that it sounds like you are theorycrafting about the relevance of the strengths we both summed up. How many times does that need to be repeated.

Quote:

---

I find Sting a bit more versatile than that.

---

He is, but not as a 2 drop.

Quote:

---

I'd strike the "land drop each turn" and add "using all of your land resources each turn". Curving the deck out is about maximizing the mana resources you actually have each turn, not necessarily about making land drops or increasing your average mana pool.

---

That's a given, but that starts with having enough lands to make your drops. Mutavault is an important part of "using your resources" after you've emptied your hand.

Quote:

---

You still haven't addressed the point that in poorly curved circumstances, you often won't be activating a manland, even if the mana was available, simply because you couldn't afford to lose the mana source. If you are having trouble building up to drop a 3 or 4cc card, then you often won't be taking the risk of opening your mana-base up to creature removal in the first place.

---

Good thing that nobody is forcing you to activate the manland in a situation where you cannot miss him. I do not believe that dropping a manland automatically means that you're attacking with it every turn. If you do then you're using it wrong. If someone is keeping 1 w open to stop a mutavault then I sure won't be attacking with it if I don't have a sufficient amount of lands in my hand as a backup. If I do, I'd gladly take 1 of their 4 removal spells

Quote:

---

Make your land drops, but make them Mountains. You'll still be wanting every red source you can get to empty your hands through Warchief after a sweep.

---

I'd much rather have a Mutavault lategame then a Mountain. You assume luxury of Warchief. What if you do not have 4+ cards in your hand after a sweep. If you can force your opponent to make a sweep while still have a Warchief and several other goblins in your hand then you'll probably win either way.

Quote:

---

Mutavault is just worse than mountain against decks running Wasteland. We have cycling, Vial, early dudes, and mana-denial which excels against their opposing man-land/standstill based strategies. We need to maintain our mana bases in these matches and pressure our opponent, not open ourselves up any further to their mana denial.

---

You keep assuming that the Mutavaults come instead of mountains. How did you ever get that impression.

Quote:

---

Merfolk doesn't need the help, and Slivers is already heavily in their favor. I'm failing to see where Mutavault was necessary.

---

It's not a sideboard card, quit approaching it as if it is. It's included maindeck because it's a versatile utility card that works against every non-combo deck. It's not included to help any specific matchups. That it's specifically good in certain matchups is just icing on the cake.

Quote:

---

That's the point. If you are going to lower the stability of Mono-Red by playing Man-lands in the first place, which is essentially the only good reason to play mono red, then you might as well just be splashing for a better answer than Mutavault.

---

You're not opening yourself up the Stifle. Also, adding Mutavaults doesn't make your deck any less stable. If the Mutavaults were to replace lands I'd agree, but as I said before you aren't switching Mutavaults for normal lands. If anything your manabase becomes more stable by adding Mutavaults in addition to your normal land base. Could you please explain to me how adding more lands to a deck is making the mana base less stable?

Quote:

---

Sharpshooter wins ground wars all over the place. He has high synergy with the removal in this deck. He's very main deckable.

---

Then go ahead and maindeck Sharpshooter, I'm not even having that discussion. Seriously.

Hi. I played with my Rbg Goblins in a 15-man Legacy tournament yesterday, and luckily placed 1st.:cool:

Here's my list:

Maindeck
3 Wooded Foothills
3 Bloodstained Mire
4 Wasteland
4 Mountain
4 Badlands
2 Taiga
2 Rishadan Port

4 Goblin Lackey
4 Frogtosser Banneret
3 Goblin Piledriver
4 Goblin Warchief
4 Goblin Matron
4 Goblin Ringleader
2 Gempalm Incinerator
2 Siege-Gang Commander
1 Goblin Sharpshooter
1 Wort, Boggart Auntie
1 Mogg Fanatic

4 Aether Vial
4 Warren Weirding

SB
3 Shattering Spree (must be Chalice of the Void, but I don't have any yet)
3 Krosan Grip
3 Earwig Squad (for combo decks, since I do not have CotV's)
2 Seal of Primordium
2 Pyrokinesis
1 Goblin Sharpshooter (meta choice)
1 Goblin Piledriver

I tested the deck with both Frogtosser and Port in, and it went well. The Ports were, as usual, instrumental in denying mana for my opponents and slowing them down. The Frogtossers were a huge tempo boost, helping me overwhelm my opponents with 1-2 mana Ringleaders, and casting the Goblins I draw.

The decks I faced were, in order: Faerie Stompy (2-0), Uw Painter (1-1-1), Merfolk (2-0), CounterTop (ID), Uw Painter (same deck, 2-0), Merfolk (same deck, 2-0), and Bgw Rock (2-0). I was lucky enough that I wasn't paired with any of the 3 ANT decks present that day. MVP's for the blue decks were Piledrivers and Ports, plus Sharpshooter for the Merfolk. Warren Weirding won me the game vs Bgw Rock.

@ Nessaja

Quote:

---

I stated that it sounds like you are theorycrafting about the relevance of the strengths we both summed up. How many times does that need to be repeated.

---

We've had to clarify what you meant because that isn't what you said the first time. You basically said, "You made that pile of shit up" in your first post, so don't expect me not to clarify what you meant by it, especially since you agreed on several points.

Don't act like you're repeating yourself. Your first statement was ironic and perhaps hypocritical, while your above statement isn't ambiguous at all.

Quote:

---

That's a given, but that starts with having enough lands to make your drops.

---

I am not implying you shouldn't be running land to make drops. I'm saying there are others options than Mutavault in Mono Red if you aren't maximizing your land resources each turn. You can run between 22 and 25 lands pretty effectively; you just need to adjust your mana cost curve and use of tempo cards to fit.

Stay with 25 by all means. Run mountains though.

Quote:

---

If you can force your opponent to make a sweep while still have a Warchief and several other goblins in your hand then you'll probably win either way.

---

That is just a part of playing Goblins correctly. Against board sweeping, you'll often be slow rolling your opponent and making sure you don't over extend. Manlands are not necessary to having a good strategy and a good game against heavy control decks.

If control gave me more problems (as you said it does for you), then I'd rather splash than play Mutavaults. I'd rather have the answers provided by black and/or green than play Mutavault.

Quote:

---

It's not a sideboard card, quit approaching it as if it is. It's included maindeck because it's a versatile utility card that works against every non-combo deck. It's not included to help any specific matchups. That it's specifically good in certain matchups is just icing on the cake

---

We agreed on most of the strengths of the card, but we've disagreed on how important those strengths might be. We were talking about tribal matchups specifically in this section, and you certainly tried to make that one of the selling points of this card. You "included [mutavault] to help...specific matchups". I'm denying the claim that the strengths Mutavault has against opposing tribal decks form a good selling point. They're nice, but not relevant. If you don't care, then you shouldn't have brought up 'tribal decks' as one of the strengths.

Quote:

---

You keep assuming that the Mutavaults come instead of mountains. How did you ever get that impression.

---

Mutavaults will be used at the cost of either lands or Goblins. I gave you a list of each which I think are better than Mutavault. You denied they were, but obviously you know I'm considering the replacement any of those cards on the list, not just mountains.

I keep pointing to Mountain > Mutavault because you are playing a Mono Red list. It gives you the option to either keep the same land count and maximizing your odds of having red in play or curving down for more tempo oriented Goblins. I'm saying running Mutavault misses the entire point of going Mono Red in the first place. You want red sources, not Mutavault. And, if you think you don't need more Red sources, then you might as well just splash.

Quote:

---

You're not opening yourself up the Stifle. Also, adding Mutavaults doesn't make your deck any less stable....Could you please explain to me how adding more lands to a deck is making the mana base less stable?

---

It makes you less stable than if you just ran Mountains. Just run 16 or 17 Mountains and some Goblins instead of playing Mutavault. That mana color curve will definitely be more stable, more difficult to disrupt, and still quite capable of curving out (by both of our definitions).

Anyways, and oddly enough, I'd argue part of the reason we're having our conversation about Mutavault is because we disagree on Mogg Fanatic.

Mogg Fanatic does many of the roles of Mutavault. Let's go through our list. He fills in the gaps of unused mana to help you curve out the deck, and indirectly through the tempo he creates can draw you into more land. Against decks that play creatures, he opens many lines of play, often putting you in stronger board positions so that you won't be in topdeck mode in the first place. He doesn't survive sweepers, but he does shoot to the face, which isn't all that bad against decks which are trying to "lock us out". He synergizes really well with Lackey, Incinerator, Piledriver, and that one card you won't talk about (you know the one, "arpshooterShay"). Unlike Mutavault, he has more ways to help you dictate the board as you can force a creature to take damage from Fanatic, but not with Mutavault. Oh, and let us not forget, he is awesome against Tribal decks.






peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4eak

@ Nessaja
We've had to clarify what you meant because that isn't what you said the first time. You basically said, "You made that pile of shit up" in your first post, so don't expect me not to clarify what you meant by it, especially since you agreed on several points.
Don't act like you're repeating yourself. Your first statement was ironic and perhaps hypocritical, while your above statement isn't ambiguous at all.

---

Don't assume for one moment that I'm not still standing by my old statement. I have a hard time believing your conclusions since many of them are the opposite of mine. The question now would be why haven't you answered the question, did you even test it?

Quote:

---

I am not implying you shouldn't be running land to make drops. I'm saying there are others options than Mutavault in Mono Red if you aren't maximizing your land resources each turn. You can run between 22 and 25 lands pretty effectively; you just need to adjust your mana cost curve and use of tempo cards to fit.

Stay with 25 by all means. Run mountains though.

---

No, I've tried that, tested that. I dislike it. A mountain can be a dead card on many occasions. A Mutavault never is.

Quote:

---

That is just a part of playing Goblins correctly. Against board sweeping, you'll often be slow rolling your opponent and making sure you don't over extend. Manlands are not necessary to having a good strategy and a good game against heavy control decks.

---

Take the Zoo or Tempo Thresh matchup, I would really like to know how you're dealing with Zoo/TT that boarded in Pyroclasms, "slowroll" Zoo/TT? Really? They're not going to sweep the board if you don't have any threats on the table. A scenario with Warchief and several other goblins in your hand (without Ringleader) is just unrealistic.

Quote:

---

If control gave me more problems (as you said it does for you), then I'd rather splash than play Mutavaults. I'd rather have the answers provided by black and/or green than play Mutavault.

---

Huh? I didn't say that... Could you stop with putting words in my mouth? It's not the first time you do it. You assume that I put Mutavault in to strengthen the Tribal matchup, you assume that I put Mutavault in to strengthen the control matchup, you assume that he's there to cover some sort of weakness. Just because he's specifically strong in certain matchups does not mean that he's in the deck because of that. Piledriver isn't in the deck because he rocks Merfolk either, yet, he does.

Mutavault is included maindeck because he's never a dead card, fits with the rest of the gameplan, helps you curve out (even after emptying your hand), survives sweepers and has synergy with the rest of the deck.

Quote:

---

Mutavaults will be used at the cost of either lands or Goblins. I gave you a list of each which I think are better than Mutavault. You denied they were, but obviously you know I'm considering the replacement any of those cards on the list, not just mountains.

---

When I specifically give a list of cards I assume maindeckedand and you still mention Mountains after that you're just trying to straight out annoy me. Mutavaults have never taken up the spot of Mountains and I never claimed otherwise.

Quote:

---

I keep pointing to Mountain > Mutavault because you are playing a Mono Red list. It gives you the option to either keep the same land count and maximizing your odds of having red in play or curving down for more tempo oriented Goblins. I'm saying running Mutavault misses the entire point of going Mono Red in the first place. You want red sources, not Mutavault. And, if you think you don't need more Red sources, then you might as well just splash.

---

So let me get this straight what you say is this:

Mono Red Goblins (60 cards)
22-23 Base Lands
4 Vial
33-34 Spells

Mono Red Goblins (60 Cards)
22-23 Base Lands
4 Vial
30-31 Spells
3 Mutavault

You're telling me that even though the amount of red sources is entirely unchanged I still need more red sources in the scenario where I do add Mutavualt but I don't need more red sources when I don't add Mutavault. 4eak, I'm sure you're a nice person and all but at the moment, you're quite simply a really tiresome person to argue with, it's quite simply getting annoying at this point.

Quote:

---

Anyways, and oddly enough, I'd argue part of the reason we're having our conversation about Mutavault is because we disagree on Mogg Fanatic.

---

That's fair.

Quote:

---

Mogg Fanatic does many of the roles of Mutavault. Let's go through our list.
...


...

---

I'm sorry but... from everything you listed, Mutavault isn't anything like Mogg Fanatic. They have completely different roles for the deck. Completely different times when their use is the best as well.

@ Nessaja

Quote:

---

did you even test it?

---

Absolutely, your list in fact. And, I definitely found good uses for the card. I don't think it is as good as the other options I've listed.

Quote:

---

I have a hard time believing your conclusions since many of them are the opposite of mine.

---

That's the funny part about arguments -- we both usually think the other person is wrong. Even though I've held the above thought about your conclusions, I haven't called your argument mere theorycraft or said you were a tiresome person.

Remember: you don't have to debate. If you find it tiresome, then don't worry about it. Keep your tech and you can prove your point in other ways.

Quote:

---

A mountain can be a dead card on many occasions. A Mutavault never is.

---

It could be a mistake to generalize in this instance. Mutavault can easily be made dead, via Wasteland, creature removal or lock pieces like Moat. There are plenty of cases where I prefer having the less vulnerable and red producing mountain to Mutavault, especially when I'm sacrificing the splash.

Quote:

---

When I specifically give a list of cards I assume maindeckedand and you still mention Mountains after that you're just trying to straight out annoy me. Mutavaults have never taken up the spot of Mountains and I never claimed otherwise.

---

Anytime you choose one card over another, you are replacing it. I argued that each of the cards, including mountain, had a competitive advantage over Mutavault (even in Mono Red lists).

I have driven Mountain concern in particular simply because I think you have replaced a mountain in your list. If Mutavaults weren't in your decklist, then you'd have 23 lands. 23 is a little low, but depending on the metagame acceptable given Stingscourger's tempo. If I was playing Mono Red, I would play 16-17 Mountains and the full ports/waste. Maximizing red sources is the point of going Mono Red, and given the way you've built your Mono Red list, I think you are replacing at least one Mountain.

Quote:

---

Take the Zoo or Tempo Thresh matchup, I would really like to know how you're dealing with Zoo/TT that boarded in Pyroclasms, "slowroll" Zoo/TT?

---

I still prefer the Mountain against Tempo Thresh in the first place. I want to minimize the chances they'll be denying me mana. I can often maintain tempo parity with them, even through sweepers, if I have a proper mana base to generate CA, exercise my own mana-denial, abuse Vial, Lackey, and control the board.

I think you've also overestimated how many Zoo decks are boarding in Pyroclasm. Many Zoo decks don't run a sweeper at all. For the ones that do, I'll grant you, Mutavault can be nice.

Against the majority of decks running board sweepers, which are generally control decks, I still prefer Mountain, Splashing, and other options I've provided.

Quote:

---

You're telling me that even though the amount of red sources is entirely unchanged I still need more red sources in the scenario where I do add Mutavualt but I don't need more red sources when I don't add Mutavault.

---

Almost. Remember that the key point to playing Mono Red is maximizing your Red sources (either by running a ton of tempo, more red sources, and/or limiting the effects of mana denial).

First of all, I deny that the red sources have not changed. The red sources should scale with the number of tempo cards in your deck (of which Mutavault is not one). The more tempo-oriented cards you play (Fanatic/Sting and silver bullets), the lower your red count can be, as those tempo cards buy you time to curve out. When you remove tempo cards, then you should increase your red sources. You could easily benefit from more red sources given only a medium number of tempo/silver bullet slots. This leads me to the second issue.

You've sacrificed your ability to play a second color not just to avoid Stifle, but to also avoid the card which is 2.3 times more common than Stifle: Wasteland. In addition, you've sacrificed the splashes because you want to maximize your red sources when you go Mono Red. One of the strengths of going Mono Red is not being as bottle-necked by having limited red sources (which can be serious loss in tempo, board control, and arguably card advantage over time). Mono Red also gives you the option to scale down with increased tempo cards. You have not chosen these options though.

Instead, you've chosen a card that is antithetical to the aims of playing Mono Red. You aren't maximizing red sources like you should. You weaken your mana base to Wasteland, you open yourself up to creature removal on your mana base. You've not scaled your tempo cards to properly curve out. As your mana base isn't all that much better off than those who splash, you're essentially foregoing what splashing colors has to offer you for Mutavaults.

Give me mountains, more tempo, or give me a splash.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry but... from everything you listed, Mutavault isn't anything like Mogg Fanatic. They have completely different roles for the deck. Completely different times when their use is the best as well.

---

I should have said: Mogg fanatic is worth Mutavault's slot, and that's because he fulfills these roles. Many of Mutavaults roles are covered by Mogg fanatic though.





peace,
4eak

Without trying to sound like an asshole, if any of you wants to 'prove' anything beyond a shadow of doubt, post results instead of theorycraft :D
Show percentages, playtest gauntlets, top 8's etc because this thread is degenerating into a 'I'm right you're wrong' kind of shitfest at a rapid pace and at least results would be interesting to read.

Your not sounding like an asshole, I agree with you.

Problem is that when you're taking previous (established) results you put a halt to all innovation. Also note that we're talking about a difference of 3 cards in the maindeck. How much 3 cards will affect the outcome is also the question... we're really talking about micromanagement and details here. On MWS testing, I've atleast noticed significantly less mana screw, both ways, because Mutavaults have a dual function.

As for 4eak, I think I do reserve the right to call someone tiresome when they keep bringing up the same points or even put words in my mouth. It's more then clear to me by now that it isn't a misunderstanding but really just a fundamental difference of opinion about how you achieve your goals with goblins. That's fine, everyone can decide on their own. I think we pretty much beat this to dead anyway.

Hi all the sourcers here, I am new to this forum and would like some opinion about my Goblin build. By the way, I am from Singapore and legacy meta here is very small (max 15ppl)due to T2 more favorable and card accessibility here.

RGB build

Lands:
4 X mountains
1 X swamp
2 x Taiga
2 x Badlands
3 x Rishadan Ports
4 x Wasteland
3 x Bloodstained Mire
3 x Wooded Foothills

Goblins:
4 x Goblin Lackey
4 X Goblin Ringleader
4 X Goblin Warchief
4 x Goblin Matron
4 x Goblin Piledriver
2 X Siege Gang Commander
1 x Goblin Wizard
1 x Goblin Sharpshooter
1 X Lightning crafter
2 x Gempalm Incinerator
1 X Goblin Tinkerer

Spells:
3 X thoughtseize
3 x warren Weirdling

Artifact:
4 X Aether Vials

SB:
3 x Krosan Grip
3 X perish ( becos of Prog thres and zoo with alot of green creatures)
3 x Pyrokinesis
3 x Relic
1 x Wort Boggart Auntie
1 x Goblin King
1 x Earwig squad ( feel like cutting for one more grips)

Also, is it a normal to SB 8-9 cards against a CB top type of decks. I felt i have a badmatchup against Goyfsligh and Burn with volcanic fallout maindeck.


Against CBtop:
-1 sharpshooter
-1 Goblin Wizard
-2 gempalm
-3 Warren weirdling
-1 ringleader

+3 relic
+3 grips
+ 3 perish

Pls advise me if i have done wrong with the SBing but this list i have been doing quite consistently at top 4 except recent meta with alot of burn, goyf sligh and zoo.

Thank you for your time for suggesting cheers.

Welcome to the Source!

On the deck:
- Before I play Goblin King, in a Rgb version, I'd play Mad Auntie.
- I don't think that that goblin toolbox is healthy for the deck. Instead, add Fanatics, Frogtosser, or another one.
- Don't fear Counter/Top. You can easyly play around it with Lackey/ Vial and Warchief/Matron/Ringleader/Piledriver.
- Again'st C/T, don't side out Warren's. They have few creatures on the deck, and Warren's is amazing.

-Agains Burn/Goyf Sligh/Zoo, I'd recommend Challice of the Void, or if you can't get those, Dragons Claw would be nice either.

-How's Goblin Wizard? I'd suggest you to remove it, but remembered I never tested. But seems it'sonly good when you already have lots of cards/mana/control of the game.

Hi ScatmanX,

Thx u for the prompt reply and warm welcome. Really appreciate the sharing with your knowledge.

I dun know , i felt i needed the chalice but it will not be good if 4 of are not included in the SB. The perish has been really inconsistent. Also after SB out, i felt the gobs deck has became extremely diluted.

I have won numerous matchup with control using the thoughtseize. The Goblin wizard is very good against dragon stompy acting as the fifth vial, good synergy with warchief and powerful if opponent splashing white for plow and vindicate. Usually against non-white i often side out.

After much thought before ur reply, i think i will change my sb to something like this:

4 x Chalice of the void
3 x krosan Grip
1 x wort boggart auntie
3 x relic
3 x pyrokinesis
1 x warren weirdling

can u share, how would u sb using my decklist if u meet

A. goyf sligh, burn
B. Andy Probasco CB/top list and landstill.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Cheers man

The way you SB, you take 9 goblins out, and put 9 non-goblins in, summing up to 16+22 non-gobbs, wich is bad. Would put Wizardon the SB, once he's use is very limited, switching with Wort.
About the Sbing:

Burn:
+4Chalice of the Void
-3Weirdings, -1Tinker (depending on burn's build)
That's preety much you can do.

Zoo:
+ 4 x Chalice of the void, +3 x relic, + 3 x pyrokinesis;
- 3 Thoughtseize, -1 Tinkerer, - 1 Wizard, -2 Ringleader, -1 Crafter, -2 Piladriver.
If you're not on the play, don't pu Chalice in and keep the Piledrivers and Ringleaders.
Don't know if siding in Relics is the way to go though...

I'm not familiarized with Probasco's List so,
Landstill

+3 Krosan Grip, +1 Wort;
-3 Warren's Weirdings, -1 Gempalm.

If he uses Loam or Crubicle of Worlds, consider Relics over 1 shooter, 1 gempalm, 1 Ringleader.

Don't know if these are the best options, but guess that Crafter and Seize are good here. Try staying with 1 gempalm to kill factory under standstill (I know, ports+wastes, but even so...)

I wouldn't board out Warren Wierding against Probasco blue since their only way of surviving to the late game is Goyf and Clasm effects. Wierding isn't an answer to Sower of Temptation but you still have Gempalm for him.

For your list I'd take out -1 Goblin Wizard, -1 Goblin Sharpshooter, -1 Lightning Crafter, -1 Gempalm. For a standard list they should be boarding out Mogg Fanatics.

Okie, thx for the advice and sharing.

Just wondering, against countertop or thres, relic is not needed? Sometimes I felt the 4 x grip shld be able to do the job. But a failed attempt of weirdling may warren faster dmg for the goyf. what is the thought here?

I take ur advice for the switch between wort and wizard.

The sower seem pestering when they have shackles effect on. it seem that the deck is so tight and any attempt of sbing out gobs will make the assault even worse.

@Scatmanx: Generally, andy's deck has mainboard: shackles, sower, grip, pithing, spell snare. SB: Duress, firespout, BEB.

Once again thx for the time spent in sharing. Have a nice day.

A minor thing, but I wouldn't side out the lone tinkerer, because then you have absolutely no out to a resolved ensnaring bridge. There is enough dead stuff like sharpshooter that should be sided out first. EDIT: I am talking about the burn matchup here, responding to ScatmanX's boarding plans.

Personally I wouldn't even board in grips against Probasco. Counterbalance is not that much of a problem. Pithing Needle, oh well? EE can only do so much and they will probably activate right away. That leaves Vedalken Shackles, which I solve by running 2 Tin Street Hooligan sideboard (great against goblins, merfolk, jitte decks, shackles decks, chalice stompy decks, storm combo).

My own sideboard

4 Chalice of the Void
4 Leyline of the Void (or comparable graveyard hate)
3 Krosan Grip
2 Engineered Explosives
2 Tin Street Hooligan

3 Grip + 2 EE gives a strong plague fighting weapon, and EE can have its uses in other places. Chalice is definitely awesome. You could drop 2 EE for 2 Pyrostatic Pillar, I guess, if you are interested in increasing that matchup, and maybe a TSH for one too. But so far 2 sb TSH and 1 md TSH has been very awesome for me. I also personally think perish is cool but haven't tested it really.

That's the reason I like RBG. You get access to TSH/Grip as well as Weirding, and to top it off Engineered Explosives which is a great versatile sideboard answer.

With my sideboard and list I personally board something like this against the decks:

BURN
+4 Chalice
-3 Weirding, -1 Stingscourger

ZOO (on the play)
+4 Chalice, +2 EE, +2 TSH (because of jitte)
-8 Depends

ZOO (on the draw)
+2 EE, +2 TSH
-4 Depends

PROBASCO
+2 TSH (possibly +2 EE)
-X Fanatic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoulQ

A minor thing, but I wouldn't side out the lone tinkerer, because then you have absolutely no out to a resolved ensnaring bridge. There is enough dead stuff like sharpshooter that should be sided out first.

---

Which competitive deck runs Ensnaring Bridge again? I used to run 1x Tin Street Hooligan or Goblin Tinkerer main deck, but lately I've been running without it and doing just fine. Of course I still keep 4x Grips and 1x Tinkerer/TSH in the sideboard, but honestly you don't really need artifact removal main deck.

In most situations where an opponent drops a troublesome artifact, you either A) Don't have the singleton goblin, B) Don't have a Matron, or C) Already played a Matron and fetched something more useful. I can't begin to count the number of times I've had dead artifact removal goblins in my hand. Try cutting it - I guarantee you won't miss it.

Ensnaring Bridge isn't usually the concern. Here's a list of targets which I see often enough:

• Vedalken Shackles
• Aether Vial (opposing ones)
• Pithing Needle
• Powder Keg
• Engineered Explosives
• Nevi's Disk
• Dreadnought
• Chalice
• Crucible of Worlds
• Jitte
• SoFI
• Smokestack
• Top (at the very least, an active tinkerer prevents the card from tapping)
• Mox Diamond
• LED
• Chrome Mox
• Activated Mishra's Factory
• Isochron Scepter
• Trinisphere

Legacy is largely defined by its artifacts. A number of the above cards are quite dangerous. Even the ability to hit artifact mana sources can easily be life or death against some of our worst matchups. Maindeck artifact hate wins a ton of games you otherwise wouldn't be able to win.





peace,
4eak

Pretty funny this all came about on a misunderstanding. I was talking specifically about the burn matchup. About not boarding tinkerer out against burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScatmanX

Burn:
+4Chalice of the Void
-3Weirdings, -1Tinker (depending on burn's build)
That's preety much you can do.

---

Sorry for not clarifying that, I was specifically talking about not boarding out tinkerer games 2/3 against burn. And whether or not you agree if it is a "real deck," it is present. I would not say "depending on burn's build" because you cannot reliably say whether they board in ensnaring bridges. Might as well play it safe and board out the multitude of other dead cards, like I said before: sharpshooter.

Alright, thx for all the knowlegeable info.

As u see, My fanatics slot has been my thoughtseize. So the siding has changed as compared to others. Generally, even deck that play goyf, are those relic not needed for them since weirdling can do the job?

I agree the lone tinkerer or TSH is merely there for silver bullet but it would be nice in random games that they help.

Im think should I increase my grips to 4 or relic to 4, what is the ideal ratio for both?

Am i losing out against burn because of thoughtseize or shld i bring the fanatic back? I juz felt that pyrokinesis is able to do the job as fanatic.

Anyway more sharing and critic to improve my boarding kill, cheers.:smile:

"Might as well play it safe and board out the multitude of other dead cards, like I said before: sharpshooter."
Burn build's I see around qhere I play don't have Ensnaring Bridges, thats why it depends on the build. Also, if it is Bubble burn, or Ankh Burn, you should keep Tinker aswell.

And yes, Sharpshootr would only be kind of useful if he ran Fanatics, so you're right here.

People pick up new cards and change their sideboards all the time. Why even risk it when somebody is trying out new "ensnaring bridge tech?" A card as dead as sharpshooter should definitely be boarded out first. Yes, sharpshooter can beat things like random hellspark elementals that might pop out, but that card doesn't shut you down like ensnaring bridge would. Might as well have an out to a potential MOAT (basically) instead of risking it and keeping a card like sharpshooter in instead.