[DTB] Vial Goblins

Well I was actually looking more for advice than analyzing my testing. Keep in mind they were only a few matches and I played the other decks myself. Although, I'm actually familiar with AN Tendrils because of the work I've done with it in type 1. Really the draws weren't that good in the last couple matches, and more testing would certainly put me under 50%. If it's such a problem for me, do you think I should run Canonist in the board? If so, what would you pull out? The blood moon helps slow down decks like landstill and threshold, while the crypt is used against ichorid, which seems to be one of my worst matchups atm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessaja

And if Taco doesn't want to discuss it any further that's fine, I'll just be left not understanding why on earth you would run a card that gives a (small) gain 11% of the time and is strictly worse 89% of the time.

---

1. It depends on your build - if you have a very balanced curve, with multiple cards in the 2cc-slot, then Port doesn't shine that much since you'll have stuff to cast instead of using it for the first turns (and it's pretty weak after the first turns). If your 2cc-slot is rather empty, then Port becomes better.

2. It can be argued that Goblins has more problems winning games on the draw than on the play, and thus Caverns helps in the situations where you need help the most.

3. Like Taco said, there are a number of situations where a Caverns (not in your opening hand) is exactly as good as a Port, not worse, because you don't want to use Port anywawy. These include being on the draw (using two mana to deny one when you're behind in tempo won't often be a good move), or after turn five when your opponent has more than enough mana (and Goblins has a higher curve than many other decks, so chances are you need your mana more than they do)....so it's not as easy as 11% better 89% worse, but maybe something like 11% better 40% even 49% worse, or whatever (these numbers are obviously made up).

I´m getting so sick of those numbers.

I guess that players that tested Caverns, and twitched the deck to make it better, liked it. Those who didn´t, do not liked it.

I´m sticking with 2, since they have really helped me, even in some Tournaments, and I never run in to a serious drawback.

Don´t really care about the percentages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by georgjorge

1. It depends on your build - if you have a very balanced curve, with multiple cards in the 2cc-slot, then Port doesn't shine that much since you'll have stuff to cast instead of using it for the first turns (and it's pretty weak after the first turns). If your 2cc-slot is rather empty, then Port becomes better.

---

This is true, but now you're talking about Ports efficiency which is a topic an sich. Personally, Port becomes effective as soon as I can cheat the curve so that's either with Lackey or Vial or Warchief. With any of the three you can disrupt your opponent and using it like that it's also useful midgame. I very much contend the statement that Rishadan Port is only useful early game.

Quote:

---

2. It can be argued that Goblins has more problems winning games on the draw than on the play, and thus Caverns helps in the situations where you need help the most.

---

And that's a fair argument.

Quote:

---

These include being on the draw (using two mana to deny one when you're behind in tempo won't often be a good move), or after turn five when your opponent has more than enough mana (and Goblins has a higher curve than many other decks, so chances are you need your mana more than they do)

---

There's more to using port then just using it turn 2 on the play. But your main point (that it isn't strictly better 89% of the time, but likely less) stands. Again, you're focused on Port here, you can take Mountains or Mutavault too, I would think from both that they're more useful the majority of the time compared to Caverns.

It doesn't seem like you think that Caverns is so good, instead I'm getting the impression that you feel like Port is bad. I'd rather search elsewhere then Caverns in that scenario.

I reran my numbers and I origionally said 15% but it 12%. And like I said before when we look at the numbers we should not look at them as what will happen, we should use them in a cost benifit analisis. Is running 2 Caverns worth it if it will only server its purpose 12% of the time?

The cost for me is what the 2 Ports they are replacing could do for me. Before I made the change away from fanatic to war marshal and stingouger Rishidan port was a 2 drop replacement essentially. What you need to ask yourself is whether or not you can out race other decks and does a 12% chance of being able to outrace them ON THE DRAW justify its inclusion over Port. For me it does.

I have a question for those running Warren's Weirding. Does it hurt you much against goyf? I run Lightning Bolt right now because most people play instants before I would bolt so it is normally not a problem. I guess im just asking if tribal has hurt you at all.

Can someone please try adding 2 Frenzied Goblin to their list and change the mana base to include 18 red sources and tell me what you think. I'm finding it to be very useful and sometimes gamebreaking.

If you need help with what to cut I would suggest Stingscourger because the bounce isn't as needed when you can make opposing creatures unable to block instead.

PS: I would be glad if nobody says they try it and then response "it sucks". And those who don't try it should not even bother replying at all! ;)

I like the Stingscourger effect, but hate the upkeep cost. I want to still keep the creature in play to attack the next turn too. Otherwise Gempalm Incinerator does the same thing and permanently answers the threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rukcus

I like the Stingscourger effect, but hate the upkeep cost. I want to still keep the creature in play to attack the next turn too. Otherwise Gempalm Incinerator does the same thing and permanently answers the threat.

---

With Tombstalker, Dreadnought and company in the format, I simply can't see the deck functioning properly without Stingscourger. You can't race Dreadnought efficiently and coupled with removal, even just Tombstalker can often be too fast as you need time to build up your business.

In either case, Stingscourger solves the problem creature, while also acting as a removal for anything (on turn 2, no less; Frenzy needs longer) and getting rid of Goyfs and Terravores and the like. Overall, I can see Frenzied Goblin being worth playing, but NOT in stead of Stingscourger. The ability to get rid of anything combined with the ability to make a dude later on, and to swing with an extra Gob with Warchief/Chieftain in play while bouncing something is just awesome.


Really, with the creatures we've got in the format right now, Goblins need a defensive effect that functions early on too.

I agree with Eldariel. Goblins is evolving from a 1 trick poney into a deck that needs to toolbox to out do ther decks.

@Melwis
I used to run Frenzied Goblin when I ran Goblin Vandal. Its an option in mono red. To push thru damage though there are better effects, maybe not in Mono Red though. I stopped running it when I stopped running vandal. Cover of darkness for example. Also maybe we will get a sweet goblin with Intimidate-Red. One can only hope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessaja

Spreadsheet: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TZ59Y6QL

@Manhattan, your error is that you don't draw cards in a vacuum, you draw hands of 7 cards, as such, you need to calculate the probability of drawing a certain hand. This is called the hypergeometric distribution, it's actually not that difficult, you first look at the chance to draw the card once, this can be the first draw 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th draw. Then you multiply that by the chance of not drawing the second copy and then add all the probabilities together.

---

Eh? Let's take this step by step. Assume 1 out of 60 cards in my deck is whiteboardered. I take one draw and flip it over. The chance of getting the whiteboardered card is 1/60 or 1:59 or 0,0166 or 1,7%, right? What if I draw two cards instead of one? I've doubled my chances. By extending my logic I can conclude that 7 draws is going to reveal the whiteboardered card 7 times more likely and drawing 60 cards is going to draw the card with 60 times the chance i.e. 60/60 or 60:0 or 1 or 100%, right?
Similarily if I double the number of whiteboardered cards in my deck from 1 to 2 I double the chances of drawing it with one draw.

Or maybe I am just not understanding what you want to figure out with your calculations.

let's say you have one white borded card, and want to know what's the probability of having it in your starting 7.
You draw your first card, that has a probability of 1/60 of being white borded, and put it into your hand. Then you draw your second card. You cannot obviously draw that is already in your hand, so your deck now contains 59 cards, and the chance of drawing the WB card now is 1/59. Similarly, for the third card it will be 1/58, cause you already have 2 non-WB cards in your hand.
That's why the probability of drawing at least one card of a 2of in your opening 7 is: 2/59+2/58+2/57+2/56+2/55+2/54+2/53

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenOne

let's say you have one white borded card, and want to know what's the probability of having it in your starting 7.
You draw your first card, that has a probability of 1/60 of being white borded, and put it into your hand. Then you draw your second card. You cannot obviously draw that is already in your hand, so your deck now contains 59 cards, and the chance of drawing the WB card now is 1/59.

---

Actually, for a 1 card example 1/60th does apply. because 59/60*1/59*58/58*57/57*56/56*55/55*54/54=1/60 and 59/60*58/59*1/57*56/56*55/55*54/54=1/60 Do this for all 7 combinations and you'll see you get a chance of 7/60.

But that's not the rule and you can't apply this to other cases. The reason why it doesn't work this way is because with 2 cards there's an entirely different distribution.

Quote:

---

Similarly, for the third card it will be 1/58, cause you already have 2 non-WB cards in your hand.
That's why the probability of drawing at least one card of a 2of in your opening 7 is: 2/59+2/58+2/57+2/56+2/55+2/54+2/53

---

Right, but it's way more complicated then this and I think we're going a bit too far offtopic. If people want to know they can PM me.

Using that logic implies you care about where you drew that WB card. In reality you don't - for it could be the 7th card you drew in the opening 7. Hence, you want combinatoric functions rather than just simple counting rules.

All that matters for me, about 22% to draw at least 1 of 2 Caverns in an opening 7. Seems good enough for me.

The mistake you two are making is you are assuming that the first card drawn isn't whitebordered and go on to calculate the probability of the second card being a whitebordered card with this information you do not have. The probability of your 7th card being whitebordered is the same as for the first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rukcus

Using that logic implies you care about where you drew that WB card. In reality you don't - for it could be the 7th card you drew in the opening 7. Hence, you want combinatoric functions rather than just simple counting rules.

---

No, you don't care where you draw it, but that you draw it at as a first or second card is a fundamental difference in terms of chance with two cards. Because you don't care where you draw it, you add the chances of getting a hand where you draw it on the 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th and 7th draw. There are 7 possible ways of having 1 Gemstones Caverns in your hand so all you do is adding all possibilities. Then you add all possibilities of having 2 Caverns in your hand and you get the final percentage.

The number you should work with is 11% though, because you need to be on the draw too. Can we move everything else about this subject (statistics) to PM?

@Manhattan I PM'd you with the full explanation already. I'm not making any mistakes in this. You can question my knowledge about Goblins but this statistics thing I got right.

Just want to let you guys know that the comparison to rishadan port is flawed, as you might have a vial ticking away ensuring you don't lose tempo, lackeys hitting your opponent, warchiefs making your dudes cheaper etc.

Port is a tempo-tool, like caverns is as well.

turn zero caverns. turn 1 wasteland over island. net loss 2 cards goblin player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shanghi Knights

turn zero caverns. turn 1 wasteland over island. net loss 2 cards goblin player.

---

It's a 2 for 1 for the opponent when you're on the draw. So your opponent is down to 6 cards, and after you draw for your turn you have 6 cards too. You're also making a land drop in your turn while your opponent has an empty board.

It's the exact same condition that happens when both players mulligan to 6 and YOU are on the play. Seems advantageous in this case.

The only reason I would ever play caverns is if it allows me to make both a solid play and disrupt their mana on turn 1. For example, I drop it on turn 0 and remove a land from the game, then after they lay a land and say go I wasteland their land and drop a vial. But even without looking at the math, I'm certain there's more situations where I'd rather just not have it, not to mention the problem of coming up with room for it in a deck that runs 4 ports and 4 wastelands.

Two things I was wondering about with the deck I posted earlier were if I could find room for mogg fanatic in the main and what I should do with my sideboard.

Mogg fanatic - everyone has been knocking him since the rules change, but I've slowly been talking myself back into playing him. The guy can still chump block and hit them or another creature for 1. And targeted damage for 1 is just too good to pass on. But it's hard to find room for him now that I've maindecked goblin king (either to counteract plague or as a win con vs decks that splash red) and the lightning crafter (for the combo), it's hard to find room for them. I suppose I could drop a plow and an incinerator, but having so much removal is why I have easier games against aggro. And I'm not sure if a guy that targets for 1 can make up for those cards.

Sideboard - my situation is a little different than most, because I splash white rather than green or black. But I'm assuming the decks I have problems with are similar to that of other goblin decks... tendrils, loam, ichorid, and sometimes threshold. Then there's all these W/B or G/U/W or B decks with a ton of removal and life gain that keep showing up on workstation. Is anyone else noticing this and how do you fight it?

I currently keep a vexing shusher in my deck to look for and run a few disenchants with a combination of crypts and relics. I also run a couple pyrokinesis, because even though I can beat some aggro decks without them they've actually been helping against other decks with fatties. That just leaves me a few slots, which I can't decide between blood moon and canonist. I think Canonist could give me a fighting chance against elves and storm decks. I'm wondering how good blood moon is. So far I've tried it against loam, landstill, and threshold. Some times it hits and it's just not enough.

Fuck people.

Port is BAD in the current Metagame. What loss do you have in running Caverns which is NUTS.

FACEPALM.