Printable View
I've been playing R/G and I run a 3-1 split between Grafdigger's Cage and Relic of Progenitus. I don't think boarding in cards like Relic or Cage is where you want to be in the Maverick matchup, although I could see bringing in a relic against RUG if you wanted to make your deck have a lower curve. In general, I only really want to board in grave hate when playing against Dredge, Reanimator, etc.
The only reason I'm not playing Leyline of the Void is I really hate taking mulligan over mulligan to find it.
Sure it's better than Crypt/Relic or whatever GY hate you have against Dredge IF YOU HAVE IT in your starting hand, but, in my opinion, it's not always wise to take a mulligan. And there's absolutely no guarantee finding your Leyline when taking a mulligan.
Like someone said before, I prefer keeping a REALLY good hand and hope to find my Crypt/Relic in the next few turns. It sucks when you have to mulligan away a good hand, just because there's no Leyline. I think that's better than keeping a (probably) medicore hand with zero pressure but with Leyline.
L10, I followed your advice upping the number of mountains but I decided to try with 11 and 2 ports (21 lands total, I still believe 20 may be too low). It is true it is better with more mountains, I feel 11 is a good number, in 30 matches I just had a problem casting any of the 7 haste-lords in 1 match where I had M, Wasteland and Port. The rest was perfectly fine. Ports, even as a 2-off, were fine in some matches.Quote:
Originally Posted by L10
Thanks for your input.
I would like to ask something to the most experienced players on this deck (I know it is a lot of hard word but it could be very helpful for the ones, like me, that are starting with this deck). I know it may not be feasible but I leave the idea here.
I have seen in many decks on the forums, a Match-Up section. I think that would be very interesting to include for Goblins too, on the first post of the thread, at least against the decks to beat and/or our worse MUs. I think it would be specially useful to include:
- Best cards against the MU.
- Worst threats of the MU and how to counter them.
- General best strategy against the deck (what to matron, what to play etc).
- Hands to keep / Hands to mull.
- Best stuff to side in.
- % of Winrate.
- Any other useful info.
What do you think? Could this be possible?
Yeah, but would require a whole lot of work... like, a LOT. And even then, most of us would disagree on more than half of those informations (not that it is a bad thing. The Primer is a guide, not something set in stone).Quote:
Originally Posted by LPEuler
It is a nice idea. Maybe when University is over I'll be able to help on something like that.
Bu if you want those things for some specific matchups, feel free to ask.
On another note: I really want to try Phyrexian Metamorph. Have anyone really tested him here? I know why he is good, I know why he is bad (in theory). I just want to know if anyone actually playtested him and have some information to share.
Thanks.
nice to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw1985
The old primers of the previous threads had a Match-ups section to them. IIRC Gobolord opted not to put one on the current primer because of the simple fact that match-ups change very often and that would mean the information in the primer should be updated often, or become irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by LPEuler
Personally I think it is a very good idea. I would suggest, if it is possible, that we provide a link to Google document in the primer which can be updated regularly by everyone. I don't know the logistics of such a venture but I think that way the information is always relevant, and the primer maintains itself.
Have you tried going with lower land counts? At my local store, I try stuff out all the time, even with cards that are not competitive, just to see their value. I think the land count can go as low as 18 if you take away Wastelands, but I don't recommend it. Though, it may be okay if you have two or three Chrome Moxes. 20 lands is the lowest count I am comfortable with without mana dorks.Quote:
L10, I followed your advice upping the number of mountains but I decided to try with 11 and 2 ports (21 lands total, I still believe 20 may be too low). It is true it is better with more mountains, I feel 11 is a good number, in 30 matches I just had a problem casting any of the 7 haste-lords in 1 match where I had M, Wasteland and Port. The rest was perfectly fine. Ports, even as a 2-off, were fine in some matches.
Yes, but only when I have an awesome board position. Like if I have Warchief and a couple other goblins in play, and a Ringleader at hand. Warchief + Prospector + Gas can produce combo-like results and overrun your opponent. I had a couple alpha strikes because of Prospector, though rare. You just have to trust your instincts.Quote:
Lots of love for Prospector. Question: do you ever Matron for him or is it just all about randomly drawing into him and hoping the board state supports his use?
Actually, I want to try him too. I think I will replace my Tuktuk/Tinkerer and Stingscourger for him. I will try to run three copies of him. Him copying an opposing Batterskull sounds delicious.Quote:
On another note: I really want to try Phyrexian Metamorph. Have anyone really tested him here? I know why he is good, I know why he is bad (in theory). I just want to know if anyone actually playtested him and have some information to share.
That's not all. I don't like such MU-section because there are to many variables that can be taken into account. Let me show you what I mean:Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrainxi
Let's say there are 2 different versions of RUG Thresh. Version "S" has Stifle, Version "T" features Tome Scour.
Having Stifle or not makes a huge difference for Goblins. So we have 2 different MUs for 1 deck.
"S" vs. Goblins
"T" vs. Goblins
Now we take into account that there are so many different Goblin decklists, like "P" (with a playset of Piledrivers), or "WI" (with Instigators) or "MWM" (with Mogg War Marshals) and literally any combination of those. While Instigator make this MU usually worse, MWM makes it easier. However, if RUG doesn't feature Stifle WInstigators are better than MWMs for this MU.
"S" vs. "P, WI"
"S" vs. "P, MWM"
"S" vs. "WI"
...
I guess you get the picture.
If I do something I'd rather do it good and thoroughly - and this is simply not possible in this case. When someone is to write something about Goblin MUs he/she should somehow take the huge variability of Goblin decklists into account.
Hoewever, I can imagine to write something like a list of key-cards of other decks. e.g. If we play against Stoneblade we can all agree that we don't lose to Snapcastermage but to a combination of Stoneforge Mystic, Batterskull, Jitte and Lingering Souls. This way people don't focus on the wrong things (like boarding Extraction-effects against Snapcaster Mage and Lingering Souls (sry, Jon =P). If we know the key-cards we can easily build our decklists accordingly (and everyone can do that individually, taking the frequency of the goven deck into account).
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by GoboLord
Maybe a thorough MU list is difficult but your latter paragraph describes what I feel this thread needs (at least for us, new on the Goblin game). I sitll know it is a lot of work and maybe there is noone with the willingness (or the time) to do it, but I think that knowing the biggest threats and how to deal with them would make people learn and play better the deck.
@Lands: I still haven't tried with lower but I think I will do it. I need more testing on it. On the other hand, getting totally rid of the ports is (still) painfull for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by L10
@Trying new things even if they doesn't seem competitive: That's fun and a good way to discover new things. I will do this as well, but first I want to get very used to the deck.
@Prospector: I find it very useful as a 1-of and also have fallen on the same situations as L10 says. It is sometimes useful to sack a goblin too (Jitte, Dredge...) and it is nice this effect can be done as soon as the prospector is in play.
@The Morph guy: I want to try it too but stingscourger seems very valuable for me to replace. Helps so much with Lackey connecting T2, bounce and block, bounce annoying stuff... In fact sometimes I find it even more useful than Gempalm (I run 3 Gempalms and 2 Stingscourgers and I feel I need more removal...).
L10 your list (posted 4 pages ago or so) it is my favourite I have seen so far and in fact my list is almost a copy of yours, I just want to thank you too.
Well put. To elaborate a bit more, one of the reasons this matchups can vary so much is that Goblins card advantage engine makes it fairly easy to see large portions of our decks and the Goblins that kick ass in some matchups will come up more frequently making games significantly easier than without said Goblins e.g. MWM against 'Goyf beatdown: GTFO, get fogged bitch. Of course the opposite is also true. Ever draw a Tuktuk Scrapper against someone with no artifacts? Barf.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoboLord
Honestly, the best advice is playtest, playtest, playtest a lot, pre and postboard. I can't stress this enough. There are so many little things you can do with this deck that can never be taught.
I'm still debating on whether to play Rishadan Port or not. I am playing a 'control' version. I'm playing 22 lands (4 cavern, 4 waste, 3 Port, mountains). I'm debating if its of any use to go down to 2 Ports.
What use is running 2 ports if it decreases the chance of consistently drawing them? They're usually only really good with Aether Vial anyway. Does the deck not benefit more from the stability of running more mountains?
Or should the decision of running ports just simply be based on the expected metagame and nothing else?
If you play an aggro deck there will always be match-ups you have to accept losing to. If you want to stand a chance against the majority of the decks you should be playing another archetype (control). Most aggro decks are just simply too ill equipped to win from combo. There's not enough space in your sideboard to fight every combo deck. And you also can't just add sideboard cards without losing the integrity of your deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by unicoerner
Like I tried to point out in my post I don't think Extirpate/Extraction have any relevant impact in the Sneakshow match-up. In what scenario do they help?Quote:
Originally Posted by unicoerner
It is indeed an option to runy only 2 Ports. I had them in my deck for the last half year (as a 2-of in fact) and all I wanted from was that they should be better than mountains. If you feel like you can afford more colorless sources run Ports. If you want a stable manabase then dont run any. It's not a good idea IMO to run 4 Ports alongside with 4 Caverns and 4 Wastelands-Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelis
You can use Extraction-effects after they resolved Intuition (they will oftentimes search for 3 copies of the same card). Maybe you'll take their Show and Tell. Maybe you'll take their Sneak Attack. That's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelis
But did you feel that those 2 Ports had any relevant impact? I mean of what use are they if you can't disrupt your opponent early game unless you're lucky to have one in your openings hand (but thats so random)? Did you find them of any use late game?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoboLord
To me that hardly seems worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoboLord
As I said: as long as it is better than a mountain everytime you draw it, it's ok. Randomness doesnt matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelis
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelis
Port can be very relevant, but it's not a game-breaker like Lackey of Vial. Instead it's a mana-piece that has a very elegant synergy with Lackey and Vial. When Lackey and Vial are online you don't really need lands to get goblins in play, but you're still going to have lands on the battlefield. Port allows you to use those lands for a functional purpose (disrupting your opponent's manabase) rather than have them sit idly by. And unlike Wasteland, when Lackey/Vial get blowed-up Port allows you to switch back to hardcasting your gobbos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelis
Port can be very useful late-game. Plenty of games have been won by Porting an opponent deep into the game and attacking for 3 a turn. It's also not irrelevant when you're keeping them off that fifth Batterskull mana, keeping that 1 splashed color tapped down all game, tapping down that potential Man-Land, tapping down that utility land (Maze). And even when you're way behind and drawing land after land, Port still lets you interact and maybe keeps your opponent from getting far enough ahead to win before you chain Ringleaders together and catch up.
Of course the ideal play is to be on the play, drop a T1 Lackey, have your opponent do something irrelevant T1, then T2 Port and Timewalk your opponent in their upkeep. Lackey connecting puts you a turn ahead, and Port puts your opponent back a turn. That's called tempo. You have a line of play that speeds yourself up running simultaneously with a line of play that slows your opponent down.
I'm going to start playing with 22 lands and Ports again, for a while at least. I've been running no Ports and 20 lands with a lower curve and aggressive build, but I keep seeing lists with Ports doing well (or Thalias...). It looks like they work pretty well with MWM since both MWM and Port basically require you to run a larger manabase. And, if I recall, the last Goblin list to win a SCG 5K had 4 Wastes, 4 Port, 4 Cavern and a Taiga, and the proof is in the pudding as they say.
I would be very interested to see the deck you were playing and the one you plan to play. Could you post them here?Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw1985
I agree with all you say about ports.
This answers my question. I understand how the rest works I was just wondering if they really have any function late game. I'm leaving in the 3 ports for now so I am able to use it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw1985
Deck I had been playing-Quote:
Originally Posted by LPEuler
20 Lands
4 Wasteland
4 Cavern of Souls
12 Mountain
6 Other
4 Vial
2 Pyrokinesis
34 Goblins
4 Lackey
2 Mogg Fanatic
3 Warren Instigator
3 Piledriver
4 Matron
4 Ringleader
4 Warchief
3 Chieftain
1 Seige-Gang Commander
1 Krenko, Mob Boss
3 Gempalm Incinerator
1 Tarfire
1 Stingscourger
Deck I will be playing-
22 Lands
1 Karakas
1 Port
4 Wasteland
4 Cavern
12 Mountain
4 Other
4 Vial
34 Gobbos
4 Lackey
4 Piledriver
4 Mogg War Marshal
4 Goblin Warchief
4 Matron
4 Ringleader
4 Gempalm
1 Seige-Gang Commander
1 Krenko, Mob Boss
1 Skirk Prospector
1 Sharpshooter
1 Stingscourger
1 Tuktuk Scrapper
If you compare the lists it's clear that the first one wants to play the more aggressive role. That's the play style I've always favored, trying to punch through with Lackeys and Winstigators to just dump more cards on the board than your opponent can handle. Use Tarfires, Pyros, Fanatics to clear the board in the early turns and Gempalm to take over the mid to late game. Overall lower manacurve and free spells MD.
The one I'm going to try out for a while now is a little slower, a little more laid back. Less removal but more control. MWMs to nullify groud attacks, Krenko package to create ridiculous CA. More lands for more hardcasting and a little more disruption. This is basically the list that got 18th at GP Ghent. It's clearly just a solid and basic build, but it did very well in a field of like 1400 players.