Printable View
I kinda doubt jailer is good. They are light on threats but remember they are very good at clearing the board as well as having baleful strixes. I will put my money on fiendslayer paladin which gets around shaman and strix in combat but unlike crusader lives through all the red spells like bolt and kolaghan. I agree Mangara is slow, maybe at best exiling one card.Quote:
Originally Posted by CptHaddock
From what I can tell, there's nothing really for us in the new Commander set so far. Stalking Leonin isn't bad, but too unreliable at what she does. I feel like the design is cool, but they at least should have made the ability as and not when, just like True-Name Nemesis. Teferi's Protection is a catch-all against a lot of combo and sweepers, but too unreliable at 3 mana. Nothing else stands out.
Crusader has protection from Kolaghan's Command. You're really only playing around Bolt, which Grixis Control and Czech Pile only play few copies of (2 max). I'd probably play a third Crusader before I'd go for Fiendhunter Paladin. Mangara is not good because he is slow and because the worst threats these decks throw at us are spells, not permanents. You can't expect him to deal with Jace, because you can be damn sure that by the time they slam Jace they either have enough removal to protect him or they're in a tight spot where they don't expect him to live through combat anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
Jailer's card advantage ought to allow you to keep up with the tons of removal and card advantage these control lists can throw at us, same as with Shardless and Miracles. Downside is that Grixis plays quite a few more creatures than decks like Miracles and has access to flash unlike Shardless, so losing the Monarch is more of a risk. This makes Gideon the better value card, but he is not recruitable and more easy to counter. Jailer is also deployable against more decks than just control, like Eldrazi, Show and Tell and Reanimator.
Just loop Pia and Kiran Nalaars with Karakas until your opponent concedes. On a similar note, Brimaz isnt bad vs Czech Pile but is still much worse than P+K.
Good point I did not realize 4C control was moving away from bolts. Seems like most lists are playing only 1 copy now. Crusader is definitely better than Fiendslayer in this match-up, though Fiendslayer still has applications against Lands, Burn, Jund, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Mat
I would always take Gideon over Palace Jailer here. Czech pile only runs Force of Wills for counters and they have a weak board presence. My opinion of Jailer is probably a bit biased because I see him as a significantly worse Dark Confidant but I think it's safe to say Gideon > Jailer between the two.
Imo, Palace Jailer is not a safe card to play against Czech Pile.
If you're splashing so you can reliably afford double red, Pia and Kiran Nalaar definitely seems like the card to make Czech people cry. Don't just look at their lack of wasteland though, also remember that your vials are not quite likely to stick around if you even drew them early on. Moon effects can be helpful, but they do nullify your Karakas shenanigans.
While the Paladin has protection from Punishing Fire, this engine is something better addressed thoroughly through wasteland, rest in peace and sanctum prelate rather than a single immune creature that is still susceptible to maze of ith, Lily and goyf (never mind barbarian ring and molten vortex). So its main advantage would lie in burn, where at 3 mana and two life next turn it's still not that stellar.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
In most lists (with 2 recruiters), you are three times more likely to draw into a singleton Jailer than a Gideon. The card is not hampered by Thalia and can be cast with cavern mana, making it both immune to FoW (and Counterspell from Grixis Control) and also more likely to be castable colorwise. The fact that these decks have weak board presence makes the Jailer even better, as they're less likely to steal the Monarch.Quote:
I would always take Gideon over Palace Jailer here. Czech pile only runs Force of Wills for counters and they have a weak board presence. My opinion of Jailer is probably a bit biased because I see him as a significantly worse Dark Confidant but I think it's safe to say Gideon > Jailer between the two.
Jailer is not comparable to Confidant: the card is virtually guaranteed to replace itself and at least temporally take away an opposing threat. As additional reward, it may net you an untargetable card advantage engine that wins you the game after a turn or two. The downside is that it comes with a high risk, i.e. that you will almost certainly lose if they steal the Monarch from you before that. But you have to keep in mind that if you're in a spot where they can deal with all aspects of the Jailer and you can do nothing to interfere, there's no card that is not Jailer that would have saved you that game at that spot.
EDIT:
If it's not a safe card in this match-up, it's not going to be a safe card in any match-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Medea
The only matchup I've ever cared for Jailer in was Miracles with top. I absolutely dislike it otherwise.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
When I say weak board presence, I mean they have very little ways to take Gideon down quickly as they have low powered creatures. Baleful strix will present a serious problem with the monarch mechanism but the main criticsm against Jailer goes beyond this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Mat
I make the comparison with confidant here because their main draws (pun intended) are card advantage in a deck that desperately needs it. There is a lot of "ifs" in making jailer a very reliable card (as a 4 drop should be). I have to ask myself why I wouldn't rather run another mirran cruasader or gideon in its place because there are not many matchups where Jailer provides a unique "i win" scenario that Gideon himself provides.
I'm not really sure why you are comparing paladin with those cards. Paladin is not meant to be a complete solution against a deck. It is like saying one shouldn't play Thalia HC because old thalia is better, when in reality they are not competing for the same slots. I was only implying that having a recruitable card that survives the punishing fire combo can be very good, in addition to the lifelink. Perhaps it is not worth playing but I am only brainstorming here.
Jailer will never contend with Crusader slots as it has a completely different purpose. It is sort of in the same bracket as Gideon, where I think the factors that it is easier, safer and more reliable to cast are very relevant. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't run Gideon, just that I would run a singleton Jailer first.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
A key difference between the two is that Gideon operates mostly as the final nail in the coffin. He comes down at a game shift situation and turns it definitely in our favor (which is very relevant, as these are games we could very well lose without the timely Gideon). Jailer has this function less often because of the inherent risk in his effect: he is more often a last resort tactic, where you come back after the game already shifted in your opponent's favor by simultaneously attacking his board state, improving your hand and forcing your opponent to aggressively deal with the problem now or lose. I really like this functionality, the opportunity to get a back-into-the-game card out of a recruiter.
My point was not that he competes with those sideboard cards, but that I don't think paladin is that great against punishing fire strategies and hence that he doesn't bring that much to the deck after all. When you're facing punishing fire, you don't beat it by getting a creature out that can't be hit by it. You win by disabling the combo or racing it.Quote:
I'm not really sure why you are comparing paladin with those cards. Paladin is not meant to be a complete solution against a deck. It is like saying one shouldn't play Thalia HC because old thalia is better, when in reality they are not competing for the same slots. I was only implying that having a recruitable card that survives the punishing fire combo can be very good, in addition to the lifelink. Perhaps it is not worth playing but I am only brainstorming here.
I've actually found Gideon to be way more fragile than he looks on paper against Czech Pile. They have a lot of incidental creatures that can attack for just enough. He'll still be good, but sometimes they can Snap push the token then attack with Snap Strix Shaman or whatever. I've lost a lot of Gideons to Bolts and K Commands as well.
I was talking about Crusader because we're talking about "which card X should be in sideboard to deal with Czech Pile"; hence it doesn't matter if I'm comparing a 3-mana beater with 4-mana card advantage machines. In this case, Crusader might actually be better than Gideon or Jailer. The argument for Gideon is that it's a better card against boardwipes like Toxic Deluge. Czech pile has a bunch of small threats and many lists don't even run TNN or Gurmag Angler, which is why I believe Gideon is not that easy to kill compared to Jailer. If you're in a board state where Gideon is easy to kill, that's probably the same kind of board where your opponent becomes the monarch with Jailer. They run 1-3 combination of K-command and bolt max, in most recent lists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Mat
The second thing I was noting was the cards' uses outside of just this 4c control match-up. Where do we want to side Jailer in? Miracles is gone. Shardless sultai is a good place to be, except Crusader is probably good there as well. Probably too vulnerable against Grixis Delver and Deathblade decks run plenty of removals + 4 True-Name Nemesis. The mirror? Gideon is better there.
There's good arguments to be made for running extra crusaders right now. They are probably the best choice against BUG and grixis dominated meta's. But they're rather narrow otherwise, being not as good against miracles, against esper (Gideon) or against big creature decks (Jailer). I also like Jailer or Gideon for doing something special people do not really expect from this deck: producing a threat that is not a creature or an equipment/artifact. Decks vulnerable to crusader will dedicate a bunch of slots to cards that can take care of him. They will have a much harder time warping their gameplan to address Gideon or Jailer.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
Miracles is not gone and in fact in the DTB section of this website. I would never board in Jailer against delver, blade decks or the mirror. He has merit however against show and tell, eldrazi and red stompy.Quote:
The second thing I was noting was the cards' uses outside of just this 4c control match-up. Where do we want to side Jailer in? Miracles is gone. Shardless sultai is a good place to be, except Crusader is probably good there as well. Probably too vulnerable against Grixis Delver and Deathblade decks run plenty of removals + 4 True-Name Nemesis. The mirror? Gideon is better there.
before running the 3rd crusader i'd rather run a paladin at the moment, seeing how polluted the meta is with grixis decks of all variants. paladin is a good card to cast right now, especially since the post-board games against grixis delver are harder than pre-board and having a resilient creature that counteracts their tempo strategy with lifelink is valuable.
also, jailer wins games. yes, he can backfire. but if you use him in the right match ups you can minimize the chance while having an angle of attack that DnT is usually lacking (pure CA).
also, am i the only one who likes ethersworn canonist in the main as a 1-of? ive found that it isnt as narrow as some people make it out to be and really can be an annoyance for unfair and fair(especially cantrip) decks alike. IMO it is much better than spirit of the labyrinth. i never found that card to be really useful. ethersworn canonist seems to be the best genrically good 2 drop disruptive creature we have at the moment aside from the usual DnT core 2 drops. and sometimes it just randomly wins a game while very very rarely being completely dead. i juust wish it had first strike but well...we cant have everything i guess
People don't dedicate specific hate cards against Crusader. They sideboard cards that overlap (e.g Toxic Deluge). I don't see your logic of how Jailer is harder to address than a Crusader. Anyways I think I'm beating a dead horse here by this point. Jailer is only situationally good against the three decks you listed; in fact, in most situations you're better off replacing it with Council's Judgment here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Mat
I never said that they run cards specific for crusader. I said that they will dedicate some of their sideboard slots to cards that can take care of him, such as Toxic Deluge and Diabolic Edict. Probably this is more with true-name rather than crusader in mind, but the outcome for us is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
Crusader is taken care of with a single removal spell or by having chump blockers. It needs to be the right removal spell and the right color of blockers due to protection, but these decks have access to these sort of cards, in particular after siding. If all else fails, they can accept 4 damage a turn for a few turns.Quote:
I don't see your logic of how Jailer is harder to address than a Crusader.
Jailer necessitates that they try to steal the monarch as quickly as possible or lose. The Monarch is not something that can be destroyed by a spell, it requires combat which is what control is not very good at. Jailer himself constitutes a double obstacle to this combat approach, as he takes away a creature and is a blocker himself.
Have you all forgotten that Cataclysm and Armageddon exist? The way to beat big blue decks is quite obviously not to try and play big white.
I could see that being a decent approach. Sideboard is a little tight, but that might be worth exploring again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevestamopz
Are we talking specifically about using those two spells against Czech Pile/4c Control? That seems reasonable, especially if they decide to swap their counters for removal. Yes, that is pretty great. I'm in.
What else is it good against, Lands, ig?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I haven't paid attention to the minutia of the most recent posts, but seeing people talk about more gideons and more 3 mana 2/2s as a way to beat the attrition decks just seems awful. Cataclysm is good against basically every fair/control deck, especially if you're a baller and play lots of Flagstones. Just don't bother bringing it in against Delver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee
If you're on Wr then From the Ashes seems great against czech pile and some of the other greedy mana bases in legacy, also basically does nothing to you.
Doesn't From the Ashes overlap a little too much with Magus? I think I'd want an actual reset button that leaves them with 0-1 land.
Yeah except a big portion of fair decks tend to be Delver and the mirror, where Cataclysm is awful. I'm not sure I'd want it against Deathblade or Jund, and maybe Shardless. Gideon is something you can side in against a wide variety of match-ups, though perhaps there are better universal options for grinding. Magus of the Moon, for example, is probably the best lockdown card in my deck to handle Czech Pile and other 3-color delver decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevestamopz
The mountains are still nonbasic, which helps destroy them. Unfortunately it lets them grab basics, but presumably there won't be many to grab.Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbysdl
Cataclysm/Armageddon became less attractive sideboard options when miracles started to play more mentors. It was always a tricky card to pull off correctly anyway, because top allowed them to come back faster than we could and set up terminus about as easy as before. Now with top gone and a greater chunk of control based around grixis, Cataclysm seems much better again. I wouldn't play Armageddon, because you really want the function to insta-kill any Jace or Liliana lying around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevestamopz
Two potential problems I can see is that more people are splashing now, which makes it impossible to play Flagstones and renders Cataclysm more painful, in particular as there is a lot of artifact destruction going around for our vials. Second, Conspiracy 2 has lead to an increased number of 3-drops being played, which makes the deck more mana hungry and thus blowing up your own lands is extra painful. With this in mind, the card seems positioned excellently for a mono white build with flagstones and a reduced 3-drop count (7-8, rather than 10+).
I'm running a list with Cataclysm through a league and thus far it's been stellar. In games that Gideon would have lost its traded for their entire land base + a Jace and a creature. I'm just replacing Gideon in my board. That being said, is going to an EW trail on Sunday and I don't have Flagstones in paper. Is it still worth running without Flagstones?
New article! This one is by Chris Cunningham, and focuses on the math of splash manabases.
Could you try to keep some notes and collect some data on it? I'm interested in whether Cata or 'Geddon would be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by WashableWater1
You *can* run it on paper without Flagstones, you just have to accept that it's going to be 10% worse or whatever.
Played this list in the league today with the following modifications: -1 Plateau +1 Plains and Prelate as the flex creature. SB: -1 Manic vandal - 1 Cunning Sparkmage -1 Ethersworn canonist -1 containment priest +1 Magus of the Moon +1 Path to Exile +1 Rest in Peace +1 Kanbal, Consul of Allocation and went 4-1. I beat UW Stoneblade, some sort of weird prison deck, UWr Stoneblade and BU Reanimator. I lost vs 4 color Standstill. The mana base was seldom a problem, the prison deck tried to moon me but jokes on him, and Pontiff was a house versus TNN/Snapcaster boards. Sadly, I did not run into any Grixis and was not able to try out SoLaS, I boarded it in vs UW but I found SoIaF to be more effective in that MU and never fetched it. I also never got to try out Kanbal :(.Quote:
Originally Posted by Medea_
Overall the deck felt strong, although it was only 5 games and was pretty lucky as some of my opponent made decisive missplays that cost them games. My thoughts are that Magus is really strong in matchups where he matters but the rest of the creatures (esp. Pontiff) give you the flexibility to get the answers when he does not matter.
How are people feeling about various Stoneblade decks these days?
I typically feel pretty favored against them. I took down UWR today. What I lose to is TNN+batterskull or Jitte, but when they're stuck being an awkward control deck it feels pretty much like easy miracles. I got to resolve a Cataclysm against them and it set them back so far that I was able to dig out of being low on pressure before they got lands.
Since I've been playing Cataclysm it's won me a number of games that Geddon and Gideon would have lost. I've brought it in against Aluren and Goblins, where it was able to function as a board reset and wrath, where my one creature was better than the one they were left with. Against Mentor Control it was able to destroy Jaces and slow down Mentors. It's been winning me games that Gideon loses, where they've got a better board and you need to catch up. The only times I've wished I had a Geddon was when I was stuck on one White source.
What's the optimal number of Flagstones to run? I was initially thinking 4, but Flagstones hasn't been as free as it looks. I'm thinking of sticking with 3.
The problem with Cataclysm (aside from casting it through potential counterspells) for me is that the board state has to align in your favor. If you're behind, this card is not necessarily good (e.g Jitte and TNN on the field). Even if you did run the card, the probability that you happen to have one of 3 Flagstones on the field and Cataclysm resolved is extremely low, bordering on win-more mentality, and isn't even necessarily a game mattering combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by WashableWater1
The reason Cataclysm mattered against Miracles was because that deck needed a ton of mana to finish the game and could not stop your Cataclysm from resolving (e.g hard with counterbalance lock and low number of counterspells). In some ways Cataclysm is better and worse against the new Miracles but overall, I don't think it's a reliable sideboard card. Even for things like Aluren, it's not going to be reliable on the draw.
Note I'm not saying Gideon would necessarily be better in these cases.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Cataclysm doesn't beat the combination of cards that you need a very narrow set of cards to beat. Sure it can be countered. The same can be said of any card that would be occupying that slot. I'm also not sure how we get from "Bad Balance" to win-more. The effect typically is looking to equalize the board, but you're better able to leverage keeping artifacts or bigger creatures.
I'm simply saying running 3 legendary land in the hopes of having one on the field when cataclysm resolves is an improbable magic christmas scenario. On top of this, having one land above your opponent is win-more, especially if you resolved cataclysm in a favorable scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by WashableWater1
And you are over simplifying my argument. Unlike 4c control and miracles, traditional midrange/tempo/ control blue decks have a way higher counterspell density and this is (one reason) why you could rely on cataclysm resolving against old miracles. You are saying any sideboard card can be countered (obviously) but a cluncky 4 mana spell is hell of a lot harder to resolve when you take into many factors (daze, snapcaster, having opponent tapped out, having mana available, thalia tax, etc.) so whatever 4 mana spell we play, it should be nearly guaranteed to win us the game.
A quick opinion poll:
How do D&T players feel the average MTGO player stacks up to the real world? And across the various play options: Daily, general match making etc.?
I finally conceded to not having enough access to paper players and I bought into MTGO and have been play testing quite a bit.
I've found my success rate against the new U/W miracles, grixis and 4 color is much higher than i think my play skill warrants.
I'd love to see some math to back up that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
What I quoted above would apply to most cards. If you're already ahead, pretty much any additional spell will make your position even stronger. On the contrary, my understanding of "win-more" is a card that is ONLY viable when you're ahead, and that does not apply to Cataclysm.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
The key is that Cat can dig you out of a hole, or break a stalemate in your favor. To be clear, Cat depends not on existing board state but on post-resolution board state. If your best 2-3 permanents beat those of the opponent, you're golden. I get that this is obvious, but what you're writing seems to imply some other interpretation of the card's role. TNN+Jitte is not the only way in which you can be behind, and in some cases (Revoker on Jitte with air force or SoFI) you can even attack profitably.
tl;dr I'm confused why Cat and "win-more" are even being talked about in the same sentence.
I'm making a very simple argument. Running 3 lands that make you more susceptible to blood moon and legendary rule for the sake of playing a card that (a) you may not even draw into (b) does not even matter if resolved in your favor and (c) would be unlikely to be on the field anyhow etc. Again I can construct more arguments than this and they add up to suggest it is not worth running flagstones at all (for the sake of getting an extra win-more land from a resolved Cata).Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbysdl
The calculation is not worth doing but to give you a (simple generalized) idea, to have one copy of flagstones in your hand is 28% and 31.5% to have one or more (not a scenario you want). We can say we want one of two cataclysm at least in the first 7 turns and that is 39%. I don't want to review my probability theory but combine these two with other constraints and you are probably looking at sub 10% of a flagstone making a reasonable difference with a resolved Cata.
Now when evaluating Cata, my argument is also pretty simple. There is a lot of 'if' in making this card work. If our permanents are superior to their, if we reach the 4 mana in time, if the spell resolves, etc. For a sideboard card, you want a lot less 'ifs' imo. Every card has an 'if' constraint attached to it but the key idea is they differ in the number and probability of 'ifs'.
Ok, I see now that you meant win-more with the question of whether to run Flagstones. I think we still disagree on the overall potential of Cataclysm but that's another matter.
Success rate depends on the number of samples you have against these decks. If we are talking 30+ games where you come out on top against each of these archetypes maybe you are just good. Overall, I don't have mtgo but just from seeing clips online I find players to be better decision makers. You will find more players who are more knowledgable about the format whereas paper players don't really review a wide variety of decks that go beyond their local meta. Sure they might do some last minute research for a big tournament but people I know don't study a match-up until they face it personally. Also, some decks are harder/easier to play online and that also affects decision making skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
The Legend rule is not exactly a problem for Flagstones. As for Blood Moon, my builds still run 6-7 basics. The cost of running it is incredibly low, and it allows for Cata into have Port online for their only land, or simply being slightly closer to casting spells again.Quote:
Originally Posted by grayryker
All those "Ifs" seem to be assuming that you bring in Cataclysm against random decks. You pick when to bring it in. You pick when you cast it. Against the decks that you want it, your creatures are almost always superior. Very few decks are running the same number of powerful artifacts, and typically the worst case scenario involves them keeping a Library or Dread of Night. The card takes Big Blue style decks that are typically more resistant to mana denial because they run more lands. You sort of force a game reset, where you play out the early game again. You are able to apply pressure and force them to cantrip into answers while choked on mana, and strand the expensive cards that Taxes typically has difficulty beating.
@Water, what's your Flagstones manabase look like?
The general free to play tournament practice room has many pretty terrible players. It's a ton of people learning their decks and the MTGO client. Spend some time here when you first start out so you don't lose games to stupid stuff (and my god, does that happen in those first few games...), but then move on to paid events. People scoop too early, drop before playing sideboard games, etc. If you want experience against fringe decks though, this is a good place to find that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
The average MTGO Legacy player in a league is likely better than the average Joe who shows up to your Legacy night in town or maybe on par with people who go to play in Opens. They might not always be dedicated experts of the decks or anything, but play level is usually competent to good.
The great MTGO players (e.g. Legacy specialists like Bryant Cook) are wonderful to play against and likely better than most or all of the people you will play against locally. These players will be on par with what you see towards the end of an Open or GP in terms of skill.
edit: You also should be able to go infinite pretty easily on MTGO if you're a good player. I haven't put any money into the system other than what I paid for the deck. A 3-2 finish lets you enter another for free with about $2 profit to boot, and a 4-1 or better finish puts you pretty far ahead in terms of value with all the treasure chests you get.