[Deck] Nic Fit (GBx Explorer Zenith Control)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeDemonKn1ght

This thread is getting massively derailed by all this shit lately.

Wish and Green Sun's Zenith are both good cards, with their own inherent strengths and drawbacks. The fact remains, however, that if you rely on Wish to get anything that qualifies as a potentially game-winning threat, keeping you from winning the game is about as simple as keeping you from resolving Wish. IBA, I see that as the biggest argument against your list: consistently counter your Wishes, and you're forced to try to win with Witnesses and Garruk tokens (or Witness -> get back Wish -> try for another creature, but honestly, this is a slow line of play). The fact that Zenith gives us redundant copies of Veteran Explorer and Eternal Witness also seems to be a massively under-appreciated facet of the card. It would also be entirely viable to build a list that used both Wish and Zenith, so it's kind of pointless to drag the thread down in some sort of Wish VS. Zenith debate ad infinitum.

Tower is actually a good card in this deck. So is Volrath's Stronghold. Personally, I run both in a lot of builds that I'm testing. I really don't think Grim Backwoods is worth much in Legacy-- by the time it becomes relevant, you'd hope you'd have better ways to spend five mana. It's a logical fallacy to say that we should run 4 Towers if it's so good though, because it's legendary, and not the kind of card you need to see in every game. It's a good safeguard as a way to trigger Explorer in matches where he can't chump, and it can enable some pretty swingy plays, since dumping an Explorer off it gives you four mana (or basically, three more mana than you already had access to.)

Anyway... Just getting a little bored with the redundancy lately.

---

Well most of these lists are short on actual kill conditions, not counting the bad utility dorks in GSZ because Kitchen Finks is generally not going to get there by himself. But I haven't much of a problem with blue decks in testing, I'm running enough discard and quality card advantage/filtering that you can grind them out most of the time.

Regardless I would advocate strongly against the mindset displayed in this post. Personal preference might affect how well someone pilots a given list, but it shouldn't be a fallback argument against optimization. Especially in a control deck there's no way to say that a given list is perfect in all metas for all time, but the argument for or against a particular inclusion has to be based on more. Especially when decklists are as disparate as this deck's is; honestly, based on how wildly divergent the builds are it probably shouldn't be in the DTB section at all. I mean the color set isn't even a settled question.

I think the engine is powerful, but because it's essentially a ramp strategy, any color could be splashed and included. This is why we're seeing GB/(u/w/r) popping up. It's much the same way Survival is an engine that enables an endless permutation of choices, this too allows that. There is also a lot of unexplored (pun intended) potential for this engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Well most of these lists are short on actual kill conditions, not counting the bad utility dorks in GSZ because Kitchen Finks is generally not going to get there by himself. But I haven't much of a problem with blue decks in testing, I'm running enough discard and quality card advantage/filtering that you can grind them out most of the time.

Regardless I would advocate strongly against the mindset displayed in this post. Personal preference might affect how well someone pilots a given list, but it shouldn't be a fallback argument against optimization. Especially in a control deck there's no way to say that a given list is perfect in all metas for all time, but the argument for or against a particular inclusion has to be based on more. Especially when decklists are as disparate as this deck's is; honestly, based on how wildly divergent the builds are it probably shouldn't be in the DTB section at all. I mean the color set isn't even a settled question.

---

My argument isn't "Oh, anything you want to throw in your 75 cards is correct if it's according to your personal preference." Really though, there are enough strong variations on the basic "Veteran Explorer + lots of basics = fat midrange/ late game" plan that it's hard to say there's only one way to build the deck. What I was saying is, given the pros and cons of both GSZ and Wish, that there isn't one that's clearly 100% better for this deck. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think Wish is just clearly superior, and that everyone should stop packing Zenith entirely. I think this question depends partly on meta, personal preference, and whether or not you want to play this deck more as a "midrange Rock" approach, or more of a "control Rock" style.

And as far as kill conditions in the GSZ lists, I think having something like "Ooze, Finks, Thrun, Deranged Hermit, Grave Titan, X amount of Witnesses, +4 GSZ, +X amount of planeswalkers" (just as a random, fairly generic example) is undeniably a more robust threat package than "4 Living Wish, 2 Garruk, 4 Witness." It does take up more deck-space, but this can be seen as advantageous in some aspects, because it represents more real threats.

Your list looks pretty good to me overall, and it's a viable approach. I just don't think that anything besides more tournament results is going to really sort out "one list to rule them all," or if having everyone who played this archetype pursuing a homogenous approach would even be a good thing. I was a little surprised to see this in the DTB section this soon also, but honestly having a DTB that can look pretty different depending on which splashes it uses and which strategies it favors more heavily isn't really a new thing. I mean, look at the development of Threshhold and Landstill.

Is winning with Finks, Eternal Witnesses, and some leftover planeswalker or zombie tokens all that hard? I'd say a good third of my wins end beating with very unimpressive dudes (the other third being a big Ooze, then the actual titan kills).

This deck is still an attrition deck like all Rock decks are and if the opponent runs out of guys and removal they can still die pretty fast when you beat for 4-5 a turn.

Regarding Zenith/Wish, my issue is with engine compactness. GSZ allows a pretty good chance of seeing Veteran Explorer every game, and then later the Zeniths become removal (by way of witness) or killcons like Ooze or Thrun. While I agree that there's some one-of baggage you take along the way, the green creature package is customizable too. No matter what you still want that turn 2 boost of mana to have four or (sometimes) five lands in play, that's the point of the engine. If there are other ways to ensure that reliably without 1) going too high on land count and 2) without playing too much dead in the lategame pure ramp spells.

The biggest draw for Living Wish instead of Zenith is being able to play Bloodbraid Elf in the Jund version of the deck and dropping the overall curve down a bit to top out at four with the wishes being able to get a fatty to end the game if needed. Bloodbraid into GSZ is pretty ugh.

I mean I've beaten people to death with Witnesses and Treetops and utility dorks I wished for. But I got actual utility out of them and that's part of how I won. Kitchen Finks and Scavenging Ooze are frequently awful cards. Deranged Hermit is pretty much always an awful card. They can win as just jank beaters if you put all the strain on the rest of your deck to get there, but that gives you fewer wins.

I mean I have occasionally advocated the idea of playing a Headless Horseman as a Wish target, with the idea that it would be a taunt button you could use when you were going to win anyway and put your opponent on lifetilt, but I certainly wouldn't maindeck the guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DukeDemonKn1ght

And as far as kill conditions in the GSZ lists, I think having something like "Ooze, Finks, Thrun, Deranged Hermit, Grave Titan, X amount of Witnesses, +4 GSZ, +X amount of planeswalkers" (just as a random, fairly generic example) is undeniably a more robust threat package than "4 Living Wish, 2 Garruk, 4 Witness."

---

Well see I would deny that.

Living Wish is also a really powerful hoser against a lot of decks, which GSZ really isn't. Even against Burn, a four mana Finks is mediocre; ditto to a three mana Scavenging Ooze against Dredge.

Quote:

---

Your list looks pretty good to me overall, and it's a viable approach. I just don't think that anything besides more tournament results is going to really sort out "one list to rule them all," or if having everyone who played this archetype pursuing a homogenous approach would even be a good thing. I was a little surprised to see this in the DTB section this soon also, but honestly having a DTB that can look pretty different depending on which splashes it uses and which strategies it favors more heavily isn't really a new thing. I mean, look at the development of Threshhold and Landstill.

---

I'm pretty sure we didn't put those decks in the DTB section until they had much tighter lists. I mean even when there was a single Threshold thread, the only difference between variants was what your 1cc removal was, what your 4cc beater was and what duals/sideboard you had, basically.

Didn't we go through the exact same

- let me highjack this thread with a unique decksome featuring some cool ideas and some awful ideas and I dont give a flying fuck about the opinion of players that have played 100x more games with the deck than me, they are wrong

- this isn't even a real deck, doesn't have an agreed on list, OUT OF DTB FORUM WITH IT

already last year with Maverick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tao

Didn't we go through the exact same

- let me highjack this thread with a unique decksome featuring some cool ideas and some awful ideas and I dont give a flying fuck about the opinion of players that have played 100x more games with the deck than me, they are wrong

- this isn't even a real deck, doesn't have an agreed on list, OUT OF DTB FORUM WITH IT

already last week with Maverick?

---

ftfy

Those of us who've been with the thread for a long time have been comparing this deck to Survival for ages. By the logic above, Survival at its peak wasn't worthy of being a DTB, because people never settled on which version was best (Bant, Ooze, or Madness/Vine). Depending on which numbers you used, each version had solid strengths. The fact that Nic Fit is capable of of producing a multitude of competitive color arrangements is a strength IMO, not a sign of poor deckbuilding.

At this point, I would say that we should seek to ignore the troll and just keep focusing on making our individual subarchetypes better, as I've been urging for a while now. I mean, the very fact that he pointed out considering Headless Horseman as a "taunt button" seems to debase his arguments in my mind. Putting a taunt button in a deck isn't going to make it any better.

The Living Wish idea is solid, I will grant that, and there may be some potential there. But arbitrarily stating that grrr creatures maindeck are bad and shoving all of your major wincons into the sideboard seems like a really bad idea. I could see some kind of split, like having a bomb or two in the board for Wish while topping your maindeck with like a Thrun or something, but all-inning Wish seems dangerous at best and idiotic at worst, especially since it comes at the cost of valuable sideboard space. I don't feel like this is a deck that is capable of running a multiple-round tournament without at least 8-10 sideboard slots to improve specific matchups.

I feel like Scavenging Ooze is rarely a terrible card, personally. Modern Legacy decks are often set up with the abuse of Snapcaster firmly in mind, so shutting off that avenue seems wise, to say nothing of getting huge vs Maverick, beating Reanimator/Dredge single-handedly if it sticks early enough/they have a slow enough start.

Quick update on my list for those who care -- I took the Swords out again, upon the format's shift towards Geist. Empath is back in, and the other slot is currently being tested as a Mystic Enforcer, because pro-black is relevant, as is the ability to GSZ for a flyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tao

Didn't we go through the exact same

- let me highjack this thread with a unique decksome featuring some cool ideas and some awful ideas and I dont give a flying fuck about the opinion of players that have played 100x more games with the deck than me, they are wrong

- this isn't even a real deck, doesn't have an agreed on list, OUT OF DTB FORUM WITH IT

already last year with Maverick?

---

...aren't you the one testing red?

I mean yes, we did, but it's still a valid concern about deckthreds in the DTB forum. Of course until I take the time to crunch some numbers I don't really know how similar the lists we're using from the Council really are, but there seems to be a decent amount of variance, especially on some relatively key cards. I mean Hell, some of these lists actually look inches away from being a full out Maverick variant.

@Arian: I mean it's not arbitrary. The deck's not Maverick, it's awful at going aggro it doesn't have the support for that plan. You have less situations where a 2/2 or 3/3 with equipment can get there, and it's not winning Knight or Goyf wars. It's not the fallback plan to a Knight or Goyf for that matter.

I don't see where Wishing for kill conditions is worse than maindecking them; it's far better because you control what type of creature you're drawing (and can even make it a land or something.)

The only real knocks are that it gets countered by Spell Snare and that it takes up sideboard room. But the deck's inherent matchup strengths/weaknesses are such that I'm not sure how huge that is. Combo you're generally going to lose against whatever you do, and most other decks the mainboard's pretty good. Against a lot of decks you get to preboard, like Dredge and Reanimator. Against a deck like burn you might miss the board, but I find the Finks/Baloth/Ooze package enough life gain to give you about as good a shot as whatever board hate you might run would give.

Has Glittering Wish been seriously considered? The card is a lot better than Living Wish in many ways (Read: Fetches Deed/Pulse OR win-conditions OR counterspell protection in the form of Gutteral Response/Vexing Shrusher, plus Pridemages, lifegain (Kitchen Finks), card advantage (Cold-eyed Selkie), and tons of other stuff). But the big thing is it fetches Deed and Pulse...oh, and it can fetch Sorin, Lord of Innistad. Pretty cool, probably better than Living Wish.

IBA is not trolling, it would be unfair to say that. He is just very stubborn (sry ;) ).

But there is really no point in arguing about Tower. Everyone with enough games with this will just know that. I understand the theory that in a control deck value is usually more desirable than speed but that is not at all how it plays out in this particular case.

For the deck/archetype/name discussion. I guess as long as it plays Explorer, Therapy and wins with a control plan I would call it Nic Fit. The cards and colors may differ but in general they will support a grinding control plan. The combo version with Scapeshift might want another name, not sure.

For the GSZ discussion: I still think this a valid point. I am currently using the setup with 2 GSZ that was played at the Pro Tour. It gives access to more Veteran Explorers but doesn't force you to commit too heavily into targets. Like IBA I think that Ooze, Hermit, Wickerbough, Finks and Dryad are too often bad cards and that there is room for improvement. I play Ooze G1, it gets killed. Every fucking time.
I am not sure if Living Wish is the way to go though, it is close. It is very powerful because it gets far better things than GSZ. Spell Snare is really not a big deal either. First of all you often know their hand so you can either play around it or Discard it if needed. On top of that resolving Wish and getting it Snared are very different stories. Getting it Snared is a nuisance but getting Bog against Dredge, Baloth against Burn, Genesis against Pox or Karakas against Reanimator are huge plays. Having a very small SB is the real problem with Wish and obviously a huge drawback.

Oh, this is addressed to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arianrhod

Those of us who've been with the thread for a long time have been comparing this deck to Survival for ages. By the logic above, Survival at its peak wasn't worthy of being a DTB, because people never settled on which version was best (Bant, Ooze, or Madness/Vine).

---

Lots of decks running Survival of the Fittests weren't DTBs and shouldn't have been regarded as such, if they were.

And that was a lot more of a marquee card than Veteran fucking Explorer is ever going to be, to tell you the truth.

Quote:

---

Depending on which numbers you used, each version had solid strengths.

---

Namby pamby feel-good nonsense that gets in the way of constructively advancing the game and the deck.

Quote:

---

The fact that Nic Fit is capable of of producing a multitude of competitive color arrangements is a strength IMO, not a sign of poor deckbuilding.

---

We have to be very careful about what we mean by "competitive" here.

It's very easy to build a Legacy deck that can win a small local tournament and that puts up maybe 40-45% against the field. Such a deck can feel good, and is "objectively" powerful if weighed against historical standards of power level.

The problem is that a deck that's 45% against the field is terrible and should be abandoned. There's no reason to play it.

The difficulty is identifying when a deck is so subpar when peoples' optimistic tendencies tend towards them seeing a deck that's 45% as being 55% or better.

This requires clear-headedness and an aversion to the cliches about how X build and Y build are like two really hot chicks and so on.

To quote, I believe it was Jon Finkel; "In any given situation there's the correct play, and every other play is the wrong one."

Quote:

---

At this point, I would say that we should seek to ignore the troll and just keep focusing on making our individual subarchetypes better, as I've been urging for a while now.

---

Perhaps you are not familiar with the utility of a forum, so named after the Roman forum, a public gathering place where ideas could be exchanged and tested for merit against a public audience, in this way hoping to find, from the wisdom of many, a greater truth.

Quote:

---

I mean, the very fact that he pointed out considering Headless Horseman as a "taunt button" seems to debase his arguments in my mind. Putting a taunt button in a deck isn't going to make it any better.

---

Yes, that's right, it won't. Maybe you missed the point of the anecdote. Allow me to illuminate it. I did suggest to a friend that he run Headless Horseman as a Wish target once. But why, you rightly wonder? Or perhaps skip the wondering altogether and dismiss it. A Headless Horseman can win the game, of course; it's a 2/2 and can technically kill someone. But the opportunity cost of running it is cutting something else that would certainly win more games.

Right, and that's because it's a weak creature by the power standard of Magic. But the same is true of most of the GSZ targets people are running; Kitchen Finks and Scavening Ooze and Deranged Hermit are generally weak draws, only strong in niche situations, and unlike Maverick the deck lacks the tools to put them to use in a general aggressive strategy.

So you might immediately think, "Well why would I want to run Headless Horseman?", but really you ought to expand this questioning. Why would you want to raw-draw a Kitchen Finks against 90% of the Legacy field?

@Greenpoe: My problem with testing Glittering Wish previously (and this was back in 2007) was that to make a Wish good you generally need at least a couple cheap and useful targets to grab with it. Like with Cunning Wish you really want Misdirection and Ravenous Trap at least, Burning Wish you're generally going to get a bevy of 1cc spells + Massacre and/or Reverent Silence. There aren't any free gold spells though, and only a few 1cc ones of any value at all.

This is a problem because Wishes add 2+ mana onto the cost of everything you tutor for with them and you really want it to be useful early games on occasion. The biggest benefit of Living Wish over Glittering Wish is just that it can grab Bojuka Bog, Karakas and Maze of Ith (and maybe Tabernacle.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arianrhod

The Living Wish idea is solid, I will grant that, and there may be some potential there. But ... shoving all of your major wincons into the sideboard seems like a really bad idea. I could see some kind of split, like having a bomb or two in the board for Wish while topping your maindeck with like a Thrun or something, but all-inning Wish seems dangerous at best and idiotic at worst, especially since it comes at the cost of valuable sideboard space. I don't feel like this is a deck that is capable of running a multiple-round tournament without at least 8-10 sideboard slots to improve specific matchups.

---

I think a split between Zenith and Living Wish may actually be the best approach, the more I consider it. I feel like the split is probably best, since they actually do somewhat different things, even if they both tutor for a creature. While Wish helps the deck remove some of the more janky one-ofs and gives good silver-bullet-lands, at the same time, Zenith helps it not rely too hard on Wish, helps the sideboard not get consumed by Wish targets, and serves as important backup for Explorer and Witness. I feel like having at least one tutorable win condition in the maindeck is a good thing too (I'll just say Thrun for the sake of example.) I like to play a little aggressively and hate matches going to time, so honestly I'd probably still use about 10-12 maindeck slots on a creature package, personally. I couldn't say what's "correct," and I don't think this is really the type of deck where much more than a basic shell is going to be agreed upon at any given point.

Recently I've been testing a fairly standard GSZ based Jund-colored list, using I think 1 Broodmate Dragon, 3 Lightning Bolt, 2 Punishing Fire, and 1 Terminate as my main-deck red splash. I'm a little less sure about Bolt and Dragon, but Punishing Fire has been pretty amazing so far. I like its applications against UW Stoneforge, Death & Taxes, and Maverick, which can all be pretty annoying games. Making space for Grove in the land package is a little bit of a bitch, but it's seeming pretty good overall, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to drop a Bolt for another Fire. So anyways, I wouldn't dismiss the red splash offhand without asking yourself what's in your meta, testing it, etc.

I'd like to come up with something to put the nail in the coffin of Geist of St. Traft though (like the pun there?) I think Abyssal Persecutor's drawback is pretty awkward, but I've been thinking of tossing in like 2 Tombstalkers and seeing if he and Witness get in each other's way too much. Thoughts, anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tao

For the GSZ discussion: I still think this a valid point. I am currently using the setup with 2 GSZ that was played at the Pro Tour. It gives access to more Veteran Explorers but doesn't force you to commit too heavily into targets. Like IBA I think that Ooze, Hermit, Wickerbough, Finks and Dryad are too often bad cards and that there is room for improvement. I play Ooze G1, it gets killed. Every fucking time.
I am not sure if Living Wish is the way to go though, it is close. It is very powerful because it gets far better things than GSZ. Spell Snare is really not a big deal either. First of all you often know their hand so you can either play around it or Discard it if needed. On top of that resolving Wish and getting it Snared are very different stories. Getting it Snared is a nuisance but getting Bog against Dredge, Baloth against Burn, Genesis against Pox or Karakas against Reanimator are huge plays. Having a very small SB is the real problem with Wish and obviously a huge drawback.

---

Anyway you could provide a link or a list to the pro tour deck you're referencing?

Nic Fit is my pet deck and I haven't had nearly as much experience playing it as other people in the thread but, from what I've noticed, one of my biggest issues with this deck - especially in Birthing Pod lists - is the overabundance of situationally irrelevant creatures in places where I'd rather have a discard spell or a Maelstrom Pulse.

How many of you guys on here have extensively tested with 0 Phyrexian Towers that are coming out so strongly for it? If you play 100 games with a build and find the deck works well (45%-against-the-field-well! whoo), there aren't strong incentives for you to try to test the counterfactual case, so I would understand.

I've tested 100-200 games with 0 Phyrexian Towers and I do not miss it at all. The times I wish I had a sacrifice outlet, it is always me wishing I had another Cabal Therapy or something like a Liliana. The possibility of extra speed is never worth the missed green/black source or the chance of losing tempo to Wasteland. If you want extra speed, you should play Lotus Cobra.

I agree with IBA. I love me a midrange grindy sort of deck, so I was excited to click this thread. Then I saw it was a ton of random, poor utility creatures and a GSZ toolbox. Almost nothing that looks scary if the person on the other side of the table has a Batterskull.

(Although I disagree with IBA on the utility of the Scavenging Ooze).

One of the things that made GerryT's Survival list so scary was that he tuned the heck out of it and got rid of all the cute cards. Deranged Hermit and Wall of Blossoms feel very much like Genesis and the 3rd and 4th Basking Rootwallas, respectively. Deranged Hermit, in particular, looks like it's in only to be a GSZ-able Grave Titan. Presumably it is there to avoid being Plowed. Plow aside, why are we durdling with Hermit Druid and Thrun when we could have Lord of Extinction, Spiritmonger, Vulturous Zombies, Thornling and Nath of the Gilt Leaf? (Or whatever. There are some sweet 4s and 5s, that's the point.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anusien

Deranged Hermit, in particular, looks like it's in only to be a GSZ-able Grave Titan. Presumably it is there to avoid being Plowed. Plow aside, why are we durdling with Hermit Druid and Thrun when we could have Lord of Extinction, Spiritmonger, Vulturous Zombies, Thornling and Nath of the Gilt Leaf? (Or whatever. There are some sweet 4s and 5s, that's the point.)

---

Those things all die to StpS and leave you with nothing. 90% grave titan reads put two 2/2 zombie tokens into play and gain 6 life. Same with hermit druid. But that wins games when that Stps was the last card in their hand, and you blew up all their creatures already. All the creatures you mentioned are the "cute" ones that have been tuned out to make way for the most efficient threats. Tbh, I would love to play stuff like nath or spirit monger, but I just dont see how they could be better than Deranged hermit and friends.

This deck plays very grindy and you cant win grindy games if your wincons can just trade 1 for 1 with the most played 1cc removal instant.


EDIT: Afterthought, I have been thinking about batterskull as the lategame finisher (titan slot) card. It does everything we need it too. Doesn't die to removal/combat if we have mana open, heck it doesnt even die to creature removal regardless of if we have mana that turn. Whenever I play stoneblade and they drop bskull, I think "man, I want one of those on my side." I havent tested this at all but I thought I remember some people saying that had a SFM package how did that work? We could probably even run it as a 2/3 of without SFM since 5+ mana is prefectly reasonable for this deck.

IBA: the Spike in me respects your arguments, but the Johnny rebels. As with most things, I fall between the two. Heavy-handedly stating that something is so, does not in fact make it so. Lots of crazy good decks have emerged from mashing two ideas that were terrible separately together to form something good. While I grant that there is an -enormous- danger of cute things with this archetype, because we get to do so many things that other decks in legacy only wish that they could, I would argue that most of those cute things (with some blatant exceptions) are worth testing, because you never know what diamonds you might find in the rough.

Indeed, that is the main problem that I have had with your posts in this thread thusfar. You claim, as with your Finkel quote, that there is one correct way for a deck to be built, and indeed that it should not be in the DTB forum unless it meets those specifications. I, on the other hand, have claimed previously (and still believe) that this deck is the Nietzsche of legacy decks: "there is no right or wrong way, only a way. This is mine, what's yours?" And I furthermore believe that the deck's sheer variability is a strength of the archetype, because it's not a matter of when two Stoneblade players ram into each other, knowing that there is maybe 4 different cards in their whole damn deck. If you're playing vs a Nic Fit, and you know that from Therapy/Explorer, you have to worry about what the hell is going to happen next, because the archetype is capable of anything. You can't just memorize the top deck list of the week, and know exactly what you're going up against to within a few cards. I consider my opponents' lack of information a strength.

Things like Ooze and Finks are never dead cards for me, due to the fact that I run a pair of Phyrexian Arenas. The incremental lifegain offsets the card draw, so even when they aren't in their niche and performing amazingly, they have a very real purpose. I'll grant that my deck is a little specific in that regard, and that Finks/Ooze are maybe not quite as amazing universally, but the fact remains that you cannot simply make a blanket statement that Finks is a horrible card except in certain situations. There are always exceptions, which is the problem of course with any blanket statement. There are even exceptions to the idea that there are exceptions, but I digress.

I grant your Wish idea validity, and plan on testing it, but the fact remains that it is JUST AN IDEA. There is no proof, hard or soft, that Wish is a superior engine to GSZ. As you said, the Roman forum. I have no objection to anyone raising any idea in this thread or elsewhere. Such is proper. I will reiterate just so I'm clear: what I have a problem with is anyone claiming without irrefutable data that their way is the only, the correct way. It has nothing to do with feel-good optimism, but rather a preference for keeping all options on the table. Nothing ever truly goes away, and there is nothing new under the sun. The Abyssal Persecutor idea has somewhat fallen off the radar, at least among people who actually post in the thread (I don't doubt that people who do not post still play it). However, that does not mean in my mind that it is proof that Abyssal Persecutor is a terrible idea and will never see use again, or that it should ever be dismissed from the discussion as an option for the proper time and meta.

At the very least, I am open to agree to disagree, as it seems that our stances are fairly opposite.

WaSP: I don't buy into the Wasteland argument. I would rather that they Waste my Tower than one of my duals any day of the week, especially since due to Explorer triggers, duals are usually the first lands fetched. Ironically for a deck that runs this many basics, we're actually still just as susceptible to Wasteland, unless we have basics in our opening hand, which then weakens Explorer slightly. I do agree that there are probably builds that will eschew Tower entirely and be perfectly happy with it. Builds with Academy Rector are not among their number. The Gifts builds are the other version that I have worked on, and I will agree that Tower was always on the chopping block in those builds. It was far less exciting there. I would say that the hierarchy for Tower would be something like the following:

If Nic Fit, then 0-1 Tower. If Gifts, then 0 Tower. If Rector, then 1-2 Tower.

I -could- see the Birthing Pod builds wanting 2 Towers as well, to try to speed Pod out as fast as possible. But I haven't really tinkered with a Pod list, so I can't speak for those people.

If you only have two real threats, then yeah, you absolutely can't let them die to StP. This is because there's a lot of chaff and creatures that aren't really threats. If you can up the threat count, then it's okay if a creature dies to StP because you have another one. It's the last fattie that gets them.

If you're red, Olivia Voldaren seems insane. Against bolt decks, you just don't play it until you can save it from Bolt; even then it's as expensive as a Grave Titan and dominates the board better.

Eh, you're wasting spots in the main or you're wasting spots in the side. You're trading redundancy for added flexibility in being able to grab lands and off-color creatures. Really just seems like a matter of personal preference to me at this point.