[DTB] Vial Goblins

I have been obviously working with this deck for a while now and the build I happen to be running right now is MonoRed. There was never a reason to have the splash. Our metagame down here in VA is going crazy. I really don't know whats going on. More and more combo seems to be popping its head into the scene. So i have accordingling changed the board and maindeck.

Lands//
11x Mountain
4x Wooded Foothills
1x Bloodstained Mire
3x Wasteland

Vials//
4x Aether Vial

Goobos//
4x Goblin Lackey
4x Goblin Warchief
4x Skirk Prospector
4x Goblin Matron
4x Goblin Ringleader
4x Mogg Fanatic
4x Goblin Piledriver
4x Goblin Incinerator
1x Goblin Sharpshooter
1x Siege-Gang Commander
1x Sparksmith
1x Goblin Pyromancer
1x Kiki-Jiki

I cut the Flunkies from the deck because well, they dont do anything. They apply the beats sure, but they just aren't necessary in this deck. So instead I added a toolbox of Goblins so that I had more versatility. The card choices are pretty damn obvious, and most of the people have gone over them while arguing.

Kiki-jiki really might not make the cut, because he really is a win more card. As of now though he has pulled me out of some tight situations, plus the theory behind this deck is card advantage, and boy oh boy is he good at that. :p

Just some food for your brains,
Roop

The reason for a splash is there are numerous cards, primarily enchantments, that wreck you in a most savage manner.

Why are you only playing three Wastelands? The card is a four of or a none of, with the sole exception being if you run one, plus Crucibles and Intuitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogboy

The reason for a splash is there are numerous cards, primarily enchantments, that wreck you in a most savage manner.

---

I think what Roopey was trying to say is that our metagame in NoVa doesn't require a splash. The Goblin decks around here originally started splashing green to hose Enchantress decks, and they continued to splash so they could answer Survival. Lately, though, Enchantress has seen a lot less play, and I believe that Vial Goblins's record against Survival has been positive without the splash.

Personally, if I were to splash in Vial Goblins, I'd likely prioritize combo hate over enchantment hate right now. If that were the case I'd likely follow the lead of the Extended players and go with black. Cabal Therapy is just so good.

Quote:

---

Why are you only playing three Wastelands? The card is a four of or a none of, with the sole exception being if you run one, plus Crucibles and Intuitions.

---

I see absolutely no logic behind that statement. If he feels that the deck needs 19 lands, but only needs 16 red sources, then there is very little reason not to run 3 Wastes. Running a 4th Wasteland would require cutting either a red source or a nonland; perhaps Roopey feels that Wasteland #4 is worth neither sacrifice.

Unless there is a better non-mountain land to run (Port, Factory?), it makes perfect sense to run 3 Wastelands.

Quote:

---

everyone arguing about Lackey

---

I can appreciate that CorruptedAngel is thinking "outside the box" and not assuming Goblin Lackey to be an auto-include. However, even upon reconsideration, Lackey seems to be very powerful in this deck and I would only cut it after thoroughly testing and deciding that he was actually worse than alternative choices.

In a lot of this deck's tougher matchups (mostly against combo and control), Lackey should help much more than hurt. He accelerates your clock, and protects your card drawing. I also think that with a build like Roopey's, with 4 Fanatic and 3-4 Gempalms, even creature-based decks will have a hard time consistently blocking a first turn Lackey. So like I said, it would require conclusive testing to convince me that Lackey isn't worth running.



Edited By Obfuscate Freely on 1111034810

Quote:

---

I see absolutely no logic behind that statement.

---

It's incredibly simple when you think about it. Wasteland is one of those cards you either want to maxamize your chances of seeing early on (As a 4-of) or not at all (As a 0-of). Running it as a 3-of makes no logical sense as far as I can tell. The deck runs no other form of mana-denial, hence you can't even argue that it was supplementing another card in the strategy and hence just being extras. You're either lowering your chances of seeing the card for no reason or you don't need/want it enough to put it's entire reason for being in the deck into question.

Wasteland does supplement another card in the deck - Mountain. There is no need to run a full 19 Mountains in a deck that can so easily use colorless mana. Running a few Wastelands in place of Mountains offers you a modicum of disruption at no practical cost.

The fact that Wasteland has that "tap: add 1 to your mana pool" line is what makes it so good; it is completely non-situational disruption because it will always tap for mana like any land would, and it can therefore take up slots that would otherwise just be basic lands.



Edited By Obfuscate Freely on 1111044301

Um... if you're going to use a arguement like that, why AREN'T you running Factory or Port then? Since you're using it 'to supplement Mountain' and not because Wasteland is actually good.

Wasteland is generally considered better, I guess. You'd have to ask Roopey if he's considered other options.

My point was just that "Wasteland shouldn't be there as a 3-of" is a foolish thing to say when its being used primarily as a mana source.

Quote:

---

My point was just that "Wasteland shouldn't be there as a 3-of" is a foolish thing to say when its being used primarily as a mana source.

---

The majority, usually don't even count Wasteland as a mana source. In an aggressive deck like this, I can't remember many times when I've ever not used Wasteland as mana-denial. I doubt it's really 'foolish' when it's commonly treated and catergorized for what it's main effect and use is, instead of the lesser used 'making 1 colorless'.

Speaking from my experience with Ponza, I don't find that to be necessarily true. In decks like Zilla Stompy where there's virtually no colorless mana requirements, almost everything being 1 mana, that may be the case, but in a mono-color deck with a lot of generic mana requirements, having Wasteland as a 3x is acceptable if it leaves you enough red mana to operate without having too many lands.

This is especially true with the decrease in non-basic lands recently; the ability to kill those lands can be looked at more as bonus than as the sole purpose of running Wasteland.

Well, if you're using mana denial "as a bonus" why not play Rishadan Port so that you can constantly use it and be able to port basics?

If you're mostly tapping for colorless, it should probably be another mountain; hands with Wasteland, Wasteland, Mountain you MUST mulligan without a Vial. Three mountains is almost always keepable unless your creatures are all awful. Bear in mind that the most important Goblin to have in play is Warchief, and he costs RR.

I still think it's wrong.

Quote:

---

Well, if you're using mana denial "as a bonus" why not play Rishadan Port so that you can constantly use it and be able to port basics?

---

Port might be better. Port can also shut down two lands for a turn, against control.

Quote:

---

If you're mostly tapping for colorless, it should probably be another mountain; hands with Wasteland, Wasteland, Mountain you MUST mulligan without a Vial. Three mountains is almost always keepable unless your creatures are all awful. Bear in mind that the most important Goblin to have in play is Warchief, and he costs RR.

---

Don't you think that depends on the hand? The odds of your hand having no plan besides Warchief, no Vial, no Lackey, and double Wasteland without another mountain or a prospector seem rather slim, don't you think?

Unlike Extended, Chrome Mox is more useful in Legacy since the format is slightly faster and thus requires your deck to be as fast as the other decks (if not faster).

This deck has a lot of imprint targets and can regain the loss of a card via Ringleader/Gempalm/Matron. So far, the Mox has been pretty useful because the deck is mana-hungry and needs permanent manasources.

My decklist is similar to Roopey's:

Mana (20):
8x Mountain
4x Wooded Foothills
4x Wasteland
4x Chrome Mox

Non-Goblin (4):
4x Aether Vial

Goblins (36):

1cc:
4x Goblin Lackey
4x Mogg Fanatic
4x Skirk Prospector
2cc:
4x Goblin Piledriver
4x Gempalm Incinerator
3cc:
4x Goblin Matron
4x Goblin Warchief
4cc:
4x Goblin Ringleader
Toolbox:
1x Goblin Sharpshooter
2x Siege-Gang Commander
1x Goblin Pyromancer

As you can see, the list is very streamlined, I have found this to be the most consistent and efficient version that's reasonably close to Olivier Ruels build.
Most things about Kiki have been said, and it's clear that it doesn't really belong into the deck. I also don't run Sparksmith because Gempalms are just better at removing creatures. The second SGC has been the nuts, and I strongly recommend running the second one. I also want to fit in a second Sharpshooter, what's the best thing to cut?

To sum this up: Ever played Lackey and Vial both in the first turn? [love]

Why not run Goblin Burrows? I can appreciate the argument that "x lands could be colorless", but frogboy is right that a single Wasteland will rarely alter the course of games. Goblin Burrows, on the other hand, can give the deck added threat density and help clear away large-assed blockers (Mogg Fanatic can suddenly take out a Ravenous Baloth)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artowis

Um... if you're going to use a arguement like that, why AREN'T you running Factory or Port then? Since you're using it 'to supplement Mountain' and not because Wasteland is actually good.

---

You:
a) are missing the point of the 'arguement'.
b) are assuming that Wasteland was chosen without first being tested against other prospective candidates.
c) come off as arrogant, which not only hurts your credibility, but also any valid points you make.

The 'arguement' was a response when frogboy posted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogboy

Why are you only playing three Wastelands? The card is a four of or a none of, with the sole exception being if you run one, plus Crucibles and Intuitions.

---

ObfuscateFreely pointed out (and rightly so), that this statement makes no logical sense.

Mountain only taps for red mana, while Wasteland taps for colorless and has the ability to trade with a nonbasic land. If the color of the mana does not matter, then Wasteland is better than Mountain.

Using the above logic, it makes perfect sense to trade mountains for Wastelands as much as the manabase allows because you are gaining versatility at almost no cost.

That being said, it makes sense to trade mountains for any colorless producing land with an ability that offsets the minor opportunity cost of the trade. Goblin Burrows, Mishra's Factory, Wasteland, Quicksand, Rishadan Port, Desert, Maze of Shadows and others are all possible substitutes. Some of these choices are clearly worse than others, but they all produce colorless mana and they all have an extra ability. The argument that there is a better replacement than Wasteland, however, is different from stating that Wasteland does not belong simply because you are only running three.

As for what land is optimal, it will require playtesting to determine what to put in, as the benefits of the switch will most likely be minimal, and varied according to metagames. I do think that Wasteland, Goblin Burrows, Rishadan Port, and maybe even Dustbowl could go on the list. If I were testing it, I would leave those three slots proxied in the deck, and decide when I drew it what land it was for the game to give myself a better idea of what land I'd like to be seeing.

Of course I come off as arrogant. I couldn't believe I had to explain why 4x wastes > 3x wastes. But then you have the argument (And oh man, I made a typo originally, I hope you're really proud of yourself for catching it.) that it's merely supplementing the land in the deck.

So since you realistically expected to use it for mana, I then asked why you weren't using Port (Or Goblin Burrows as IBA suggests) then, which is generally some good in Vial Goblin decks and made more sense as a 3-of then Wasteland. As Frogboy and IBA have said previously, only using one Wasteland will rarely have an effect on the game...

Quote:

---

b) are assuming that Wasteland was chosen without first being tested against other prospective candidates.

---

Since Roopey made no mention of testing any alternates and they aren't exactly the first choices that come to mind for a Goblin deck. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.

Quote:

---

To sum this up: Ever played Lackey and Vial both in the first turn?

---

No, because I actually like having a hand left to DO something with. Land + Chrome Mox / Imprint + Vial + Lackey = 5 cards already out of hand. If you actually have gas left, good for you, but I'm betting you wouldn't. [glare]

Honestly, if you're running a 3-of land that taps for colorless mana in this deck it almost has to be Goblin Burrows. Wasteland is alright, but the number of absolutely MUST kill lands in this format is pretty much Thawing Glaciers - and you should be able to race Tide.

If you're going to run Wastelands, you really probably want to also run Rishadan Port to have a viable mana denial strategy while you ramp AEther Vial to 3.

As for Chrome Mox, I'm not sure it's needed. You're going to be spending a Goblin to make it such that your other Goblins come out a turn earlier... and you have Skirk Prospector already. Yes this format is pretty fast, but in a lot of matchups Goblins is a control deck - you can't afford to be burning cards for speed as you will simply run out of the former without killing via the latter.

Try beating Landstill without 4 Wastelands.
In my oppinion Wastelands rock, since they have great synergie with Vial/Lackey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artowis

Of course I come off as arrogant. I couldn't believe I had to explain why 4x wastes > 3x wastes. But then you have the argument (And oh man, I made a typo originally, I hope you're really proud of yourself for catching it.) that it's merely supplementing the land in the deck.

---

I quoted 'arguement' because it was not only a typo, but a microcosm of your entire post. Also, your 4x wastes > 3x wastes explanation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artowis

The deck runs no other form of mana-denial, hence you can't even argue that it was supplementing another card in the strategy and hence just being extras.

---

is just flat out wrong. If swaping another Mountain for Wasteland affects the deck negatively, then 3x wastes > 4x wastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artowis

So since you realistically expected to use it for mana, I then asked why you weren't using Port (Or Goblin Burrows as IBA suggests) then, which is generally some good in Vial Goblin decks and made more sense as a 3-of then Wasteland.

---

You concede your position in a debate when you change topics as a response to criticism. We've suddenly gone from debating '4x waste > 3x waste' to 'there are better alternatives than Wasteland'. The change in focus is fine, especially since the first debate is off-topic. However, you not only come off as arrogant, but you are arrogant if you'd rather subtly change the topic rather than admit that you're wrong.

I fully admit I misconstrued the entire first argument. It sounded pretty awful in my head and I couldn't figure out why you would ever run THREE Wastes if you could help it.

Again, I point out the brazen fact that I am arrogant most of the time, just like most of the people here are. That's why I think we get along, oh so lovely, on these boards.



Edited By Artowis on 1111295770

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirdape3

As for Chrome Mox, I'm not sure it's needed. You're going to be spending a Goblin to make it such that your other Goblins come out a turn earlier... and you have Skirk Prospector already. Yes this format is pretty fast, but in a lot of matchups Goblins is a control deck - you can't afford to be burning cards for speed as you will simply run out of the former without killing via the latter.

---

Maybe that Lackey/Vial example wasn't the best one, but in that case a single Ringleader or Matron will refill your hand. So far, the strength of Chrome Mox has been that I can cast Warchief on turn 2 and then go crazy in the third turn.
Also with four each of Ringleader/Gempalm/Matron, I have found that I can recoup the card disadvantage from the imprint and still have a constant stream of cards.