[DTB] Vial Goblins

Compare this manabase:

4x Wasteland
4x Bloodstained Mire
4x Wooded Foothills
8x Mountain

with this one:

8x Mountain
4x Wooded Foothills
4x Wasteland
4x Chrome Mox

and this one:

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


Why are there such big differences here? For a deck streamlined such as Vial Goblins, one would expect a consolidated manabase.
The only common thing I see here are the 16 red sources.

Fetchlands or Chrome Mox?
This is a very important and difficult question. There are pro and cons for both options.

Fetchlands
+enable splashing (as a maindeck or sideboard option)
+increase the chance you hit Goblins with Ringleader
-vulnerable to Stifle, Blood Moon
-lifeloss

Chrome Mox
+provides crucial extra speed
+permanent nonland manasource
-vulnerable to artifact destruction
-cardloss

This is really a tough one. Chrome Mox is high-risk, high-reward. Fetchlands are low-risk, low-reward. Right now, I'm leaning towards the Mox, the speed it offers really pushes the deck over the top in numerous matchups.

What do you think?

-Bongo

I'm currently running:

4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Wooded Foothills
10 Mountain (or 4 Badlands/6 Mountains when I splash)
4 Rishadan Port
2 Chrome Mox

I think I'm one of the few people that are running the 1.5 version with 22 mana sources. I like Mox, but it's definitely not a 4-of since it creates some anti-synergy with Goblin Lackey and Vial. I'm also becoming a big fan of Port over Wasteland. It gives you something to do with your mana when you have a Vial out, and it's never dead in some matchups like Wasteland can be. I was trying 3 Waste/3 Port, but I kept running into color issues so I've currently dropped it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LunchBox

I'm also becoming a big fan of Port over Wasteland. It gives you something to do with your mana when you have a Vial out

---

Do you have spare mana?
I have found the deck to be quite mana hungry, even when there is a Vial out.

Although Port is useful against decks with nonbasics, it "eats" two mana every turn, which interferes with your plan of casting Goblins.

The deck IS manahungry. I lost many games because I lacked the necessary mana.

I agree with Chrome Mox, though. Three or two seem to be the right number.

-Bongo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bongo

Fetchlands
...
-vulnerable to ..., Blood Moon

---

WTF? A fetchland is hardly vulnerable to blood moon. If you are bringing in blood moon than it will much more greatly affect your opponent than you. If your opponent brings in Blood Moon then you should be happy with the game/match win since he brought in dead cards against you.

Quote:

---

Do you have spare mana?
I have found the deck to be quite mana hungry, even when there is a Vial out.

---

There are lots of times when it's more advantageous to not cast the goblin, but instead Vial it out (to avoid counters, for example) so here you would have spare mana. Might as well use that mana for Port. Not every game is:

Turn one: Vial/Lackey
Turn two: Piledriver, EOT 1cc Goblin

Most of the time, I'd rather go:
Turn one: Vial
Turn two: Port, EOT Lackey
Turn three: Port, Swing Lackey, EOT Piledriver

It obviously depends on the matchups, but I think Port is a little more flexible than Wasteland. Remember that this deck can be very controlling, depending on the draw and the matchup.



Edited By LunchBox on 1116261737

Wait a minute, who says you can't take out Mountains for Chrome Mox? Obviously at some point you have too many fetches and not enough lands to fetch, but you could go with 6 fetch/6 Mountain/4 Mox as your red sources, or something like that. The deck rarely needs seven lands, and it's got Mox and Wasteland to back them up. You could argue for going even lower on the Mountains, but this is assuming 4 Mox anyway, which isn't particularly likely to be the right number.

I don't know what the optimal manabase is, I'm just pointing out that you've got a lot of options. Also note that the Extended decks run a pretty constant 22 mana sources. Does Lackey really allow you to cut two lands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Zur

Also note that the Extended decks run a pretty constant 22 mana sources. Does Lackey really allow you to cut two lands?

---

For the most part, Yes. Not every deck has an answer to a Turn 1 Lackey, especially if the metagame is unprepared for it, and Vial gives you another (albeit slower in the first few turns) method of bypassing potential mana screw. For reference I'll post my manabase, but make note that there aren't hardly any decks in my meta right now which are reliant enough on Non-basics to make me want to run Wasteland, I deal with those decks with Price of Progress from the sideboard:

6 Mountain
4 Badlands
2 Swamp
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Wooded Foothills
2 Chrome Mox

I feel that 2 Chrome Moxen is the right number. It allows me to have a permanent mana boost and I don't often have a dead one in my hand. The 6 Fetches allow me to thin my deck of land and make my Ringleaders more effective, and the 2 basic Swamps are fairly obvious includes so I can cast my black spells in the face of opposing Wastelands. Could my deck benefit from Wasteland? Possibly, but right now the meta in Albany has become stagnant to the point that Wasteland will only slow me down, and Price of Progress from the board will flat out kill the opponent, so that is a choice I made.

I'm pretty sure that running less than 21 mana sources hurts the deck. Lackey doesn't change things enough.

The Extended lists mostly vary in mana count from 21 to 23, depending on how many colorless sources they run. 2 Chrome Moxen is pretty common, as is the minimum of 15 red sources. Keeping that in mind, I've been mostly happy with this manabase:

13x Mountain
4x Wasteland
2x Goblin Burrows
2x Chrome Mox

I have had problems getting enough red mana, but having Wasteland is invaluable. Burrows is questionable, but I'm usually not unhappy to draw it. Prospectors trading with Factories is hot.

I did start testing the deck with 3 Chrome Moxen. I occasionally drew multiples and it sucked. I haven't missed the 3rd, but I do like having them in the deck.

I admit I have not tested Port. Everything Lunchbox said about it makes sense, but I think my meta sees enough nonbasics to justify Wasteland. It is possible that Port should replace Burrows, since it complements Wasteland so well.

Oh, and you can easily swap 6-7 Mountains for fetches if you like. I run it with basics because they're Mirage black bordered. :p



Edited By Obfuscate Freely on 1116287853

Interesting, there seem to be even bigger disparities than I first thought.

Fortunately, there are some things most people agree on:

2 Chrome Mox
4 Wasteland/Rishadan Port
14-17 red sources

The choice between Wasteland and Port should be a metagame-decision.
However, we need to work on the configuration of the red sources. The number of red sources depends on the number of Fetches you run, a build with no Fetches can afford to run less red sources, leaving more space for other cards. So the right question to ask would be:

What is the right number of Fetchlands in the deck?

Why can a build without fetchlands afford to run fewer red sources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bongo

However, we need to work on the configuration of the red sources. The number of red sources depends on the number of Fetches you run, a build with no Fetches can afford to run less red sources, leaving more space for other cards. So the right question to ask would be:

What is the right number of Fetchlands in the deck?

---

I agree with Ob... How exactly can you get away with running less Red sources with no Fetchlands? That simply makes no sense to me, as I would figure you would want more Red producing lands so you can actually draw them in the absense of Fetches.. ???

Anyways, I feel the correct number of Fetches, if they are run, obviously the Mono-R decks don't need to run fetches (although it makes your ringleaders more effective), is somewhere between 4-6. That would allow you to fetch out your Red sources and make Ringleaders more effective, while still having enough mana sources (Wastleands/Ports for you guys, more Mountains/Swamps for me) to draw mana when you need to.. Cause admit it, there are times when you just need to topdeck a land, and running too many Fetches can deny you that ability.



Edited By CorruptedAngel on 1116438161

OK - I would like to reffer everybody to the list that got top 8 at the last PGI event. My friend Nathen and I made his deck at around mid-night, only because he loved playing goblins, and we had practically everything. I tried to get him to run Fetchlands, but he said that he wouldn't... Why? I don't know, but he was able to run both Wasteland and Port quite well. while not worrying about his number of red sources.

Here is his mana base:

15x Mountain
4x Wasteland
4x Rishidan Port

If you want the decklist it is posted here.

EDIT: I believe that the only arguement in fetchlands is that if your splashs another color, you have to run at least 4-6 fetches. But rarely have I seen a need for the deck to splash any color...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorruptedAngel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bongo

However, we need to work on the configuration of the red sources. The number of red sources depends on the number of Fetches you run, a build with no Fetches can afford to run less red sources, leaving more space for other cards. So the right question to ask would be:

What is the right number of Fetchlands in the deck?

---

I agree with Ob... How exactly can you get away with running less Red sources with no Fetchlands? That simply makes no sense to me, as I would figure you would want more Red producing lands so you can actually draw them in the absense of Fetches.. ???

Anyways, I feel the correct number of Fetches, if they are run, obviously the Mono-R decks don't need to run fetches (although it makes your ringleaders more effective), is somewhere between 4-6. That would allow you to fetch out your Red sources and make Ringleaders more effective, while still having enough mana sources (Wastleands/Ports for you guys, more Mountains/Swamps for me) to draw mana when you need to.. Cause admit it, there are times when you just need to topdeck a land, and running too many Fetches can deny you that ability.

---

My impression of the deck (I've played against it many times) is that it always wants to draw more land. Its a goblin deck that runs goblins that cost 3 and 4. In that case, I'm not sure running fetchlands in a mono-red build makes much sense. The thinning effect of fetchlands is very overrated (the math shows it to be very little) and given that this deck actually wants to draw into land number 3 and 4, why run fetchlands at all? If you are running more than one color then its obvious why run fetchlands, but otherwise I don't see it. It seems like most people have settled around 15-16 red sources with about 4-5 colorless sources.

yes, but the point of thinning the deck out since it improves the chance of getting more goblins off the ringleader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calosso

yes, but the point of thinning the deck out since it improves the chance of getting more goblins off the ringleader.

---

Duh.

His point still remains. With the Mono-R version (i.e; The version where you aren't Fetching off-color lands) you don't need to search for lands or thin the deck as much because a hefty chunk of your mana base produces Red mana. If you do over Fetch, you then run into the problem of not being able to find your 4th and 5th land drops. Do I agree to not run Fetches entirely in the Mono-R builds? No, I still like fetching lands and making Ringleaders more powerful... But I don't feel the deck needs to run 6-8 Fetchlands like the Splash-builds. By the way, please refrain from a one-liner such as that. Everyone knows it makes your Ringleaders slightly more effective, just restating it with no other argument or backup is not going to support your stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorruptedAngel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calosso

yes, but the point of thinning the deck out since it improves the chance of getting more goblins off the ringleader.

---

Duh.

His point still remains. With the Mono-R version (i.e; The version where you aren't Fetching off-color lands) you don't need to search for lands or thin the deck as much because a hefty chunk of your mana base produces Red mana. If you do over Fetch, you then run into the problem of not being able to find your 4th and 5th land drops. Do I agree to not run Fetches entirely in the Mono-R builds? No, I still like fetching lands and making Ringleaders more powerful... But I don't feel the deck needs to run 6-8 Fetchlands like the Splash-builds. By the way, please refrain from a one-liner such as that. Everyone knows it makes your Ringleaders slightly more effective, just restating it with no other argument or backup is not going to support your stance.

---

I really think either way, the fetching doesn't matter. The amount that it reduces your chances of drawing that extra land that you just took out of your deck is so low. But you are free to run as many fetchs as you would like - just be aware that they aren't that much different than mountains, because your chances of drawing another mountain/fetch is about the same. I guess the only disadvantage would be the issue of Stifle (which isn't very big) and the life loss which is minimal as well. Given that it doesn't reduce your chance of drawing a land by much, it does about the same for your Ringleader.

I know this may sound stupid and highly unoriginal, but has anyone thoguht of adding Food Chain to the deck? I was just recently playing against a Vial Goblins deck with ATS, and I was always a single turn away from getting Tradewind Muse lock on when he dumps Food Chain and Matron, gets Ringleader, performs some more funky stuff, and swings for 30 or so. This happened three times in a six game testing period. It seems to be fairly powerful in its own right, a resolved Food Chain means you'll never have mana problems again, ever. It's also severely hot with SGC's ability.

Also, splashing green gives you sb options like Ground Seal and Naturalize, which are fairly sexy.
-Slay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slay

It's also severely hot with SGC's ability.

---

You know Food Chain mana can only be spent on casting a creature spell, right? You cannot RFG something to Food Chain to generate mana to throw Goblins.



Edited By CorruptedAngel on 1117482227

Would it not be prudent to add chrome moxes when adding alot of fetchlands? If you are drawing into more goblins, you can imprint them for faster starts? I have been playing a similar varient for sometime now, almost 3-4 months, and my current land set up is:

2x Chrome Mox
10x Mountain
8x Mountain Fetch
3x Wasteland
2x Plateau/Badlands/Taiga (meta game dependant)

Not to throw the current mana base disccussion in a different tangent, but the only thing I feel this deck is lacking is some sort of renewable draw/card adv engine. Is there some way to bounce Ringleader back to hand? That would be nuts. Obviously this is would force the deck into a blue splash (crystal shard comes to mind).

Has anyone thought about abusing Kiki-Jiki in Legacy Goblins? He is a Goblin too, so he can come down 2nd turn via Lackey.

If he survives you can copy your own Lackey at the opponent's EOT (thus keeping the copy until the end of your turn) and then again before your next attack. This means that you will be attacking with 3 Lackeys on turn 3 and probably unloade your whole hand. Any opponent not able to deal with this will be dead shortly afterwards.

Kiki can also be used to copy the Ringleader, which is at least as insane as with Lackey, providing enormous advantage without the need to splash other colors.

If you look at the first two builds mentioned in this thread, the build mentioned by CorruptedAngel uses it as a one-of.

My 2 cents on the card is that its a win more card. From my testing, this deck has slow start but a very high top speed, reasoning being that it takes 3 mana sources to really get going (matron, warchief, ringleader if warchief is played the turn before, etc) but this deck can come out from a bad position and just overwhelm people with hasted piledrivers if the mana permits. Kiki jiki just makes your good board position even better. In that one-of slot I perfer the Pyromancer. Gotta love mad jail breaks, and it messes with people's math.

The NoVa players have pretty much always played a copy of Kiki-Jiki. I was skeptical at first just because I couldn't find room, but I've since stuffed him in and he is of course ridiculously powerful.

Incidentally, tserious terry, Kiki is probably what you're looking for, a constant draw engine, able to make new ringleaders every turn. Even if he's stuck copying a Matron, Kiki simply wins if he isn't dealt with immediately. And Kiki is a much better source of card advantage than any sort of bounce.

I agree on Pyromancer, though. We in NoVa run him too. The Extended players found that Pyromancer was capable of speeding the deck up a full turn, and being able to steal that turn from Solidarity or Enchantress is very important.

As for your manabase, terry, 25 lands seems extremely high. You don't need 20 red sources at all; is there some reason you run so many lands?

And once again, fetchlands do not make a big difference in the number of lands you will draw, or in the effectiveness of your Ringleaders. Think about how many fetchlands you will pop before casting a Ringleader on, say, turn 4. Two, maybe? That's 6 lands out of the deck instead of 4. Let's say you've drawn 10 cards naturally (you went first), so you either have 50 cards left (without fetching) or 48 cards left (with fetching). The percentage of your deck that is now land is:

without fetches: 21/50 = 0.42
with fetches: 19/48 = 0.40

I'm not saying that the difference isn't significant, especially if the game goes long, but the tiny difference it will make in most games simply cannot justify the inclusion of Chrome Mox. This is especially true since Chrome Mox is at its best in the first couple of turns, anyway, long before fetches offer even this bit of deckthinning.

You should still run Mox because it is good in the deck regardless of how many fetchlands you run. If you are having problems drawing enough colored spells, you should cut some lands. That's the best way to reduce your chances of drawing them. :p

Good points. I have always thought that the tokens created by kiki jiki did not make the "come into play" effects. I think this was because I read somewhere that Cloud of Faeries did not untap lands if vialed out. Then I read the oracle text, now it makes sense. I think I am going to run 1 kiki jiki in my deck.

I feel that fetchlands can not be interchanged for chrome moxes. Fetchlands give you card quality (assuming that you would rather draw a card with a casting cost instead of a land) while chrome mox gives you accelleration at the price of card disadvantage. Do you really need speed when the deck consitantly goldfishes at turn 4? I would rather thin out the deck and add to consitancy, but these points are all small since as you pointed out, very marginal improvements either way. Chrome moxes wont lead to first turn wins and thining out your deck wont lead to massive improvements.

Given the mana curve, how many colored sources do you have to run? Extended decks choose to run about 15. So, how about

6x Mountain
8x Fetch
3x Waste
2x Chrome Mox

I have done alot of testing and it seem that i never really want to pitch a card for Mox.
Also the reason the Vial Goblins is better then Goblin sligh is beacause it has enough card advantage so it doesn't burn out.

Also my mana base is 19 lands

3 waste
5 fetch
11 mountains

So far it has gotten me very far in the frog tournaments.

Double posts merged. -Zilla

I agree with colosso; Chrome Mox is bad for the deck. This isn't a combo deck like FCG was per se; it doesn't need to reach a critical amount of mana by a specific turn. Far more important to its strategy is its staying power in the late game, which Chrome Mox doesn't help. Further, Chrome Mox is an awful topdeck.

I disagree with the 19 land count, however. 20 is the very very lowest it should go, and I'm inclined to say 21 might be best for the sake of stability. 19 is far too few for deck that ideally wants 4 mana by turn 4.

I think having below 20 mana sources is really a bad idea. 19 Lands is fine and all, but 3 of those are usually not going to be a mana source as they are going to be an LD spell, so you are realistically running 16 lands. That to me is not enough, as I've recently upped my land/mana base from 20 to 21.

7 Mountain
4 Badlands
2 Swamp
2 Foothills
4 Mires
2 Chrome Mox

21 Mana sources has been doing fine for me since I upped it from 20. Chrome Mox is a card I refuse to cut, as it allows for so many tricky Turn 1 plays it isn't even funny.
[*]Badlands, Therapy for Swords. No Swords? Mox imprinting the worst card in your hand, Lackey, Go.[*]Mountain, AEther Vial. Vial gets FoWed. Mox, Lackey, Go.[*]Mountain, Mox, Piledriver, go. Mountain, Warchief, swing, go.

Running more than 2 seems to be a bad choice, but the Tempo boost it provides has greatly outweighed the card it costs to work.

:Slay:


Edit: Also, the Extended versions of this deck ran anywhere from 2-4 Moxen depending upon which build and color splash you were looking at.



Edited By CorruptedAngel on 1118007389

Our differences of opinion on Chrome Mox may be derivative of the fact that I'm splashing white for SB options, where you're splashing black for Duress and/or Therapy. I agree that Therapy/Lackey is a strong first turn play, and perhaps Chrome Mox is warranted for that ability.

The most broken play you're going to make with Chrome Mox in the non-black version is first turn Lackey/Vial. With this play, you've already used 5 out of 7 of your opening hand (Land, Mox, Lackey, Vial, pitch card for Mox), meaning at most you have two threats to play out with Lackey and/or Vial over the coming turns. That is not good. It means you're in topdeck mode by turn 3 without the means to finish up the game quickly, which is bad.

Bottom line, I can see merit for 2 Moxen in the black builds. Testing has shown (for me at least) that it sucks in the non-black builds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodzillA

Our differences of opinion on Chrome Mox may be derivative of the fact that I'm splashing white for SB options, where you're splashing black for Duress and/or Therapy.

---

I would agree with this point. With Therapy, Vial, Lackey, and Duress (after board against combo/control) the Chrome Mox allows for a variety of sick first turn plays. I can't count the amount of games I've been able to race Solidarity because Chrome allowed a turn 1 Pyro Pillar that they needed to FoW and let my other threats on turns 2/3 through, or essentially lose if they couldn't.

Chrome Mox also lets you have the wet-dream inducing turn two Warchief, which is the most powerful use of the card.

Is Pyrostatic Pillar a black card now?

Chrome Mox is great in this deck, with a splash or without. Its mana curve is so top-heavy that some hands actually require Mox to be playable, and other hands are simply amazing with Mox.

I agree with Frogboy that second-turn Warchief is strong, as is third-turn Ringleader (perhaps via a second-turn Matron) in some matchups.

In general this deck thrives on having more mana available to it in the early game, and it also has the card draw to make up for Mox's cost. I've cut down from 3 Moxen to 2 to decrease the chance of drawing multiples, but I wouldn't go any lower.

And just for the record, opening up with Lackey + Wasteland is often much more broken than Lackey + Vial.



Edited By Obfuscate Freely on 1118062900

Would it be sacreligous to consider green as a possible splash color? Green has their equivilent of disenchant with naturalize but also really strong hate with Choke. Also, a card such as Fecundity comes to mind as well, to help after a wrath or after you ping away stuff with a fanatic or SGC or when you sac things to Prospector.

I don't see why you would ever run Choke over Boil. Boil is 10 times better, especially when there is a Prospector in play.

Fecundity is over kill IMO. It doesn't do much by itself, other than when you have Warchief and Prospector going nuts.

I also disagree with Mox. I have done quite a fair bit of testing with Mox, and I never liked seeing it. If you guys are putting up the same numbers though, I'm not going to argue it, I'm just not going to play it.

Roop

21 mana is also REALLY low. Most Extended builds ran 23, since you actually need to hardcast your Siege-Gang Commander from time to time. That same conventional Extended wisdom had it as AEther Vial, or Chrome Mox, but rarely both since you can't keep your hand full of goodies for when they inevitably smash your board.

I usually have no problems hardcasting Siege-Gang or Kiki-Jiki, unless I am getting raped by Sinkholes, but I do agree that 21 mana is lower than I'd like it to be. However, I'm not quite sure I see why AEther Vial and Chrome are mutually exclusive as one or the other but not both. To me the Chrome Mox is more like Ancient Tomb was for us in Food Chain Goblins; A Permanent mana boost with some form of disadvantage. Except instead of paying 2 life every time I tap it, I remove a card in my hand from the game. It speeds me up at a cost and allows me to obtain my objectives quicker. While I do understand the concept of not being able to keep your hand full when you are tossing cards to Chrome and Vialing critters out, I don't think it'll be a large issue in enough matches if you play the deck properly and don't over-extend into Wrath of God... Unless you are holding a Living Death or Bidding that you know won't be countered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirdape3

21 mana is also REALLY low. Most Extended builds ran 23, since you actually need to hardcast your Siege-Gang Commander from time to time. That same conventional Extended wisdom had it as AEther Vial, or Chrome Mox, but rarely both since you can't keep your hand full of goodies for when they inevitably smash your board.

---

Just to put some numbers on that 'rarely':

26 of 106 Goblin decks that made Top 8 of a PTQ ran both Chrome Mox and Aether Vial.

24 decks (22.64% of the total) ran 2 Chrome Mox only, and of those 24, 20 ran 4 Aether Vial as well. So that means that 18.87% of the Goblin decks that made Top 8 at a PTQ ran 2 Chrome Mox and 4 Aether Vial, which is significant.

From my count, 12 decks ran 3 or 4 Chrome Mox, and only 4 of these decks ran Vial.

So it seems that if you're going to run Chrome Mox and Vial, 2 Moxen really seems to be the right number. Any more than 2 and it's time to start thinking about dropping Vial.

I got everything from here.

I could spend all day doing this.

True most extended players run diffrent mana bases.
But what i don't understand is what do you cut for the chrome mox I have tried to fit it in but i can't.
can you tell me what your build looks like so i can test it some more.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calosso

True most extended players run diffrent mana bases.
But what i don't understand is what do you cut for the chrome mox I have tried to fit it in but i can't.
can you tell me what your build looks like so i can test it some more.
:)

---

The question is, whom were you directing this question to? It'd be easier to answer if we knew whom you were asking. Anyways, for reference purposes, this is my current listing.

//Mana (21)
7 Mountain
4 Badlands
2 Swamp
4 Bloodstained Mire
2 Wooded Foothills
2 Chrome Mox

//Non-Goblins (6)
3 AEther Vial
3 Cabal Therapy

//Little-Red Men (33)
3 Skirk Prospector
4 Goblin Lackey
4 Mogg Fanatic
1 Sparksmith
4 Goblin Piledriver
1 Goblin Sharpshooter
3 Gempalm Incinerator
4 Goblin Matron
4 Goblin Warchief
3 Goblin Ringleader
1 Siege-Gang Commander
1 Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker


I've been fairly happy with this build so far, and 21 mana sources hasn't been a problem thus far. Things I'm considering:
[*]Removal of Sparksmith to board. He's a great removal piece but he hasn't really been a game swinger or winner for me. Maybe I just haven't played against Madness enough.[*]AEther Vial count has done fine for me at 3. I like seeing them but I can't say I enjoy seeing them all the time, which was happening when they were a 4-of. As a 3-of, I see them enough for it to matter, but not enough to make me hate a dead mid-late game draw.[*]The 4th Ringleader might find it's way back in, but I've got a feeling if I remove Sparksmith, another land might make it in before the Ringleader simply for consistancy sake.

Also for Reference, my sideboard looks like this:

//Sideboard:
2 Goblin Sharpshooter
3 Duress
3 Anarchy
3 Perish
4 Pyrostatic Pillar

Perish has been prized in my metagame for it's ability to wipe the board of the various Green decks suddenly coming back (like Secret Force) while giving me an out vs. Amazing Results II when Dave B gets Worship with Troll Ascetic on the table. Pyrostatic Pillar shores up my matchup with Solidarity and other Storm Based combo, while Anarchy is the general answer to most things white. Duress comes in from the board against Control and Combo while the Sharpshooters can be brought in for various reasons against Survival as well as other creature based decks. Things to consider:
[*]Used to run Bidding/Death in the board, but there were few matches that they were the only way for me to win. They might make their way back in with the increase in P.Deed and Kegs I've seen lately.[*]There could be a Pyromancer here somewhere, just haven't decided where.[*]Perish could likely be something better: From Pithing Needle, to Crypt, Bidding/Death.. anything.


So yea, feel free to flame, as I know some people will really want to.

Sorry but I don´t like your build because with the decision to remove a Vial and Ringleader you are cutting 2 cards which used to be the Engine of the Deck.The Vial is only really good when it hits the table in the first two turns.If you want Vial Turn 1 you should run 4 to increase the chance.Ringleader is the best Card of the Deck and I would run Leader #4 over SGC,Kiki and Incinirator all the time.3 Incinerators seem to be too much and 1 Leader and 1 Pyromancer would work better than 2 Incinirators I guess.
I also would like to add that I think that Therapy is about 10 times better than duress in this deck and that instead duress #3 in the Sideboard I would run a therapy.

just my 2 cents

ps:Do you board Perish against Survival Decks?

No he probably boards them against Solidarity's transformational sideboard!


Just to let you know my list as well:

Lands//
15x Snow-Covered Mountain
4x Wasteland

Vials//
4x AEther Vial

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

I believe that the full set of Incinerator and Fanatic are essential to support the Lackeys. I also have been fine only running 19 lands, I think you are all crazy by the way. The 5 toolbox creatures fit in now because of lack of lands. You should all probably look into this list, I don't think I can remember the last time it didn't T8 when it was played.

Roop

Yes, I removed a Vial and a Ringleader. Vial I explained why, it's a dead draw mid to late game and 3 is enough to draw reliably. Ringleader has been fine as a 3-of, because I rarely go through all 4 in 1 game (this isn't FCG) and Matrons are still a 4-of, allowing me to get one when if I need to. Also, I already stated that I might cut Sparksmith for the 4th Ringleader as Sparky hasn't been pulling his weight really. As for Incinerators, I won't cut them. Uncounterable removal is some kinda good, and when it is tutorable that's even better. Therapy is needed disruption, but it's not a Goblin. Could I switch a Duress in the board for a Therapy? Sure, no reason why you couldn't, I just prefer the 3/3 Setup.

Boarding Perish vs. Survival: I have done it before, as a Turn 3 Perish will wipe the board of any mana production critters/walls that Sharpshooter, Gempalm, and Fanatic haven't cleaned up already allowing me to set up a pretty strong attack... But they are there for Amazing Results. They're there to kill every threat that is in Amazing Results in 1 sweep so you can win, or take out a Troll that is sitting behind Worship.