[Deck] Goblins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

GoboLord, thanks for your list and the writeup.

If possible, would you be in the mood to write up a more detailed account of your first two matches? (what you faced after that doesn't matter as much since your tournament was largely over once you started 0-2).

---

Why do you think that matches 3 to 5 don't matter?

Here's the more detailed account you asked for:

Round 1: Classic Canadian Threshold
2 Tarmogoyfs did some beating on me. Then, at about 7 life I Gempalm'ed the one guy and Stingscourger'ed the other, using Wasteland to shut him off from green mana. He made a mistake when he lay down a Delver of Secrets and consequently rearranged his Ponder'ed top 3 cards in a way that Delver wouldn't transform until his second next turn. This gave me the time I needed to win.

IN: 4 Rest in Peace, 1 Ethersworn Cannonist
OUT: 4 Goblin Lackey, 1 Sharpshooter

In game 2 I kept a risky 1-lander which resulted in a severe punishment: not drawing any land + staring at a Delver who flipped a Lightning Bolt on Turn 2.

IN: 4 Goblin Lackey
OUT: 3 Thalia, 1 Mirror Enitiy

My opening hand was kind of a risk to keep, but would almost certainly win if I weren't VERY unlucky. Cavern of Souls, Vial, Vial, Mogg War Marshal, Goblin Piledriver, Rest in Peace, Goblin Matron. The first few turn went like this:

Cavern into Vial. Vial meets Nature's Claim.
I don't draw a land. Play Vial. Gets Daze'd.
Opp plays Delver of Secrets. I don't draw a land
Delver flips (into Daze), Opp plays Nimble Mongoose + Wasteland for my remaining manasource.
I don't draw a land and take 4.
I draw and activate a fetchland. Fetchland meets Stifle. I take 6 on my next turn.


Round 2: 4c Good-Stuff
I open with Vial. Opp has Inquisiton of Kozilek for something else.
I draw a Lackey, use Vial to bring it on. Meets StoP.
I tap Vial for Piledriver, which gets eaten by Liliana.
Next turn my Board happens to be 1 Aether Vial (@3), which I use to bring in Warchief to attack Liliana. Warchief meets Lightning Bolt. I pass the turn with a Matron, A Ringleader and a fetchland in my hand. On his turn my Opp goes crazy with Thoughtseize + Tidehollow Sculler + Liliana's ability leaving me with 0 cards in hand staring at Deathrite Shaman, Sculler, Dark Confidant and Lilly. I draw 3 lands in the following 3 turns.

IN: 3 Pyrokinesis
OUT: 3 Thalia

My opp catches me off guard with a Stoneforge Mystic into Batterskull. I can handle the Germ, but he naturally draws and equips a Jitte right after an all-in-attack with Mirror Entity and a few others. I draw a couple of Goblin Lackeys and lands while Jitte keeps swallowing my board. Good thing I didn't board any Wear//Tear or Tuktuk Scrapper.

@Gobbolord
I really appreciate your work for the Forum and your skills withbthe Deck, but...
9 white sources for Entity, Thalia and Canonist (+Vial) and 7(!) for RIP and Tear seems pretty Low.
Against Combo you always want to put Thalia or canOnist T2.
I just got to 6 colorless sources (disliked 4 Waste 2 Port, so got 3 waste 3 Port) and always played 4 Basic Mountains to Support 12 white sources for Thalia and Canonist, 8 (5 Fetch, 1 Karakas, 2 Plateau) for oblivion Ring (lategame Card). If i'd Run RIPs and Tears, i would Cut a cavern or two for more Fetches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

Playing with only 2 Caverns wasn't a problem at all...the opposite is true, as I found it comfortable to drop one basicland after another against Threshold. I'm not yet sold if it is BETTER to run less than 4 Cavern of Souls, however I can tell for sure that I would do so again without any regret. 4 Lackey, 4 Vials and 2 Caverns are enough to get your dudes past countermagic.

---

Thanks for the info and thanks for the report.
My testings with Mirror Entity have shown very similar results.
As for the Caverns thing, I think most tornaments that is exactly what was going to happen. It won't matter that much. And there will be times when it is awesome, and times when it sucks. Just want to get a notion of what happens more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

In game 2 I kept a risky 1-lander which resulted in a severe punishment: not drawing any land + staring at a Delver who flipped a Lightning Bolt on Turn 2.

My opening hand was kind of a risk to keep, but would almost certainly win if I weren't VERY unlucky. Cavern of Souls, Vial, Vial, Mogg War Marshal, Goblin Piledriver, Rest in Peace, Goblin Matron.

---

Game 2 you should have mulliganned, and you know it. Keeping 1 lander against Canadian on the draw is a no-no. The 3rd hand though, on the Play, I think I'd have kept that aswell, but not very happily... Quite the gamble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asgar

9 white sources for Entity, Thalia and Canonist (+Vial) and 7(!) for RIP and Tear seems pretty Low.

---

I agree here. This is one of the reasons I don't like splashing non-goblins/creatures in our deck anymore, if we play Caverns. The manabase gets too unreliable imo. I tested some weeks ago a build with 8 discards SB (which was not good), 5 Fetchs, 8 duals, and even then I got nonB sources T1-2 sometimes. I can only imagine with 7-9. Still studiyng better options with the splash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

Why do you think that matches 3 to 5 don't matter?

---

Because of the way swiss works, you get paired against people with the same record as you. Consider a tournament where your final record is 3-2/ If you lose your first two matches, you will subsequently be paired against people who are also effectively eliminated, either due to being weaker players, or having weaker decks (or maybe they have given up, knowing they are eliminated). So I wouldn't think that those three match wins constitute strong evidence for or against any tweaks you have in your list. Conversely, If you start 3-0, then the last two rounds you will be facing the cream of the tournament, so although you lost those two matches, you were 'live' in every game, and everything is relevant.

So like you say the 3-2 record did better than you, but if he started out 0-2 the way you did, In my opinion you both finished with equivalent records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

Here's the more detailed account you asked for:

Round 1: Classic Canadian Threshold
2 Tarmogoyfs did some beating on me. Then, at about 7 life I Gempalm'ed the one guy and Stingscourger'ed the other, using Wasteland to shut him off from green mana. He made a mistake when he lay down a Delver of Secrets and consequently rearranged his Ponder'ed top 3 cards in a way that Delver wouldn't transform until his second next turn. This gave me the time I needed to win.

IN: 4 Rest in Peace, 1 Ethersworn Cannonist
OUT: 4 Goblin Lackey, 1 Sharpshooter

In game 2 I kept a risky 1-lander which resulted in a severe punishment: not drawing any land + staring at a Delver who flipped a Lightning Bolt on Turn 2.

IN: 4 Goblin Lackey
OUT: 3 Thalia, 1 Mirror Enitiy

My opening hand was kind of a risk to keep, but would almost certainly win if I weren't VERY unlucky. Cavern of Souls, Vial, Vial, Mogg War Marshal, Goblin Piledriver, Rest in Peace, Goblin Matron. The first few turn went like this:

Cavern into Vial. Vial meets Nature's Claim.
I don't draw a land. Play Vial. Gets Daze'd.
Opp plays Delver of Secrets. I don't draw a land
Delver flips (into Daze), Opp plays Nimble Mongoose + Wasteland for my remaining manasource.
I don't draw a land and take 4.
I draw and activate a fetchland. Fetchland meets Stifle. I take 6 on my next turn.

---

So my first thought in looking at your list is that 22 lands could leave you a little mana shy, and this match essentially hinged on their mana denial strategy being effective against you. Does that gibe with your impressions? Do you think that this is reason enough to consider a 23rd land?

Also, your sideboarding strategies seem a little discordant to me. Was changing 4 cards between games 2 and 3 an intentional plan on your part, or a sign that you weren't sure your G2 Sb was correct?

Given the list you posted, and my own personal theories that the matchup hinges around us controlling their graveyard and them controlling our mana, I would definitely not side out Lackeys. Here's the SB cards I would like (not really sure why you brought in canonist, since they can easily work around it by casting instants in our turn):
4 Rest in Peace, maybe 4 Chalice
And here's the MD cards I could see cutting (from worst to best):
1 Mirror Entity
1 Chieftain
3 Thalia
1 Sharpshooter

So I think I would definitely bring in 4RIP and 1 CotV, and then it would be a tossup for me whether Sharpshooter is better than the 2nd CotV. Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

Round 2: 4c Good-Stuff
I open with Vial. Opp has Inquisiton of Kozilek for something else.
I draw a Lackey, use Vial to bring it on. Meets StoP.
I tap Vial for Piledriver, which gets eaten by Liliana.
Next turn my Board happens to be 1 Aether Vial (@3), which I use to bring in Warchief to attack Liliana. Warchief meets Lightning Bolt. I pass the turn with a Matron, A Ringleader and a fetchland in my hand. On his turn my Opp goes crazy with Thoughtseize + Tidehollow Sculler + Liliana's ability leaving me with 0 cards in hand staring at Deathrite Shaman, Sculler, Dark Confidant and Lilly. I draw 3 lands in the following 3 turns.

---

Some questions about the timing of Vial here. Did you Vial in Lackey/PD in their end step? That way PD would have attacked Liliana at least once. And did you Cast Matron with the Warchief in play (for the discounted cost of 1R) before yielding priority? Or did you only have 1 land the whole time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

IN: 3 Pyrokinesis
OUT: 3 Thalia

---

What's the key to the matchup? From your SB'ing it seems like you think that Bob is the key, but he never even showed up in the first game, where you got handled pretty easily by their more efficient spells. If the matchup is about attrition and card advantage, is Pyrokinesis even good for you? Wouldn't resilient threats be better or more card advantage be better?

Given that he seemed to have a lot of efficient answers to your deck (Bolt, Plow, Thoughtseize) then maybe CotV could have given you a lot of virtual card advantage? I think I'd be inclined to go with
In: 4 CotV
Out: 2 PD, 1 Sharpshooter, 1 Mirror Entity/Chieftain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

My opp catches me off guard with a Stoneforge Mystic into Batterskull. I can handle the Germ, but he naturally draws and equips a Jitte right after an all-in-attack with Mirror Entity and a few others. I draw a couple of Goblin Lackeys and lands while Jitte keeps swallowing my board. Good thing I didn't board any Wear//Tear or Tuktuk Scrapper.

---

Sucks, since you basically had no way of expecting Stoneforge out of a BG shell.

Thanks for the writeups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

Because of the way swiss works, you get paired against people with the same record as you. Consider a tournament where your final record is 3-2/ If you lose your first two matches, you will subsequently be paired against people who are also effectively eliminated, either due to being weaker players, or having weaker decks (or maybe they have given up, knowing they are eliminated). So I wouldn't think that those three match wins constitute strong evidence for or against any tweaks you have in your list. Conversely, If you start 3-0, then the last two rounds you will be facing the cream of the tournament, so although you lost those two matches, you were 'live' in every game, and everything is relevant.

---

Assuming that every time you lose the first two matches then you will be paired against bad player or bad decks is just silly. First of all, this would imply that also gobolord is a bad player(i don't know him, but i really don't think so) or gobolord's deck is bad. Secondly, both good players and good decks can anyway lose the first two matches, because magic is a game that involves luck in draws, and luck in not facing your worst matchups.

The only reason why i can support the theory of the matches being not very relevant after a 0-2 record, is that both you and your opponents already know that you are eliminated, so you might play in a more relaxed way and make more mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

Assuming that every time you lose the first two matches then you will be paired against bad player or bad decks is just silly. First of all, this would imply that also gobolord is a bad player(i don't know him, but i really don't think so) or gobolord's deck is bad. Secondly, both good players and good decks can anyway lose the first two matches, because magic is a game that involves luck in draws, and luck in not facing your worst matchups.

The only reason why i can support the theory of the matches being not very relevant after a 0-2 record, is that both you and your opponents already know that you are eliminated, so you might play in a more relaxed way and make more mistakes.

---

Not every match in the losers bracket is going to be against substandard competition. But it's far less likely than if you are at 3-0 and playing against people who are likely to make top8/win. I think you face much stiffer competition at the top tables of the tournament than you do at the bottom tables. Which is why I would place less value on results produced once you are not 'live' in the tournament anymore.

Yes, i agree with you. It just seemed from what you first said that "who plays in bottom tables is shit", i misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

Because of the way swiss works, you get paired against people with the same record as you. Consider a tournament where your final record is 3-2/ If you lose your first two matches, you will subsequently be paired against people who are also effectively eliminated, either due to being weaker players, or having weaker decks (or maybe they have given up, knowing they are eliminated). So I wouldn't think that those three match wins constitute strong evidence for or against any tweaks you have in your list. Conversely, If you start 3-0, then the last two rounds you will be facing the cream of the tournament, so although you lost those two matches, you were 'live' in every game, and everything is relevant.
So like you say the 3-2 record did better than you, but if he started out 0-2 the way you did, In my opinion you both finished with equivalent records.

---

I agree. Steamflogger started with 3-0, so his results after round 3 are - in a way - more meaningful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

So my first thought in looking at your list is that 22 lands could leave you a little mana shy, and this match essentially hinged on their mana denial strategy being effective against you. Does that gibe with your impressions? Do you think that this is reason enough to consider a 23rd land?

---

Not at all. 22 Lands has been fine forever and eternity and I think that a 2-colored manabase with literally NO fatties except Ringleader is even less manadependant. The two situation when mana-shyness was an issue were caused by my (partly bad) decisions. In one game a flood of lands contributed to my loss, which (averageing the number of lands drawn throughout the tournament) "makes up" for the situations when I lost due to lack of lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

Also, your sideboarding strategies seem a little discordant to me. Was changing 4 cards between games 2 and 3 an intentional plan on your part, or a sign that you weren't sure your G2 Sb was correct?

---

Both is true. In this MU I bring in Lackeys when I'm on the play to set them under pressure early. Plus, in G2 I figured out that I don't like Thalia and that I boarded too many cards. Thalia decreases the value of Gempalm Incinerator, which is an issue if you need to handle Delvers asap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

Given the list you posted, and my own personal theories that the matchup hinges around us controlling their graveyard and them controlling our mana, I would definitely not side out Lackeys. Here's the SB cards I would like (not really sure why you brought in canonist, since they can easily work around it by casting instants in our turn):
4 Rest in Peace, maybe 4 Chalice
And here's the MD cards I could see cutting (from worst to best):
1 Mirror Entity
1 Chieftain
3 Thalia
1 Sharpshooter

So I think I would definitely bring in 4RIP and 1 CotV, and then it would be a tossup for me whether Sharpshooter is better than the 2nd CotV. Does that make sense?

---

I agree with the first part of your statement: they control our mana, we control their graveyard.
LAckey is essential, but I feel like he's nothing more than a Mon's Goblin Raiders when we are on the draw, because the deck has way too many cards that can handle him in early turns (Delver, Mongoose, Goyf, DRS, Daze, Force of Will, Lightning Bolt). I know that it'S not optimal for them to trade Delver or Mongoose for a Lackey, but, that still leaves a bunch of cards to say "no, sorry, not this time". This, plus the fact that I usually have more effective cards to bring in from SB (and not too many shaby cards to side out) tells me that it is legit to board out Lackey when we are on the draw.

I agree with the order of the cards to cut, however I'm not sure about CHalice of the Void. I think that our cards need to have immediate board-impact in this MU. CHalice does not do that. Especially when you bring in only 2 copies you run the risk of drawing one when the damage is done already. This effectively makes CHalice a dead draw, while most of our creatures are traditionally problematic for RUG/bURG, even if you play/draw them in later turns.

@Cannonist: I don't know I justed wanted to see what he does. At the very least he's got a body. He's not worth boarding though.


I'll answer the rest of your posting on a later moment.

Hello,

I like Mirror Entity, but I guess its because I love to make every goblin I play count to win. But Mirror Entity is mana hungry, he has a low cmc but he needs a lot of mana to run well, so 22 lands see really insufficient.
Its really strange to lose to a 4color deck when you play 4waste+4port+3thalia, well, I play tarfires in MD and no Thalias, so I can burn their mana dorks, what really helps with our strategy.
It seens to me that you had a lot of bad luck and some missplays to end like that.
Oh, I would easy cut down sharpy for one krenko, that guy is really good, giving us tempo, a kill or even a bolt target =]

Cya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

LAckey is essential, but I feel like he's nothing more than a Mon's Goblin Raiders when we are on the draw, because the deck has way too many cards that can handle him in early turns (Delver, Mongoose, Goyf, DRS, Daze, Force of Will, Lightning Bolt). I know that it'S not optimal for them to trade Delver or Mongoose for a Lackey, but, that still leaves a bunch of cards to say "no, sorry, not this time". This, plus the fact that I usually have more effective cards to bring in from SB (and not too many shaby cards to side out) tells me that it is legit to board out Lackey when we are on the draw.

---

Do you think that Lackey is worse than Piledriver in that matchup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

Some questions about the timing of Vial here. Did you Vial in Lackey/PD in their end step? That way PD would have attacked Liliana at least once. And did you Cast Matron with the Warchief in play (for the discounted cost of 1R) before yielding priority? Or did you only have 1 land the whole time?

---

Now that you mention it...hum, my memory of that game is a bit fuzzy and maybe I've mixed things up with some situation in G2 where he dropped a Pithing Needle for my Vial (which would explain why I didn't use Vial EOT to bring in PD).
I'm sorry but I can't remember the details right now, but I can see that things in G1 did definitely not happen the way I wrote them down (except for the Sculler+Thoughtseize+Liliana move).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

What's the key to the matchup? From your SB'ing it seems like you think that Bob is the key, but he never even showed up in the first game, where you got handled pretty easily by their more efficient spells. If the matchup is about attrition and card advantage, is Pyrokinesis even good for you? Wouldn't resilient threats be better or more card advantage be better?

Given that he seemed to have a lot of efficient answers to your deck (Bolt, Plow, Thoughtseize) then maybe CotV could have given you a lot of virtual card advantage? I think I'd be inclined to go with
In: 4 CotV
Out: 2 PD, 1 Sharpshooter, 1 Mirror Entity/Chieftain.

---

You might be right about Chalice here. The problem that I have with this approach is that (looking at the deck in retrospect) they are likely to run Engineered Plagues and Abrupt Decay. This is why I would not kick Chieftain and Piledrivers, but Thalia (for Plague-reasons) and not bring in Chalices, but Wear//Tear (for Abrupt-Decay reasons).
Siding in Pyrokinesis was not the correct strategy, no matter how you look at it, but I insist that siding out Thalia is right here. The question is what would be more effective: Chalice or Wear//Tear. My answer would be W//T, because...well now I know that the dude has SFM (the least thing I could have thought is that he had E-Plague and I KNEW he had Tidehollow Sculler, which both make excellent W//T-targets).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

Sucks, since you basically had no way of expecting Stoneforge out of a BG shell.

---

Not quite true. I could have read the signs:
* W splash (for StoP and Tidehollow Sculler)
* main color B (which should tell me that he had E.Plague at least)
Sounds like W//T would have been quite an idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magicmerl

Do you think that Lackey is worse than Piledriver in that matchup?

---

Not sure about that. I think that both cards are equally frightening, but Lackey loses value over the course of the match (i.e. he can at some moment be blocked by ANY creature of the deck so your opp can keep his spotremoval for something else). That's not the case with Piledriver.

What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

You might be right about Chalice here. The problem that I have with this approach is that (looking at the deck in retrospect) they are likely to run Engineered Plagues and Abrupt Decay. This is why I would not kick Chieftain and Piledrivers, but Thalia (for Plague-reasons) and not bring in Chalices, but Wear//Tear (for Abrupt-Decay reasons).

---

Ok, because of Engineered Plague Chieftain is probably just strictly better than Mirror Entity. Off topic, but for the people that run Cheiftain, are any of them considering Boartusk Liege instead, as another 'pre-sideboarded' slot vs Plague?

I'm also a little unsure why you cut Thalia *because* of Plague. Thalia both makes Plague harder to cast (I've won games before by getting down Thalia + a gob and porting them to death in their upkeep, stranding Plagues in their hand) AND she dodges the plague once it's down since she's unaffected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

Siding in Pyrokinesis was not the correct strategy, no matter how you look at it, but I insist that siding out Thalia is right here. The question is what would be more effective: Chalice or Wear//Tear. My answer would be W//T, because...well now I know that the dude has SFM (the least thing I could have thought is that he had E-Plague and I KNEW he had Tidehollow Sculler, which both make excellent W//T-targets).

---

Yeah, if you know they have equipment then Wear//Tear is the right choice. But based on what happened in the first game it seemed like he tempo'd you out with powerful 1-drops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

Not quite true. I could have read the signs:
* W splash (for StoP and Tidehollow Sculler)
* main color B (which should tell me that he had E.Plague at least)
Sounds like W//T would have been quite an idea.

---

Fair enough. I'm not sure that I would be next level enough to respect that from my opponent in the same situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoboLord

Not sure about that. I think that both cards are equally frightening, but Lackey loses value over the course of the match (i.e. he can at some moment be blocked by ANY creature of the deck so your opp can keep his spotremoval for something else). That's not the case with Piledriver.

What do you think?

---

Well, I agree with you that lackey is only a threat in the initial turns. However, I think that we are a solid enough midrange deck that we have a bunch of things to do with mana in later turns, we just have to get there, and I think that Lackey helps us get to the late game. Even something as simple as lackeying in a Ringleader on the 2nd turn (which doesn't help our board position much) can do a lot to help using win the attrition battle.

And while Piledriver is good once we're firing on all cylinders, I *think* it's a little bit win-more in that situation since we can probably just vomit any of our goblins onto the table and win in that situation.

So I think lackey will contribute more to winning games than PD. (I'd still leave 1 PD in the deck to matron for when we want to overwhelm them)

Make sense?

Guys, we are back in DTB. Congrats.

During the last months we've always gone in and out decks to beat section. This confirms that the printing of cavern of souls really gave this deck a huge boost, since before it i don't remember when we were dtb.

Oh my god, both elves and goblins in decks to beat? Engineered plague could be everywhere these days...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

Oh my god, both elves and goblins in decks to beat? Engineered plague could be everywhere these days...

---

Isn't it glorious? Elf and goblin hordes rampaging the format!

Yeah, expect to see more plague. Especially since the mid-rangers (BUG and Jund) can play it on turn 2. :frown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

During the last months we've always gone in and out decks to beat section. This confirms that the printing of cavern of souls really gave this deck a huge boost, since before it i don't remember when we were dtb.

Oh my god, both elves and goblins in decks to beat? Engineered plague could be everywhere these days...

---

The switch to running DnT style cards has helped too. The mass mana attack we can do now is unmatched in anything that is not running 3Sphere.

I am glad Elves and Goblins are side by side in the DTB. Throw Painter in too and you will have my 3 fav's all in one place.

Congrats for the DTB status. It is well deserved my fellow Goblin mates ;-)

About goblins being DTB:

I think the whole DTB philosophy is a little skewed. Individual decks are listed as having the most performances are listed. This makes similar decks with minor differences listed separately. I think it would be more helpful to deckbuilders if decks to beat were instead listed by category.

For instance, the winningest deck currently is RUG Delver with 10% of the winning decks listed. But if you look at strategies instead of deck names you get a more comprehensive picture. Team America and Patriot are both decks that (along with RUG Delver) play the Tempo Core of Delver + Wasteland + Stifle + Daze. If you look at all these Tempo decks together they make up 18% of the DTB.

The second largest strategy is Stoneforge Mystic. SFM decks play SFM + Batterskull + (usually) Mom. These decks include Stoneblade, Maverick. And Death & Taxes. Together they make up 18% of the field.

The third largest strategy is one I call Goyf Cascade. These decks play Goyf + DRS + Cascade cards. Jund, Shardless BUG, and Four Color Cascade comprise this category and make up 14% of the current DTB

These three strategies together make up 50% of the DTB. Show and Tell strategies (OmniTell and SneakShow) make another 11%, followed by Miracles with 9%.

I think this should be kept in mind while building sideboards.

I don't think Goblins is really a DTB right now. I think Tempo, SFM, and Goyf Cascade are the strategies the format needs to focus on. Goblins only made up 4% of the DTB field. To me that means its a second tier strategy which is capable of doing well, not a deck that should be specifically sideboarded for.

Updated my last post (here) with new results against Threshold UGr and some notes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw1985

Goblins only made up 4% of the DTB field.

---

First off, I agree with what you said in your post! Your categorization philosophy gives a much more accurate picture of the Legacy metagame. However categorizing things that way makes it more difficult for Spike to net-deck the most recent winningest list... and what would Legacy be without Spike (other than affordable)?

Following your categorizations above, Goblins, Elves, Merfolk, and Zombies would all be part of Tribal despite the drastically different play styles. I think lumping all these together makes sense because they all die to the same hate (Engineered Plague, Moat, Humility) and a high percentage of the non-land cards HAVE to have the relevant creature type to be playable.


On another note...
After an abysmal performance at SCG Philadelphia with another deck, I am back on the Goblins bandwagon. Based on our last names, I will always sit next to Jim Davis during the players meeting when we are at the same SCG event. In Philly I had him sign a Goblin Matron. He acted modest and said I really needed to have Max Tietze sign it because he is the Goblin King. I am now on a mission to have Tietze and Cedric sign the same card. :laugh:
While I am happy that Goblins making it into the DTB proves the deck is still competitive in Legacy, I am always sad when it gets there because Spike will start packing relevant hate cards.