Printable View
I am perfectly aware of this, and in theory Shackles looks nice, but I have won several games by casting stifle and "counter" my opponents Shackles, wasting 5 of his (or hers) mana, and then swing for the kill the next turn. In addition to this, Threshold rarely has a lot of (is)lands in play, which further weakens Shackles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardo
That might be because he doesnt play many cantrips. Probably around 8. Most Threshold players on my team play around 10-12 1cc cantrips, and that gets them enough mana towards midgame to actually cast Mystic Enforcer with 2-3 lands open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigar
The point is, that Shackles can work in a Threshold deck with a slower approach to it's game plan. The Counterbalance builds are a good example because Counterbalance/Top drain a ton of mana for it to work, and the best ways to make it work is to slow the deck down.
Spell Snare is good for the same reason that Counterbalance can be a rout: decks bulging in the 1-2 cc range. It's obviosuly good in the mirror (Goyf, CB) and useful in just about every match except for bad decks that run very high CCs, which you should be beating anyway.Quote:
Also, could somebody explain me why Spell Snare is that good? I know that it is an undercostet counter, but is it really worth playing situational cards instead of hard counters or permission that ends the game now (Counterbalance)? Also, I hate Spell Snare for being near to useless outside the mirror as it does very little against decks like Landstill which will just pay UWW for their Explosives or 2WW for their Wrath and still clear your board.
Against Landstill, Spell Snare is more cost-efficient means of countering Standstill, Counterspell, Edicts; against Fish it hits all of their guys (Confidant, Mage, Avenger, Grunt); same with B/W's more annoying spells (Hymn, Sinkhole), etc.
Overall, Spell Snare hits a lot of the cards Thresh hates to see (e.g. Survival, Counterbalance) and fits its theme of efficiency by doing more for less, relatively, than its opponents.
While being able to pitch to FoW is cute and all, I don't allow that to cloud my clearer judgement. Hardly anyony boards in Needle, and if they do, Shackles isn't going to be the first thing they're likely to name. And if they do, well then I guess there's this nifty card I also play called Krosan Grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigar
I've beaten mirrors where they've tapped out to play a Threads (being that Thresh doesn't have many lands out) and I Daze it, wasting 3 of their mana, and swinging for the win next turn. I believe Shackles is just better.
That is like the worst argument ever. You make it sound like Shackles is cheaper to cast than Threads, and thereby dodges Daze better, lol?
If you find yourself activating Shackles more than once, then you must be playing Threshold with a really, really control style. This isn't bad at all (I'm quite controllish too), but should be kept in mind for the purpose of building decklists. If you like your deck with 4 Dazes, Mental Notes, zero Counterspells, and MD Stifles, then it's unlikely that Shackles will be better than Threads of Disloyalty in your deck.
Vedalkan Shackles suffers from the same problem as Threads of Disloyalty, which is that it can't effectively answer an Enforcer or Fledgling Dragon.
Once you have :2::u::u: available, Control Magic will take anything, and resolving that one spell will usually win the game just fine, even if you can't reuse it.
No better than, "Don't play Shackles because it'll get Needled, Stifled, and doesn't pitch to FoW. Therefore a terrible card." I suppose...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigar
I didn't say it was cheaper. You said that you Stifled an activation and won; that was your defense of Threads. Big whoop. I'm telling you I Dazed a Threads and won. Big whoop. The point being that, yeah, sometimes shit does happen. Activations get Stifled, Spells get Dazed. Does it makes those cards getting countered terrible? I would think not. Why do people try so hard to misconstrue what I say?
Being that Shackles is in the board, I'm possibly boarding out some of those cards you mentioned. I wouldn't say that this is an absolute.Quote:
If you like your deck with 4 Dazes, Mental Notes, zero Counterspells, and MD Stifles, then it's unlikely that Shackles will be better than Threads of Disloyalty in your deck.
I've played off and on with CM. I like it sometimes and dislike it others.
You should've listened to what I had to say. I wouldn't say Threads is better than Shackles, it's just that they both work in two different type of decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigar
And just out of common sense, unless the opponent is topdecking or you baited two copies out already, I really think that you should always play around Daze with high quality cards.
I've had some good times with Shackles. I've never had a problem getting lands when I want to get them, and not getting them when I don't (that's kind of what the point of the cantrips is).
What I like about Shackles is that it's a huge bomb that is difficult for other decks to deal with. Do they sideboard in artifact removal just for my 2-of, when I might not even draw it and I have no other legal targets? Or do they not keep any way to remove it, and run the risk of getting hosed by it? It also has the nice bonus that if they're siding into a deck which ruins your guys (say with 4 Planar Void or something), you can still win by stealing their guys. I do this to black decks a lot and it's great fun.
I originally brought Shackles into my board to deal with Survival decks back when they had something going for them, and I found myself siding it in against all sorts of decks as added removal and body. It is a uniquely renewable resource in that it denies a card and "gains" a card to your side of the board.
Also, the "pitches to Force" argument is hardly worth debate. Its a sad day when you evaluate your sideboard options based on how readily you can remove them from the game...
"Pitches to FoW" is only an admissible argument when the deck is in danger of otherwise not running enough blue cards to support FoW. Which this deck happily is not in any danger of doing.
Not really - it's still a secondary use for the card, although unlikely. When there's no Dark Confidant on the board to steal, Threads of Disloyalty can still save your ass by countering a topdecked Counterbalance. But when there's no Counterbalance in play, Krosan Grip is a blank.
So we're assuming that we're playing the mirror match here, where one wouldn't walk into Daze when casting a 4cc spell right (Either Enforcer, Dragon, or Control Magic)? So that means that we have 5 lands available? That doesn't seem very far off from taking Mystic Enforcer/Dragon...Quote:
Originally Posted by Obfuscate Freely
I recently added a pair of Oblivion rings to my version of Ugw countertop thresh. While I don't have any conclucive results up until now it fels like a fine card if maybe a little expensive.
Basicly it's a vindicate that can't target lands, can be stifled (comeing into play and leaving play) or disenchanted but it solves a few crucial problems. It can remove enchamtements and artifacts that once resolved you would normally scoop too (humility, survival, vial, crucible ).It kills goyfs, enforcers tombstalkers or any other pesky dude. It is a 3 drop which can be used to counter 3 cc spells with counterbalance. It seems like a fine card to complement a pair of needles with (since I'm not big on running 3) and for the purpose of random removal that deals with everything seems better than EE since it is usually cheaper, can handle stuff with CC 4+ and most importantly does not blow up your own stuff (with CB and needles this comes up quite often for me).
What does everyone think or has anyone given the ring a spin?
The thing is, all the threats you named can already be handled by Krosan Grip or Pithing Needle (except of Humility). Oblivion Ring handles those creatures, yes, but Swords to Plowshares can also do so. You also have to think about Empty the Warrens. Oblivion Ring can't be a solution for a bunch of Goblintokens. I think all the things you named are beter solved by Swords to Plowshares, Needle and Engineered Explosives.Quote:
Originally Posted by mackaber
And Oblivion Ring is not a safe solution, he can also be handled, making him not better than a bounce spell like Repeal.
Comparing oblivion ring to bounce strikes me as a rather odd to be quite honest, especially since very few decs in the format can actually handle an oblivion ring preboard. I am well aware that many of the cards I named can be handled otherwise but the clue to oblivion ring lies in it's flexibility: it can handle all the different things you can handle with swords, EE, Needle and Krosan Grip (a dedicated sb card btw). I was merely elaborating to make clear that the ring will rarely be dead except versus combo (and that is where engineered explosives is strictly superior due to it's abílity to kill gobos). I figured I would give it a try since if Vindicate were in color I'm pretty sure I'd be playing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adan
If I felt like I had room for Vindicate, assuming it were in the color, I would much rather run more hard counters. I feel like they do the job of vindicate, but you know, earlier. Also, if we were black, Thoughtseize is several times over better than Vindicate.
To be fair, they don't. Counters need to be in your hand to be useful, whereas Vindicate gets rid of anything on the table. Each has its proper applications, but counterspells are by nature reactive, whereas board control pieces are by nature far more pro-active. For a case in point, we can ask ourselves why we bother running Swords to Plowshares when we could be running other counters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyachi
True, but Vindicate is really clumsy, whereas swords is really efficient. If we wanted to run mana inefficient permanent removal, more builds would have higher numbers of Engineered Explosives.