Personally, I dont think Guildmage would be bad at all. Being able to counter Gempalm Incenerators and/or Creatures with Equipment. I think could be something I could side in against Angel Stompy and Faerie Stompy variants.
Printable View
Personally, I dont think Guildmage would be bad at all. Being able to counter Gempalm Incenerators and/or Creatures with Equipment. I think could be something I could side in against Angel Stompy and Faerie Stompy variants.
Azorius Guildmage is only great if you can spare the mana. And most of the time, I can't. Anyway, Meddling Mage just rocks in my meta..
Gempalm Incinerator has a triggered and an activated ability, so yes you can counter the cycling, but damage-clausule will trigger nonetheless. You can counter equipment activations as well, however, creatures can be re-equipped. Using 3 mana in a land-light deck to counter a 2 mana recurring ability isn't that hot. You still can tap the creature, if it's not equipped with SoFI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti~American4621
Tapping fatties is nice, but taking care of one creature for a recurring cost of 3...sounds sub-par, you'll be better of playing some flexible removal.
Which brings me to the following point: I saw that some people put up reprisal as additional removal, but I can imagine most people are wary putting potentially dead cards in their deck. So what about radiant's judgement?
Enough. We get it.
On another note. Who else is favoring the Dryad over Werebear plan? Seems better in the face of graveyard hate.
I don't like the fact that Dryad comes into play as a 1/1. I usually play the Bear when I already achieved threshold to keep it from being burned to a crisp. Dryad seems to fragile to me against decks packing burn spells, I'm gonna stick to the Bear.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobslayer
Well if you wait until turn 4 or 5( when you would get threshold) to play the Bear, you probably have enough mana to play Dryad and protect with counters or play cantrips in response to the burnspell. I don't think it's a valid argument, or atleast one who counts far more then being less dependent on graveyard hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Negator
I would play the Bear, because it gives mana and it allows you to play cantrips before you play it. I'm testing Gro-A-Tog and although Dryad is very powerfull on turn 2, it's rather weak later on. I think that also was the initial reason to play Thresholdcreatures over Dryad anyway.
I think you contradict yourself here. In the first argument you suggest to just keep the dryad in hand 'til turn 4-5 because it's easy to protect that way, in the second argument you say it's a rather weak play later in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benie Bederios
the first part isn't advocating the use of the dryad, he was just explaning on when it was safe to use him. going off that, he tells us that he would rather play the bear because of that fact.
You guys are going to ruin this deck. You can't improve on perfection. I have found that in my own testing, The only thing better than changing your favorite deck, is putting it back the way it was. You really want to take out Meddling Mage and Werebear? It's called Threshold because of the thresh creatures, and it's white mostly FOR Mage...
So, what I guess I am saying, is if you want to change it so much, maybe you should just play a different deck. I run a list very similar to Bardo's, and IT WINS! I know that a lot of people want to personalize the deck, but when you are taking out huge peices.. it almost makes it a different deck.
~Just Advocating for those who can't speak for themselves.
AoD
There are people that are computer illiterate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel of Despair
But seriously, shes right. Werebear is such a house and Mage is the reason you play White over Red. Seriously guys, why would you even take Mage out of the deck? You know how crucial he is, dont be a n00b. If anything, he baits out your opponents removal, making Werebear better. Stick with the creatures, they're pretty badass.
EDIT: Its funny. You can tell the mods dont read this thread. Solipugid posted the same thing 5 times.....
I managed to drop by and notice that too. Quintuple post ftl. -Di
Wow, quite a bit of material to cover here.
Let's just start with Meddling Mage. Far more than any other card in the deck, this is the Thresh's most intense skill tester. In all honestly, I would recommend that players that are new to Thresh and/or Legacy, just play something else in the Mage slot (like more Enforcers and cantrips), because playing MM properly requires three distinctly different sets of knowledge: the format, the match-up, the game state.
In Vintage you can just drop Mage on something over-powered (Tinker, Will) and he can get the job done before you start getting fancy (naming "Thirst" against Control Slaver, for instance). But with the relatively lower power level of Legacy, naming the right card is much harder in this format. Nonetheless, the range of MM's goodness is enormous, from being a terribly cost Grizzly Bear to a game-winner. Generally though, the greatest value of MM is that you can conserve your resources (counters and removal) for secondary threats.
Re: Azorius Guildmage. Um, really? If you're playing this guy you're just playing another deck. But he illustrates a good point of why Meddling Mage is so good. All of the Guildmages' abilities cost a load of mana; where MM requires no maintenance once he's in play (i.e. more resource conservation).
Sure, technically you can stop counter a Wasteland or Incinerator, but against a good player, this isn't likely to happen; cost/effect-wise, the cheapest cost usually wins. (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure you can counter the cycling of Gempalm Incinerator with Stifle/Guildmage, but you can only choose one effect; i.e. the damage or drawing a card.)
Re: Dryad over Werebear. In most cases, Werebear is a 4/4 for 1G. It's a solid draw at all points in the game, unlike Dryad, which is often a crap topdeck. If Dryad had some kind of evasion (flying, trample), then she'd be a fine pick, but the difference between a 4/4 for 1G and a non-evasive 7/7 for 1G that required you to cast six other non-green spells (4-8 mana over several turns) is a minor distinction.
And while Dryad makes you a little more resilient to graveyard hate, is it really that big of a deal? I mean, the last time I took Thresh to a tournament I had three straight rounds of opponents playing 3-4 Crypts in their sideboard each, followed by a round against an opponent with 4 maindeck Leylines of the Void. And you know what? I won all of those matches. Dealing with hate just means you have to play tighter. It's not like Goblins became unplayable because some people start running Engineered Plague in their board.
I think the deck will always need to adapt and keep updating itself, but if someone is going to make changes, it's best to get familiar with the proven builds before you go tinkering around.Quote:
Originally Posted by AoD
Edit - Just to be clear, AoD, I was agreeing with you. Though I can see that it didn't necessarily come across that way. :)
I meant that I was speaking for Werebear and Mage. On Nantuko Monastery, How do you get away with 2 maindeck, I tested with it maindeck, and I took it out completely, because of Wasteland/Swords. Also, it was horrible for mana, I could never even use it, so I had one in the sideboard for a little bit, but decided that Grunt is just better. There are actually plenty of better choices...at least for my build.
~AoD
First of all, I want to apologize for the multiple posts a few days ago. My computer's internet connection suddenly failed as I was posting and refused to submit my comments. Every time I tried to resubmit the post, the action appeared to have failed...I guess it didn't. Again, sorry for that.
I think I'm starting to realize how potentially bad 2 maindeck monasteries are. Later in the game they are amazing cards to have, but having them as your only land in your opening hand forces an otherwise avoidable mulligan. I think I'll drop a monastery for another tundra (wasteland is nowhere to be found in my area, by the way).
I used to play this deck a while back with dryads in it. I ended up giving up on the deck because I didn't think it was good enough. Later on I revisited it, and replaced dryads with mongooses and the deck runs much more smoothly, so I personally would not be an advocate of dryad in thresh. And even if you wanted to play it, I would suggest it over mage (which I think should at least be in the board) and not over threshold creatures. This would take you in a very aggro direction, but it might work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel of Despair
... I turely disagree with the fact that Meddling Mage is the reason why White is splashed in Thresh. Honestly, it's for Removal, Sideboard, and Metagaming, since white is more flexible than most colors.
As for the Monastery debate.
What's your mana base people? Only two slots maximum in your mana base is allowed for off-colored Lands. Bardo's has two, and so does Ben Goodman. Alix and Jesse Hatfield have 1. And I run my mana base differently than most people, as I adapted this from the Hatfield mana base.
// Lands 17
4 Windswept Heath
3 Polluted Delta
3 Tropical Island
4 Tundra
2 Island
1 Forest
My Needles can call Flooded Strand, yay!
Yes, how hypocrtical of me. I dont run Monasteries Maindecked. In fact, I side out the lone Forest and spells to avoid making mulligans. People, you build your mana base around the deck. You need at least 16 blue sources.
As for my build, it's rather close to Mr. Nightmare's build. I dislike Mental Note, but it seems to be the best I've got for metagaming in my area at the moment, and I guess it isnt so bad, since my Cantrips make Mental Note not suck.
My Manabase is as follows:
4 Tundra
3Tropical Island
4 Flooded Strand
3 Windswept Heath
2 Islands
1 Forest
1 Plains (wicked heavy wasteland and other LD in my meta)
I can name Polluted Delta too! Let's just hope everyone isn't running a similar mana base:wink:
Actually you only had one in your maindeck but each time you drew it it still lost you games. Colorless mana for the lose. This card is not worth a spot in an already stretched 3c manabase, imo. I could maybe see it played in a build were monastary isnt counted in the manabase as land.. Maybe an 18-19 land build. It also seems costly to me to have since the activation isnt always cheap, and interfers with countermagic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel of Despair
It doesnt seem to help the thresh reliant problem either. It is a thresh creature, it also sucks against crypt.
I didn't say I played MORE than one. I simply said that it sucked for me. I hated drawing colorless, and I hate putting all that time, threshold, and mana into a 4/4, when I already had 4 in my deck.(Werebear)Quote:
Originally Posted by bane_of_the_living
Wow... I didnt actually believe people would have problems with Monastery, that, or I drew more lands than most people because I run a higher cantrip count.
This is the Gro deck I played to a top two split at the Duel for Duals on October 7th, and with one minor sideboard difference, my (as well as Obfuscate Freely's) current decklist.
4x Brainstorm
4x Serum Visions
4x Portent
4x Predict
4x Nimble Mongoose
4x Werebear
2x Mystic Enforcer
4x Force of Will
3x Counterspell
3x Daze
4x Swords to Plowshares
3x Pithing Needle
4x Tundra
3x Tropical Island
3x Island
3x Windswept Heath
2x Flooded Strand
1x Polluted Delta
1x Forest
Sideboard:
3x Naturalize
3x Blue Elemental Blast
3x Stifle
3x Jotun Grunt
3x Loaming Shaman
The maindeck is the same standard we've been running for quite a while, some noticable features being a healthy 16 library manipulation/draw spells and no Meddling Mage. I'll get to both in a moment but first I'd like to talk about the sideboard.
It was meant to have a single Mystic Enforcer rather than the third Loaming Shaman, but I couldn't find it until after I had to hand in my decklist. Whether that's even correct is debatable, but it didn't end up mattering. Those last 5-6 slots are experimental; we haven't gotten a chance to test this configuration in the mirror yet (and neither of us played it in two days), but ideally they should allow you to attack your opponent's graveyard while making you less reliant on your own. Nantuko Monastery is a great card (obviously you should never cut any blue lands for it, though), but it is another threshold creature, and Grunts are becoming quite popular (likely a good deal more so than they deserve) along with the graveyard hate we already have to deal with. Granted, Enforcer is another threshold creature, but there are a number of other matchups where you want to be able to go up to three after game one (RGSA, Angel Stompy, essentially any slow creature deck). Grunt vs. Shaman is an interesting decision, and as I've said we haven't tested it yet so we don't know what the best configuration would be, but they both have strengths and weaknesses. Loaming Shaman, of course, has an immediate impact, and doesn't require anything special to keep around. Grunt, on the other hand, matches up better against threshed or re-threshed creatures (trades with Bear, kills Goose) as well as opposing copies of itself. I hope to get some testing done in the mirror soon so we can see how well this plan compares to the many other options, but I can't say for sure yet.
One thing I do believe, however, is that Tivadar's Crusade is not necessary. I boarded as follows against Goblins on Saturday:
-2 Mystic Enforcer
-1 Counterspell
-1 Predict
-1 Portent
-1 Serum Visions
+3 Blue Elemental Blast
+3 Stifle
Enforcer is the first card to get boarded out in this matchup because it's generally too slow to risk having in your hand early and rarely necessary later in the game. Draw and counters need to go to make room for anything more, which is unfortunate, but acceptable in small numbers. My exact configuration might not be correct, but I'd recommend something similar. Blast is able to replace and complement the counters, and Stifle is able to answer Matron, Ringleader, Gempalm, and Siege-Gang Commander but also safeguards against Tormod's Crypt. Both are far more versatile than Crusade and less of a strain on the manabase, and yet both are very strong in the matchup. This maindeck is already consistent enough (running a healthy amount of draw spells and few suboptimal cards against Goblins) that these six cards are enough to make the matchup at least even, and probably favorable. A lot of people seem to think that this matchup is unfavorable or even unwinnable, but it just isn't the case.
Perhaps even more prevalent is the mistaken idea that the deck isn't heavily favored against combo without Meddling Mage. The following was my board plan against Solidarity:
-4 Swords to Plowshares
-3 Pithing Needle
-2 Mystic Enforcer
-1 Forest
+3 Stifle
+3 Blue Elemental Blast
+2 Jotun Grunt
+2 Loaming Shaman
Swords is obviously dead here and Pithing Needle next to useless. Enforcer may be worse than both because on the off chance you accidentally cast it, you may very well lose on the spot. I think it's safe to take Forest out here (and a few other matchups with no land destruction or nonbasic hate) because the land count that really matters is how many blue sources you have. Forest rarely makes any opening hands better, isn't affected by High Tide, and is generally shuffled away or put on the bottom if at all possible. I can't remember the last time I lost to combo because of manascrew, but almost all of the ones I can remember involve manaflood.
Stifle, while not as good as Mage in this particular matchup, is quite relevant and much less narrow. A good portion of the games Gro loses to Solidarity are the result of multiple Brain Freezes after a counter war, which Stifle obviously stops. It can also hit fetchlands for a serious tempo boost, though they can play around it if they know you have it. What Stifle does is give you more freedom in deciding what to counter. Often it's easier to counter their draw than anything else, but if you let them have all the mana they want, they might be able to storm up high enough to kill you with Brain Freeze even if none of their draw spells resolve. If you've got a Stifle in your hand, you don't have to worry about that and can focus on whichever resource you think they're weak in. Blue Elemental Blast is just a blue card. Yes, blue cards are better than extra creatures in this matchup. Grunt and Shaman are the worst of the bunch but they each have their uses. They have a similar effect to Stifle; if Grunt is in play or Loaming Shaman in your hand, a Brain Freeze isn't lethal without a draw spell. However, they have serious drawbacks - Grunt can't stay out long and can be bounced, but Shaman is inefficient and you may not be able to play him after a counter war.
People are often surprised when I tell them I don't even board Mage, but the card is too narrow in the current Legacy metagame to be worth it. It's only really good in your best matchups. This deck, properly built, shouldn't have trouble with combo with or without Mage. Solidarity loses to counters and a decent clock, and if you can't pull that together consistently, chances are there's a deeper problem. If your build is too inconsistent to run smoothly against combo, you can use Mage to patch up that one matchup, but that inconsistency is still going to cost you games everywhere else. Better to fix the underlying problem and improve all your matchups. If you don't have enough experience to beat combo without Mage, you won't be guaranteed to beat it with Mage either. Better to test against it and improve the matchup without spending card slots. If you've had an unlucky streak, you can run Mage to make you more comfortable, but you're wasting space and weakening your deck overall. Better to accept the losses as exceptions and plan to win in the future.
Aside from the five or six sideboard slots for the mirror, I don't have any major complaints about the deck right now. I still believe 16 draw spells to be necessary. The draw has always been what makes this deck work; it lets us run a low land count, balance our counters, threats, and removal, and lets us find threats reliably without forcing us to run more than a few, making sure that the ones we do play are the best possible. I believe this deck (regardless of build or player) still loses more games because of not drawing enough cards than any other reason. I think trying to cut corners on draw, either by running too few or by running cards like Mental Note that don't actually manipulate your draw, is a serious mistake. If anything, I'd add draw (and I'm always looking out for ways to do that).
There's been some negative hype recently, but I still believe Gro to be the best deck in the format, and I'm posting this to hopefully start some discussion about it. There's no shortage of issues to be talked about given the variation between lists, and I hope we can be civil and productive. I'd love to hear any ideas about how to improve the deck or your reasoning for disagreeing with me on any of these points.
To tell the truth... I'm literally am in love with your build.
Also, why did you cut the lone Forest? I love having 17 lands around. Why do you have 2 Flooded Strands and 1 Polluted Delta? How often do you name fetchlands with them? If so, do you name Polluted Delta or Flooded Strand?
As for your 6 slots, I think Loaming Shaman should be cut for something else. Maybe more general utility. Grunt looks good.
So may I have more information to why Nantuko Monastery had to get cut. It was so good in my metagame. It helps me with all my bad match ups, like EBA. Even if Grunt is around, more removal can easily be sided in to take care of him. Monastery was also my MVP for awhile.
What do you side in versus mirror?
What's Obfuscate Freely's current build at the moment?
I think you guys should write a primer on this particular build. Bardo has one view of the deck, I think we need another.
Mad Zur, I'm a little confused. You mentioned boarding out a basic forest, and yet I don't see that forest in your decklist. Also, I counted 16 lands in your build. 16?? I wonder how that works for you, even with all those cantrips.
Turns out my list is very similar to yours in other respects, except I replace pithing needle maindeck (I have it in the side) for meddling mage (2 of them). You seem to bash the power level of that card a lot, at least in the current metagame, but I think that's undeserved. Mage is certainly not ideal in many match-ups, like goblins, but never terrible. Mage makes your solidarity match-ups better too, so you don't need to worry about siding in such sub-par stuff as loaming shaman.
You also run 4 tundras compared to 3 trops in your manbase. But you actually have far more green spells than white spells. Why these numbers then? If you're counting on werebear to live to keep you with green mana, you should think again.
His list is 59 cards, he obviously forgot to put the forest in that list, he should edit it if he sees this. Also it would be great if bardo could update his origional post with a link to this list.
I can explain that. Basic Plains arent needed, so it was replaced with Tundra rather quickly. Also, since this deck only runs 3 Windswet Heaths, it was better off fetching a Basic Forest rather than a Plains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solpugid
As for Green Mana, it has the basic Forest. I think it may have been a typo, since he runs 17 Lands, with 3 being green fetches.
That just happened to be the configuration that was easily available. I rarely name fetches with Needle so it's mostly irrelevant. There's no clear best setup; running all Strands lets you name Delta (against Iggy Pop, the black mirror, black decks), and running all Deltas lets you name Strand (white mirror, certain Solidarity players), but both make you more vulnerable to is opposing Needles (Strand particularly so because some people would expect you to be playing Plains). A combination lessens the chance of getting hurt by opposing Needles but can get in the way if you want to play one naming either. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti~American4621
Like I said, the mirror plan is untested. Monestary might still be optimal, but we were worried about it because of graveyard hate from the mirror (the other matchups where Monestary is awesome seem to have disappeared). In essence, we didn't want our sideboard to lose to the opponent's sideboard. If it's working well for you, though, go ahead and run Monestary. It's a good option and we might go back to it in the future. I don't like the idea of boarding in more removal because all the options are situational. I'd much rather board in extra threats and plan to trade them off than removal that might sit in my hand against a Mongoose.Quote:
So may I have more information to why Nantuko Monastery had to get cut. It was so good in my metagame. It helps me with all my bad match ups, like EBA. Even if Grunt is around, more removal can easily be sided in to take care of him. Monastery was also my MVP for awhile.
I haven't played against it with this board yet, but the plan is:Quote:
What do you side in versus mirror?
-3 Pithing Needle
-1 Counterspell
-1 Forest
-1 Portent (Could be something else, like another Counterspell or a Daze)
+3 Jotun Grunt
+2 Loaming Shaman
+1 Mystic Enforcer (Would have been another Loaming Shaman)
I think you are confusing 'terrible' with 'dead'. Mage is never dead because it's a 2/2 for two. Mage is, however, sometimes terrible because a 2/2 for two is just that. I wouldn't run Mage over Needle for two main reasons: Decks hurt by Needle are far more common than decks hurt by Mage, and decks hurt by Mage are already your best matchups while decks hurt by Needle are close or unfavorable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solpugid
Loaming Shaman isn't for Solidarity.Quote:
Mage makes your solidarity match-ups better too, so you don't need to worry about siding in such sub-par stuff as loaming shaman.
The Forest is the fourth permanent green source. This is actually the same manabase we ran with Crusade; I could see cutting a Tundra at this point for another fetchland or Island but this configuration has been working well.Quote:
You also run 4 tundras compared to 3 trops in your manbase. But you actually have far more green spells than white spells. Why these numbers then? If you're counting on werebear to live to keep you with green mana, you should think again.
The power of Meddling Mage is low in Legacy. Against every creature-based deck he's nothing more than a 2/2 bear. Against combo his power is undeniable, but if you can't reliably beat combo with Threshold than you are doing something wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solpugid
You can't afford to clog your deck with 2/2 bears against other creature decks like Goblins, Faerie Stompy, Red Death, Angel Stompy, and others. Meddling Mage in these matchups is basically a minor inconvenience for the opposing decks because he definitely isn't a threat.
Actually, mage is a threat, he's just not always a good one. Nit-picking aside, I can certainly see the argument against mage and for needle main, but I've actually had decent success with mage against random decks. Even against goblins he names warchief or ringleader and eats an incinerator that would overwise kill a bear. That's certainly not terrible.
And thanks for clearing up the forest issue.
I'm not sure you can call Mage a threat at all. The fact that Goblins might use an Incinerator on him is hardly enough of a reason to say that he's not always a good threat. He's actually very bad. Let's examine a few decks -Quote:
Originally Posted by Solpugid
Goblins - Mage dies to basically everything and basically can't do anything about Incinerator.
Gro - Other Gro decks not running Mage are at an advantage because they might be running a real threat like Mystic Enforcer.
Red Death - Looks like every creature in this deck beats Mage every day of the week.
Faerie Stompy - Sea Drake, Serendib Efreet, hell even Trinket Mage trades with Meddling Mage (I would also offer that Trinket Mage is only a threat in this deck because he can be equipped)
Angel Stompy - Mage can't even beat Silver Knight in a fair fight. Or any other creature in this deck for that matter.
Shall I go on? I think its important to realize that when people think White Thresh loses to aggro its probably largely related to the fact that people are playing Meddling Mage in the main. You are welcome to play him if you think he's good, but just make sure you don't think of him as a threat against other decks playing creatures because he isn't.
How in the hell would naming Warchief or Ringleader stop Goblins? You do realize they have AEther Vial and you can still Vial in those guys, right? Cycling Gempalm Incinerator can not only kill Meddling Mage, but also draws the Goblin player a card. Most of the time, I think Goblins would just run over your Meddling Mage, not even bothering to activate Gempalm to get rid of it. Goblins laughs in the face of Meddling Mage. Your 2/2 guy is as good as a Grizzly Bear and Grizzly Bear is awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solpugid
AnwarA101's Are You Playing a Threat?
Can't you all just agree with the fact that Meddling Mage is a metagame choice?
Meddling Mage sucks in some (agro) meta's, but in combo/mixed meta's he's just nuts.
I agree completely. I don't think the mage-discussion is very helpful for the development of the deck, I guess we all know by now against which decks it's useful and against which decks not. People shouldn't evaluate their deck in a vacuüm, but take their meta and their own playskills into account. I think it's impossible to reach a consensus here, unless you're playing in a similar meta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elf_Ascetic
Maybe it's just better to separate threads even more, like Ugw Threshold for the aggro-defined meta, for the combo-defined meta, for the scrubby player or the drunk, for example.
Meddling Mage is a threat, just not the strongest one. The thing that you are forgetting, Anwar, is that Mage prevents people from playing spells. Against Red Death, that means no more Bolts or Hymns. Against Angel Stompy, that means no more SoFI or Jittes. This makes him a threat to the opponent's strategy, even if he's not the greatest attacker. If you back him early on with StP's, he can swing some damage through before your Werebears and Mongooses start attacking. Simply saying that Meddling Mage cannot be a threat because removal will kill him doesn't really seem relevant to me since Lightning Bolt will kill Rotting Giant and Incinerator will kill Sea Drakes... does that make those creatures less relevant?
I agree with you though, when you say he's not the greatest piece of aggro against opposing aggro strategies. However, this may be true in UGw Threshold, but not everywhere. My next statement doesn't apply to Threshold, but rather to my deck. Meddling Mage becomes a threat when he's complimented/supported by other creatures/spells. I already referenced how he can be a threat when coupled with StP. However, my deck also utilizes Umezawa's Jitte and Mother of Runes to make him more of a threat. Of course, on his own, Meddling Mage isn't much of an aggro threat (aside from keeping the opponent from playing a specific spell), but Meddling Mage can be a threat when supported correctly.
As far as Meddling Mage goes in UGw Threshold, I think it's still relevant. It names important spells that cannot be played. The argument to this was AEther Vial prevents Mage from being effective against Goblins. However, the same argument can be made about Pithing Needle making AEther Vial ineffective. It still doesn't change the fact that Meddling Mage prevents the opponent from playing a spell. That whole concept, in itself, makes Meddling Mage a valuable asset to the deck, even if it's unable to go on the assault. If anything, Meddling Mage can be boarded out against certain decks. I still feel as though Meddling Mage does alot for the deck.
Threshold, Gro, Birdshit, whatever you call it, is - and always has been - an aggro/control deck. As such, it relies on a tempo-based strategy, rather than a dominating control or agressive strategy, to sieze the small victories and make way for its undercosted guys to swing through. Each time you disrupt your opponent just a little, be it a Daze on their creature, StPing their mana critter, Laying a Needle on their fetchland, or whatever, you advance your strategy just a little bit. Meddling Mage is a Time Walk on a 2/2 body, and even vs. aggro, that's worth running in a tempo deck. Game 1 vs. Goblins with Mage in the MD is a picture perfect example of this. Turn 1 I play Mongoose, or I cantrip, or whatever. If I play Mage turn 2 and name Warchief, the Goblin player can no longer come out of the gates like a bat out of hell, and smash me before I can stablize. Lets say he uses Incinerator on my Mage. Does the incinerator replace itself? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Mage has done his job. He has been a speed bump for the Goblin player, possibly let you get a swing in with Goose, and maybe even held off his Lackey for a turn. He has also managed to clear a removal spell from the Goblin hand, which would otherwise be directed at your Werebears. To me, game 1, that is enough for an otherwise dead card to do. Consider the alternative. You play Pithing Needle in that slot. It's amazing vs. Goblins. It's great against Survival, and some other decks like Salvagers. It's DEAD against Solidarity. It's DEAD against IGG (there's no Mage to kill, so who cares about Cabal Pit?). It's DEAD in the mirror. You play more cantrips in that slot. They get you to other threats faster. They don't stop Warchief from blowing your head in. They don't stop Solidarity from saying "In response, High Tide." They don't draw fire away from your other, better threats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
Meddling Mage is a metagame card. He is good in the SB. He is no kind of real threat vs. Aggro. He's the first thing to get sided out against Goblins. All these statements are true. None of them take into consideration the actual gameplan of Threshold, nor do they recognize that he isn't there to be a beatstick. People are confused because they see Goose and Bear as bigger threats than comparable decks in the format contain. They get the "Beat down" strategy ingrained in their mind, and think if Mage isn't locking a Solidarity player out of the game, he's useless. This just simply is not true.
I agree completely with Mr. Nightmare.
So, you're going to keep Mage in the board, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
Mr. Nightmare didn't say he keeps Mage in the board, he said "He is good in the SB" in the context of rephrasing what Anwar said. Mage is good in the board. However, it seemed to me from reading what Mr. Nightmare said, Mage is even better in the maindeck. It seemed like he said that he boards them out against Goblins when he said "He's the first thing to get sided out against Goblins."
Regardless, I don't play UGw Thresh. If I did, I would maindeck 4 Mage. I run a deck that runs 4 maindeck Mage though, and that's where they are staying.
I agree with Mr. Nightmare. Needle and Mage both have different functions. One for a creature metagame, and another for a combo metagame. Putting them in the maindeck all depends on the metagame.
I didn't get that opinion at all from Mr. Nightmare's post. I don't think he's advocating putting in the maindeck, but you might depending on your metagame. What do you think is so awesome about maindeck Mage vs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
Did you even read what Anwar said? Maindeck Mage is terrible when you're not expecting a lot of combo. Even if you are expecting combo, then you don't even need Meddling Mage as explained by Mad Zur in his tournament report.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnwarA101
Of course I read what Anwar wrote. Did you bother to read what I wrote originally?
Maybe Meddling Mage isn't a threat as far as aggro goes. I understand that a 2cc 2/2 isn't the scariest thing to be attacked with. Meddling Mage isn't just a beatstick and naming a card that the opponent cannot play is not just good against combo.
To quote Mr. Nightmare:
You can read Mr. Nightmare's entire post, you can read my entire post, but either way, I don't think I need to repeat what has already been said.Quote:
Threshold, Gro, Birdshit, whatever you call it, is - and always has been - an aggro/control deck. As such, it relies on a tempo-based strategy, rather than a dominating control or agressive strategy, to sieze the small victories and make way for its undercosted guys to swing through. Each time you disrupt your opponent just a little, be it a Daze on their creature, StPing their mana critter, Laying a Needle on their fetchland, or whatever, you advance your strategy just a little bit. Meddling Mage is a Time Walk on a 2/2 body, and even vs. aggro, that's worth running in a tempo deck. Game 1 vs. Goblins with Mage in the MD is a picture perfect example of this. Turn 1 I play Mongoose, or I cantrip, or whatever. If I play Mage turn 2 and name Warchief, the Goblin player can no longer come out of the gates like a bat out of hell, and smash me before I can stablize. Lets say he uses Incinerator on my Mage. Does the incinerator replace itself? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Mage has done his job. He has been a speed bump for the Goblin player, possibly let you get a swing in with Goose, and maybe even held off his Lackey for a turn. He has also managed to clear a removal spell from the Goblin hand, which would otherwise be directed at your Werebears.
I'd like to point out for those who say the choice is based on metagame that I'm talking about a typical Legacy metagame, like that you could expect to see at a large Legacy tournament. If I'm ever talking about one specific atypical metagame, I'll say so. If you want to discuss one, please be clear.
It is misleading to assert that an aggro-control deck is necessarily based on tempo cards. Tempo is an important part of any deck, but really, an aggro-control deck has to balance tempo with other means of victory to be successful. If you want an archetype that is primarily concerned with tempo, look at a dedicated aggro deck. Tempo is important to Gro, but it's only one aspect of the deck. When you say the deck is tempo-based, you risk doing exactly what you're warning against - viewing the deck as far more aggressive than it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nightmare
Meddling Mage's ability isn't a Time Walk. At best (i.e. they have the card and the Mage stays as long as you'd need it) it's a Duress. But again, Gro isn't solely a tempo deck, and certainly not to the point of running weak cards. It doesn't actually cost the opponent any mana, so it doesn't generate tempo. In the best-case scenario, it generates card advantage.Quote:
Meddling Mage is a Time Walk on a 2/2 body, and even vs. aggro, that's worth running in a tempo deck.
In terms of tempo, it would be better to actually answer the Warchief because it forces the opponent to actually play the card, thus losing mana.Quote:
Game 1 vs. Goblins with Mage in the MD is a picture perfect example of this. Turn 1 I play Mongoose, or I cantrip, or whatever. If I play Mage turn 2 and name Warchief, the Goblin player can no longer come out of the gates like a bat out of hell, and smash me before I can stablize.
You seem to think getting a swing in with Goose is important and yet you later sayQuote:
Lets say he uses Incinerator on my Mage. Does the incinerator replace itself? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Mage has done his job. He has been a speed bump for the Goblin player, possibly let you get a swing in with Goose,
I think if you're suggesting that a single early swing with Mongoose comes close to the value of a card, you have emphasized beatdown (and tempo) far too much.Quote:
None of them take into consideration the actual gameplan of Threshold, nor do they recognize that he isn't there to be a beatstick. People are confused because they see Goose and Bear as bigger threats than comparable decks in the format contain. They get the "Beat down" strategy ingrained in their mind,
Absolutely.Quote:
Consider the alternative. You play Pithing Needle in that slot. It's amazing vs. Goblins. It's great against Survival, and some other decks like Salvagers.
It is okay, from time to time, to play a card that's dead against the bye.Quote:
It's DEAD against Solidarity. It's DEAD against IGG (there's no Mage to kill, so who cares about Cabal Pit?).
Yes, Needle is slightly worse than Mage in the mirror. I would argue, however, that Mage is still bad enough in the mirror that if you see so much of the mirror that you can't play Needle over Mage because of it, you shouldn't be playing Mage either.Quote:
It's DEAD in the mirror.
They find you removal.Quote:
You play more cantrips in that slot. They get you to other threats faster. They don't stop Warchief from blowing your head in.
They find you counters.Quote:
They don't stop Solidarity from saying "In response, High Tide."
They find you replacements for those threats.Quote:
They don't draw fire away from your other, better threats.
It seems to me that there are two main mistakes people make when they argue for Meddling Mage:
1. They glorify what is, in essence, a combo hate card. Yes, you can say that it disrupts the opponent by preventing him from playing a spell. You can point out that it can do this against any deck. You can even claim that the fact that it is a 2/2 makes it a good card all by itself. But if I ask you to show me specific matchups where Mage is better than, say, the next best draw spell you're not running, the only answers are combo decks. It draws removal against Goblins. It disrupts Red Death. It's a speedbump against Angel Stompy. And yet you'd board it out in all those matchups before you even knew what you'd bring in. For all it's little advantages, it's still primarily combo hate. You're trying to run maindeck combo hate in a deck with no better matchup than combo. It has never been acceptable to maindeck hate for your best matchup. Deadguy Ale played maindeck Engineered Plague because Goblins was one of its worst matchups otherwise. Rabid Wombat had Gilded Light for a time because it really couldn't beat combo without it (it couldn't really beat it with it anyway, but that's irrelevant). But Train Wreck didn't maindeck Perish for Gro, and we shouldn't maindeck Mage for our best matchup.
2. They believe there is a great difference between a card that is dead and a card that is simply bad. There is not, particularly not in this deck. When you play a turn one Serum Visions and see a dead card, you'll put it on the bottom. When you play that same Serum Visions and see a bad but not completely dead card, you'll put it on the bottom just as quickly. Mage isn't dead in the mirror and Needle is, but it doesn't matter which one you see with a Brainstorm; if you have a fetchland, that card is going away. Seeing a dead card and seeing a bad card both limit your options when playing draw - generally, you'll want to shuffle either back, Predict either to the yard, or scry either to the bottom. In any of these cases, you'll be seeing another card in their place. As long as the card you sent away is worse than the worst card you draw as a result, it does exactly the same damage - forcing you to draw that card. Suppose you're resolving a Brainstorm with a fetchland in play against Solidarity and the three worst cards in your hand are Portent and two cards that are either Werebear and Swords to Plowshares. Assume Portent is better than Werebear in this stage of the game. Now, it doesn't actually matter whether the two cards are the dead Swords or the not dead but still bad Bear. Their effect is exactly the same: you have to take the Portent. In this case a dead card is no worse than a bad one. But this is all unique to Gro; other decks provide countless examples of how a bad card is only better than a dead one in those rare situations in which it affects the game - not many, because, after all, bad cards are called that precisely because they are unlikely to help you.
Mage in Gro reminds my very much of Pyroclasm in Rifter. It was in a lot of lists for a while, but it fell out of favor when people realized it was just maindeck Goblin hate in a deck that already crushed Goblins. It wasn't dead against everything else the same way Mage isn't dead against aggro today. Against Gro, it could kill Mages, kill unthreshed creatures, and double up or pair with a Slice and Dice to kill threshed ones. But it was still quite bad in what proved to be not only a popular matchup but a very close one. Pyroclasm got cut for things that were a little more versatile, like Abeyance (you can call Abeyance a hate card too, but at least it was there for your tough matchups, not your easy ones). The deck still crushed Goblins, if slightly less so, but it had improved matchups all around. We have the same scenario here; you can keep running Mage, crush combo, and have a difficult time against Goblins, or you can cut it, beat both, and realize why a good Gro list really is the best deck in the format.
No, really Hanni, what's so awesome about maindeck Mage vs. Goblins, Red Death, Angel Stompy, Gro, and Faerie Stompy? You get to name a card? Hanni, don't you realize that doesn't matter in these matchups? You name Goblin Warhchief, you still have to deal with Ringleader, Piledriver, Incinerator, Pyromancer, Goblin King, Siege-Gang Commander, and AEther Vial. You want to name Lightning Bolt when you're paired against Red Death? You still have to deal with Phyrexian Negator, Sinkhole, Hymn to Tourach, Duress, Wasteland, Rotting Giant, Nantuko Shade, and Hypnotic Specter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
Hanni, you make the comparison that Meddling Mage, Sea Drake, and Rotting Giant can all be killed by Lightning Bolt. While they may be equal right in that respect, it's unfair to compare them like that. Sea Drake and Rotting Giant are legitmate threats that perform well in combat and deal significant damage to the other player on their own. Grizzly Bear didn't do it when it was printed and Meddling Mage won't do that for you now. If you compare their strengths vs. combo decks then you have a clear favorite in Meddling Mage. Combo decks will need to deal with Meddling Mage in order to combo off. A 2/2 Meddling Mage doesn't just sit there like Rule of Law or Arcane Laboratory, it can actually attack and, with help, kill your opponent. I say with help because a lone Meddling Mage would take about 10 turns to kill the other player and that may be giving the combo player too much time.
Hanni, keeping 4 Meddling Mage in the maindeck in a mixed Legacy metagame is a poor call. Don't let your success on Day 2 go to your head.