[Deck] Faerie Stompy

With all due respect, I've previously stated that I've been playing and testing the deck since first building it in 2005. I played it at the Columbus GP, and have won several local tournaments with it, including beating vintage worlds champ Smendian with it at his own tournament. (the chrome mox version at that) I've tested both, and both have their merits, but I've become frustrated at recent Mox tournaments where you play so many rounds that you eventually lose a round to mulling into oblivion with the Chrome version, so I'm now explaining the mathematical truths about the two different versions of the deck I've played. I currently prefer pitching lands to my mox and being more reliably able to play my spells when I do not have a mox. (again, why I run looter- for consistancy) IMO if Faerie Stompy was more consistent, it would be a DTB rather than a DTW. I'm tired of losing in the quarters or finals because I cant open with a mox and have to pitch two land hands. (or end up losing to a speculated waste on my only two mana land)

I see Looter and Mulldrifter as functionally very different. Looter comes out super early. At 2cc, it's the only playable threat off of a first turn Chrome Mox + Island. Mulldrifter is ideally played last, when you can spend 5 mana and use it optimally, as both a threat and a way to refill your hand.

So I don't think they should be compared really. Both are very good at what they do.

Media, what card exactly do you hope to draw with Looter. Ideally, you're usually looking for another threat to draw into, say a Serendib Efreet.

Infiltrator costs the same 2 mana as Looter does. It comes out to attack the same turn you would cast that Serendib assuming you draw it. It beats for the same amount of damage as Serendib. But it doesn't require you to spend two mana or discard a card.

I think you are "overmathemating" the issue, Media... Yes in a 6 turn game you have more odds to draw a threat with the diamond version, but this is assuming all of this:

1.- You have a mox in your oppening
2.- You want to play the mox in the first turn (you can play a chalice without playing the mox)
3.- You pitch a threat to the mox (there are situations where is better to pitch a Fow, for example)

Then, and only then you want the diamond version...
But, even then, have realised that a threat in the 6th turn in a 6 turn match is useless?? The maths aren't so easy
Or a hand with a two mana land, another land and chalice?? Then the chrome version will have more threats
And so on...

Id also like to note that the majority of the time only one Chrome Mox is used, thus only one "Threat" is lost. Allowing for the other three "Threats" to be drawn into and used, with Mox Diamond those three other threats become lands.

No thanks.

Been playing with it a little today. All I can really say is MEH.

I'm not sure if you do it intentionally, Media, but your math contains a rather relevant error: You count Mox Diamond as a mana source. That's plain mistake and the prime reason I don't run it over Chrome Mox. With Mox Diamond, a hand of two Islands and Mox is unkeepable. With Chrome Mox, it's generally an easy keep. With Mox Diamond, City/Tomb+Mox is unkeepable. With Chrome, it can often be the best possible hand you could have. You're also not selling the advantage the build really has: You get to play more blue/utility lands (especially Academy Ruins)! However, I don't think that outweights the poor topdecking generated by running 26 lands (that's like screaming "Flood me!")

As far as Mulldrifter goes, we'll draw a few lands into the first few turns of the game. Those lands tend to be enough. As the format is very heavily focused on reactive decks, Mulldrifter generally has time to resolve, especially against control. And that's where you want it the most. However, FS isn't limited to playing aggro in all matches - the ability to assume the control-role vs. e.g. Goblins for the early game is golden and having access to Mulldrifter really helps with that. Basically, you won't cast it from the opener, but generally in the first 3-4 turns you'll have the mana to do so (sometimes it requires using Trinket, but bleh). I evoke it maybe once in twenty game (or when playing vs. Ichorid) or when I'm digging for tools (things value a bit differently against combo - having access to that Chalice/Force is more important than an immediate threat), but whenever it is in my hand, I tend to end up hardcasting it.

Seriously, we draw that second two-mana land quite often and leading into Mulldrifter basically means that there's nothing that Rocky McRock/Landstill/whatever can do to stop me. Further, it ensures beats vs. Threshold, not to mention increases the likelihood of drawing Sower of Temptation, Pestermite or fatties. Of course, it doesn't fall into the Diamond-version as easily, since having more landcards means your average draw is significantly weaker. That also makes Looter "better" since you've got more trash to pitch to it.

Mox Diamond is not a mana source unless you're running Loam or Crucible. It's best to think of it like this:

Mox Diamond
0
Sorcery
Put a land card from your hand into play.

(It actually turns the land into a painless City of Brass, but close enough.)

But not being a mana source also means that it's pointless to consider that you can keep a hand with X lands and Chrome Mox but not X lands and Mox Diamond, because Mox Diamond isn't a mana source -- it takes the place of a spell.

In one case, you're running

18 lands + 4 Chrome Mox = 22 mana sources
38 spells

While in the other, you have

22 lands = 22 mana sources
4 Mox Diamond + 34 spells

The equivalent comparison would be either X-1 lands, Chrome Mox, and 6-X spells, or X lands, Mox Diamond, and 5-X spells. A hand with a single City/Tomb would be just as unkeepable whether you draw it with Mox Diamond or any other spell.

Anyways, Mox Diamond (see above) is clearly card disadvantage, because it doesn't actually do anything. But, as was helpfully pointed out, so is Chrome Mox -- either you pitch a card to it, or it likewise does nothing. The difference is that, if they do nothing, Mox Diamond is a spell which does nothing, whereas Chrome Mox is a land which does nothing -- which is mitigated by the fact that most of the time, you'll be pitching a spell to Chrome Mox as well. In the case where you draw either X-1 lands and Chrome Mox or X lands and Mox Diamond, with the remainder spells, and pitch a spell to Chrome Mox, you'll end up with the same number of spells left in your hand in either case.

The main differences are:

1) A deck with Chrome Mox will have better topdecks, because while either Mox is a terrible topdeck, again, Chrome Mox is a "land" which is a blank while Mox Diamond is a "spell" which is a blank, and lands are worse topdecks than spells, so you lose less by drawing a Mox instead of it. This is the main advantage of Chrome Mox.

2) With Mox Diamond, you choose which cards to cut for it during deck construction, or, for the geeks out there, compile time. With Chrome Mox, you choose which cards to pitch during gameplay, or runtime. I'm not sure which one has the advantage here. Most of the time, you'll cut the worst spells in the deck for Mox Diamonds, and pitch those same spells to Chrome Mox, which is a wash. The difference is if you don't draw your worst spell with Chrome Mox and have to pitch a better one, which means your topdecks will be slightly worse (as the worse spell is still in your deck), which is a small minus, while on the other hand, which spell is actually worse is liable to vary by matchup and situation, so you might want to pitch a different spell with Chrome Mox (which you don't get to do with Diamond), so that's a small plus. Let's call this one a draw.

3) You can cut nonblue cards for Mox Diamond, but you can't pitch nonblue cards to Chrome Mox. If the worst card(s) in your deck are nonblue, this could be pretty relevant. This is the main advantage of Mox Diamond.


Three other, smaller benefits of Mox Diamond:

- It makes Back to Basics out of the board better, because you can pitch your nonbasic :2: lands to it, giving you up to an effective 18 mana sources which work under B2B.

- It makes it slightly easier to cast :u::u: spells, because you can occasionally pitch a colorless :2: land to it.

- It makes it much easier to splash a color, because obviously (1) it makes mana of any color, but also (2) it's easier to fit a fetch+duals manabase into 14 colored lands than into 10, and (3) you don't have the awkwardness you do with Chrome Mox where you pitch a spell of one color but want to play a second spell of a different color.


Overall, I think Chrome Mox has a slight edge, but it's by no means a huge one. I could definitely see a good, viable Mox Diamond build being a possibility, especially if it cuts nonblue cards for the Diamonds.

Thanks Illissus.

Until I find a color I want to splash, which is unlikely at this time, Ill just stick with Chrome Mox.

I also run mono blue so I have nothing to cut for Mox Diamond.

On top of that Im not sure which bad cards I would cut for Mox Diamonds in the first place. Many people would say Cloud of Faeries but it allows for some broken starts. Running 7 untap effects via Cloud of Faeries and Pestermite is quite nice with Back to Basics.

Im still sold on MEH for Mox Diamond.

I have played Dragon Stompy lately and I like Trinisphere a lot.
Now I play Faerie Stompy and I am asking myself if 3-4 Trinisphere would be good in the maindeck because it annoys many opponents. The problem is that there is absolutely no synergy between Force of Will and Trinisphere.

Currently I have not much experience with Faerie Stompy, so I have two questions to you:

(1) Does Trinisphere fit in the maindeck of Faerie Stompy?

(2) If Trinisphere fit in the maindeck, would you cut Force of Will?

Sure I know Trinisphere counters no spell but Force of Will does, otherwise one Force of Will only hurts one time where Trinisphere could hurt oftener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

I have played Dragon Stompy lately and I like Trinisphere a lot.
Now I play Faerie Stompy and I am asking myself if 3-4 Trinisphere would be good in the maindeck because it annoys many opponents. The problem is that there is absolutely no synergy between Force of Will and Trinisphere.

Currently I have not much experience with Faerie Stompy, so I have two questions to you:

(1) Does Trinisphere fit in the maindeck of Faerie Stompy?

(2) If Trinisphere fit in the maindeck, would you cut Force of Will?

Sure I know Trinisphere counters no spell but Force of Will does, otherwise one Force of Will only hurts one time where Trinisphere could hurt oftener.

---

1. Yes it does and it has been used in the past to fight combo. Unfortunately as you pointed out it it is not optimal.

2. No.

3. Chalice at 1 is better.

4. You really should do a thread search for Trinisphere, so we do not have to rehash what has already been discussed in this thread. (On the first page for that matter and so you can get a better explanation).

Could Chronozoa be a good replacement for Sea drake if your unable to get 4?
When he dies of age it becomes quite scary....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malloot

Could Chronozoa be a good replacement for Sea drake if your unable to get 4?
When he dies of age it becomes quite scary....

---

Casting cost is off, 2U is really important in my opinion.

Id rather play Rishadan Airship, though Im sure there has to be a better choice than that.

1. It doesn't cost 2U, but 3U, which makes it infinitely worse than Sea Drake.
2. It won't die of age. And even if it would, that would still hold you back a turn as the tokens have summoning sickness. Too slow.

One thing I think my analysis clearly shows is that Mox Diamond is a much better choice for builds which want to splash a color. It's slightly worse than Chrome Mox, but only slightly, and inconsistency with Chrome has always been what has torpedoed efforts to splash another color. (For someone reason, people's default impression -- including mine -- was that Chrome Mox is a massively better choice for decks without Loam or Crucible. But that's just simply not true). With Diamond itself and 14 colored lands -- the same amount Wasteland Threshold has -- splashing a color becomes almost trivial. Hell, even two of them would be easy.

So the question becomes: What is there we might want to splash for?

Here's what I can think of:

Black
Shriekmaw
Makeshift Mannequin :)
Phyrexian Negator?
Dark Confidant?
Bitterblossom?
Snuff Out?
Nether Void?
Engineered Plague
Perish?
Last Rites?

Red
Flametongue Kavu
Magus of the Moon
Blood Moon?
Gathan Raiders?
Pyroclasm
Rough // Tumble
Firespout

White
Oblivion Ring
Windborn Muse
Glowrider?
Moat?
Exalted Angel?
Battlegrace Angel?
Armageddon?
Parallax Wave?
Cataclysm?
(almost all of these are :w::w:...)

Green
Spawnwrithe
Call of the Herd?
Tarmogoyf?
Krosan Grip?

I think the better question is what can be splashed that will make certain match-ups better without making the deck inconsistent?

Personally Id have to go with none.

The cards on that list are non factors and the majority I can think of off the top of my head are rather disappointing.

If we were to splash Id have to say anything with double colored casting cost is a no no.

Im not really interested in making a splash and Im not quite sure it is appropriate for this thread. That aside, does anyone have something in mind of note that would actually be worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ertai's Familiar

Im not really interested in making a splash and Im not quite sure it is appropriate for this thread. That aside, does anyone have something in mind of note that would actually be worth it?

---

EE at 2. Fetchable. With academy ruins. Sex. (possibly a few slaughter pacts or a single executioner's capsule in the board) Anything worth the splash IMO should also be castable if you can't use get the second color- EE still kills EtW tokens, goblins, needles, and mongeese just fine with (1) or (U), and pact can kill an exalted so you can swing for the win even if you wouldnt be able to pay the upkeep next turn. IMO bob, ect is not the direction this deck wants to take, as chalice at 2 is the goal, and bob + high CMC fat + tomb = not a combo.

Last comment on Mox vs Chrome:

(sigh) Math has eluded several of you. If Chrome does not have the mox, they likely have two lands, and this leads to sub-par or unkeepable hands, hoping you hit more lands and/or hoping your opponent doesn't wasteland while you wait on your second turn guy. Diamond minimizes this risk by running more lands, so in the 55% of hands without the mox, the hand is still likely keepable. With the mox, Diamond build has on average MORE threats than Chrome. Stop looking at your 'my list has 22 threats, yours only has 19...' elementary school math and read my post. Losing a threat IN HAND to chrome is incredibly significant, more so than you all seem to realize, as opposed to losing a land in hand. Thus until the 20th card, that one pitched threat will mar your odds and the Diamond list will have more castable threats.

Chrome:
If you don't have the mox (55%):
More threats, less lands to cast them with... can lead to more mulligans, but IF you hit your lands, better topdecking.
If you have the mox (45%):
Less threats until turn 15, as you pitched one of the 3.25 in your opener. More overall threats in your deck... in case your opponent is playing 4x extirpate main... more chaff (pestermite, ect) but you chose the chaff that is pitched.

Diamond:
If you don't have the mox (55%):
Less threats, but more lands, so you will probably be able to cast the threats in your hand. More resistant to wasteland hits on two mana lands, as it will likely not cripple you. Less chance of mulliganing.
If you have the mox (45%):
More threats, as you dont have to pitch one of the initial threats in hand- you pitch a land.

I personally think that the lessened probability of having to mull when the mox doesnt show makes the Diamond version more consistent. (not saying better- the chrome is more explosive if you get good hands with JUST enough lands) Personally, I prefer to pilot a more consistent, slightly less explosive, as I play the odds, not what looks better on paper. If you don't understand or believe my math, feel free to just drop the Diamond list as a list 'with less threats,' but my posts have been to simply prove the merits of a diamond list, and mathematically explain that lists using diamond mox can be competitive. Pros and cons to both, make your choice, but understand that chrome is not the end all, be all.

Many of us ran Engineered Explosives at [2] via two fetches and a blue dual. I forget why Eldariel and a few others dropped it, they did post about it in this thread. I dropped it because it opened me up to random jank like Stifle and Pithing Needle on the fetchland. Not to mention while Engineered Explosives at [2] is cute in this format, I don't think it is a necessity and it hits a decent amount of my own creatures/equipment.

Mox Diamond isn't worth it in my opinion. Im not going to argue about it anymore. Do what you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malloot

Could Chronozoa be a good replacement for Sea drake if your unable to get 4?
When he dies of age it becomes quite scary....

---

No. Chronozoa, even in a world of no Sea Drakes, isn't better than any combination of:

4 Cloud of Faeries
4 Serendib Efreet
4 Trinket Mage
4 Mulldrifter
4 Pestermite
4 Glen Elendra Archmage
2 Sower of Temptation

Which should more than cover your threat base.

Also, Mox Diamond? Really, people? Are we not any further along than that? Diamond is garbage in Chalice Aggro. Running more lands is awful. Chrome Mox packing builds will often have, say, 3 blue cards in your hand where you'll have to imprint one, whereas Diamond builds would have two without you having to imprint one. Therefore, with Chrome Mox, you get to pick the least useful card of the three to imprint, keeping 2. With Mox Diamond, you're stuck with those 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacosnape

Also, Mox Diamond? Really, people? Are we not any further along than that? Diamond is garbage in Chalice Aggro. Running more lands is awful. Chrome Mox packing builds will often have, say, 3 blue cards in your hand where you'll have to imprint one, whereas Diamond builds would have two without you having to imprint one. Therefore, with Chrome Mox, you get to pick the least useful card of the three to imprint, keeping 2. With Mox Diamond, you're stuck with those 2.

---

I have been trying to say this but apparently have been unsuccessful at doing so as I am a non respected member of the community and as such would be called out for dismissing an idea directly. Everything people post as a pro for it makes no sense to me, but then again I have never been much for compiling mathematical data to support playing a card. I'd much rather outright play with it and use common sense.

That being said I honestly have to QFT that.

@ Malloot: If you cannot afford Sea Drakes, it would be in your best interest to just up the count of the solid bodies we already have like Tacosnape suggested. Although Im not so sure how much Im set on Glen Elendra Archmage as being a solid addition. I would probably just up the count of Sower of Temptation to 4 and run Sword of Light and Shadow. You are going to loose some explosiveness by having no Drakes but you gain a lot of stupid good utility with Sower and SoLS.

Several of you have posted in response to media "less math, more testing."

Well, clearly, media had said in several posts that he had been testing this mox diamond list and it's been better than the chrome mox lists he used to run.

On the other hand, have any of you guys bothered to test mox diamond. I suspect not.

Neither have I. I haven't got around to it.

But I think it's way to premature to write off this idea without giving it a little well deserved attention.

ok thnx, ill just up on the other treats then.

@chrome vs diamond: i really think its not as easy as 4 chrome is better than 4 diamond or the other way around, as a in a deck with 4 trinket mage i think playing 3 chrome 1 diamond and/or 1 lotus petal whould be more useful in many situations incuding playing ee for 2. these things are all more focussed on the real game situations and math doesnt always help there