[Deck] Deadguy Ale (B/w Confidant)

I play Gro myself, and I have found the Deadguy-Gro matchup to be easily in Gro's favor. Why? Because your game vs. UGw Gro depends on keeping them off white. They run tons of draw, and at least 9 ways to get white mana, as opposed to your 8 land destruction spells and 4 Bobs. I have never been successfully kept off white mana, and Enforcer is good game. The UGr Gro matchup, however, is absolutely horrid for you. 4x Nimble Mongoose are killable only in combat, and they're in green, the second biggest color. Running more removal than UGw Gro spells trouble for you as well.

Perish is the SB card of choice against Gro, at least it is for me, killing everything in the UGw thats not a meddling mage. Now I realise that its not the standard SB card, but it probably should be with how huge Gro is getting lately.

As for keeping Gro off white... its not all that hard really. Deadguy has 12 land d (you probably forgot Vidicate). Now of course you can't feasibly deny them white forever, but you can make sure they never keep it for more than a turn. Especially since most /w only have at most 1 non basic white source, sure they can fetch them all to hell, but it'll still die before it's used more than once.

For my playing vs Gro thats usually my gameplan at least, screw white as best as possible, then protect Perish with discard to kill what's on the board. Granted that just makes it easier to get threshold, Wretches have always been sufficient to stunt that.

Sure its not an easy matchup, Gro is a good deck, but Deadguy is probably one of the best suited to beat it.

This past weekend there was a Legacy judge event. 3 Deadguy ale builds were played and one managed to top 8. The build was quite different.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/bd205

4 Scrubland
4 Wasteland
3 Tainted Field
2 Bloodstained Mire
7 Swamp
20 land

4 Hypnotic Specter
4 Dark Confidant
2 Nantuko Shade
10 creatures

4 Duress
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Gerrard's Verdict
4 Dark Ritual
4 Sinkhole
2 Vindicate
3 Engineered Plague
3 The Rack
2 Cursed Scroll
30 other spells

3 Withered Wretch
2 Seal of Cleansing
2 Swords to Plowshares
1 Engineered Plague
1 Cursed Scroll
2 Infest
2 Darkblast
2 Pithing Needle
15 sideboard

The changes we have from our origional buil are...

MD
+2 Tainted Field
+2 Gerrard's Verdict
+1 Engineered Plague
+3 The Rack

-2 Bloodstained Mire
-3 Swamp
-2 Vindicate
-1 Nantuko Shade

SB
-1 Withered Wretch
-1 Engineered Plague(moved to MD)
-1 Pithing Needle
-2 Phyrexian Negator

+1 Cursed Scroll
+2 Infest
+2 Seal of Clensing

Slops on the build

Well for starters he went the wrong way on the shades. any change should have been more not less. Mires were at the correct number of 4. Vindicate is our BEST(and only) MD spot removal... and it hits EVERYTHING! great card in this deck stays at 4. I think he over compensated for goblins with the 3rd MD Plague. The rack? not really optimal. Better choices. Verdict is good but not 4 count good. 3 at most and that is pushing it. I wont touch the SB because Metas are all different and i have yet to do a major tournament for the deck and havet taken it through a huge grind to flesh out all the details.

Props for the build

we did need less land but i think 21 is the right number and the fetches should be 5-6. I like seal of cleansing... thats about it

Not the way i had hoped the deck would go from the first 2 events

What led you to the decision that the deck needs to go below 23 lands?

This deck loves land. It has good synergy with scroll and confidant. Furthermore, you need BB on turn 2 almost every game. That requires more land, and 23 is actually a very good amount for land in the deck. I think anything less than 22 is probably not enough to support the spells in the deck.

I dropped a single land for the fourth Shade, and I haven't regretted it a bit. I've been testing it quite a lot, and the consistency of BB on turn 2 is very high, as well as the ability to support the rest of the curve. There's a very delicate balance between the numbers of manasources and disruption/threats in the deck, because you need to be keeping constant pressure on the opponent to prevent them recovering from your initial disruption.

Even with Confidant, I was often getting manaflooded and losing the advantage I'd gained in the early game in my testing with 23 lands. The drop to 22 has mitigated this problem, and has proven very consistent for me overall. I strongly agree that less than 22 lands is pushing it, however.

I have yet to test either so i was just assuming. And since i seem to have a plethora of land at the end of most games with the deck when i play at various places I figured 21 would be fine but i do feel that more fetchalnds are needed.

You have to watch out for adding too many fetchlands. This deck has very little creature control and Dark Confidants. RandomAggroWithBurnSpells gets a lot more dangerous for each extra fetchland you put in.
-Slay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slay

You have to watch out for adding too many fetchlands. This deck has very little creature control and Dark Confidants. RandomAggroWithBurnSpells gets a lot more dangerous for each extra fetchland you put in.
-Slay

---

Its also the hardest matchup for the deck. Byes are your friend with this deck.

As for those builds that are posted they are a little out of whack. 20 Land with 4 Wastelands is asking to tap wastelands for mana a lot, 3 Tainted Fields with only 11 Swamps and 2! Fetch Lands also seem to be begging to tap for colorless a lot. 23 land has only left me looking for white about .1% of the time, and I think I can handle making it happen a little more often for the 4th Shade. He seems to kinda just do that game winning thing fairly often. So... I'll have to try 22 land 4 Shades.

4 Gerrards Verdict is silly. It would help against burn (one of the hardest matchups for me at least) and it is a two for one, so it may have a place in 62 card decks, but there are better things to do with the deck space. Specifically things like running Vindicate. From blowing up that last splashed land, to clearing blockers, to making it possible to win through various silly enchantmenst Vindicate is way to good to only run 2 of.

Only thing I've been thinking about now is swapping the sideboard Perish to CoP:Red (don't laugh I played 3 red decks out of four matches last night, and thats not uncommon). Also figured might try out Nezumi Shortfang in place of Verdict. Might be bad, I havent tested it at all, but I think it might be nice to have access to instant speed discard that can finish a game as well. Might give the deck an unacceptable number of mana sinks though: two scrolls, three (four) shades, and two shortfangs.

As for the fetching: you should ALWAYS fetch it EoT your opponent and put into play tapped.

With guildpact just a little over a month away there is a question to be posed though it amy be a minor one. Should we change the Tainted field to the B/W shockland? You should NEVER fetch for it so the 3 dmg isnt a problem and with only one in the deck should we even worry about the off chance for the 2 dam? I think it goes in because then a hand with that and a wastland is possibly a keeper depending on your other 5 cards. ALSO we should try and flesh out a SB. Figuring out what MUST go in(i.e. Withered wretch, Engineered plague) in some quantity and the room you have to add metagame tech(i.e. C.o.P red, Chains of mephistopheles<sp?>) and i think it should be agreed on that the 4th shade and the 23rd land will be put in and taken out respectivly. Though I do think the thinning we get from another fetch or two is nice and should be considered and looked at. also it increases your chance to get your BB or BW on turn 2 and your BBW on turn 3.

Comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hutch8729

Should we change the Tainted field to the B/W shockland?

---

If I'm not mistaken, the Tainted Field was chosen over Caves of Koilos because it never causes life loss. The Shockland does not have this benefit, at least not if played within the first 3 or 4 turns of the game, when I find that I'm easily using all of my mana. Honestly, I don't know how often you are wanting to keep hands with a Tainted Field and a Wasteland, because this leaves you without BB on turn two, and with one land very quickly. In most matchups, I view Wasteland as a removal spell rather than a land for mulling purposes. Can others provide their thoughts on this?

Verdict: I'd probably be shipping back a hand with Tainted Field and Wasteland anyway, so I think the lifeloss becomes more of a factor, and Tainted Field wins out.

@ General Comments: I think the real strength of this deck is in its ability to be heavily metagamed, and I think the perfect construction of the deck requires, if not a heavy knowledge of the metagame, at least some concept of what you expect to face. In these cases I think it is perfectly acceptable to switch out some of the disruption package, edge in some creatures, that sort of thing, but for the overrall Legacy Metagame that we see shaping up, I feel like the optimal number is the 12 creature, 10 hand disruption + Hyppy, 8 LD + Wasteland package that Pikula originally included (assuming we go to 22 lands for the 4th Shade). Seeing 4 x Ritual and 2 x Cursed Scroll as auto-includes, I feel like that leaves 2 slots open to general metagaming, and I find that I've liked the Engineered Plagues a lot. After doing a lot of testing, that's how I would take it into an unknown metagame, and I like the side pretty well, although I might try to make room for Perish.

That's not to say that it's incorrect to do something like -2 Engineered Plague, -2 Gerard's Verdict for +4 Withered Wretch, or any other change you decide to make, when you have more intimate knowledge of a metagame, but I would hesitate to make too many drastic changes to the deck as is, because it would take away a lot of the versatility of the deck, which is (IMO) one of its greatest strengths.

-2 Engineered Plague -2 Gerrard's Verdict and +x Withered Wretch (it's 3 right now since I still have 23 land in my deck and 4 Shades) is exactly what I decided to do. I still have 4 Engineered Plague and 4 Swords to Plowshares in the sideboard for goblins, which are easily switched in for the Sinkholes and Duresses. I also have the massive anti-gro sideboard of 1 Withered Wretch, 3 Chains of Mephistopheles, and 4 Swords to Plowshares. I actually am not 100% sure of what to take out for all those cards when I'm playing against gro. The Duresses are probably the most expendable card, since I would have a hard time taking out land destruction against gro or Hymns against any deck. Cursed Scroll isn't so hot against them so they should probably be cut as well. If I went to 22 land and maindecked the other Wretch, I would only have to pick one more card to board out, or I could just have only 2 Chains in my sideboard. It's the only card I would side in against Solidarity though, but my matchup's not bad against that deck so I can probably afford the sacrifice. With the extra 2 sideboard slots, I could add the 4th Pithing Needle and something else, such as a 3rd Cursed Scroll or something for burn/sligh, like Gerrard's Verdict or COP: Red. COP would probably be superior if it's strictly in the sideboard. As for the land argument, I don't think any option is better than adding more fetches. Shockduals would mean more life loss 90% of the time, and Tainted Field means more mulligans and is weaker against Wasteland, since a fetch can become a Swamp if necessary. I don't think losing 1 more life point is going to matter often, because my games against burn were won by drawing lots of land destruction and Hymns, and I could even afford to play Confidant once I had stripped my opponent's offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DampingEngine

I also have the massive anti-gro sideboard of 1 Withered Wretch, 3 Chains of Mephistopheles, and 4 Swords to Plowshares.

---

I'd by far rather have Perish in the SB for Gro than Chains, particularly because Perish bolsters your Survival/Stompy matchups, which aren't particularly positive either. It's been my experience that most decks which draw extra cards are already fairly positive matchups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodzillA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DampingEngine

I also have the massive anti-gro sideboard of 1 Withered Wretch, 3 Chains of Mephistopheles, and 4 Swords to Plowshares.

---

I'd by far rather have Perish in the SB for Gro than Chains, particularly because Perish bolsters your Survival/Stompy matchups, which aren't particularly positive either. It's been my experience that most decks which draw extra cards are already fairly positive matchups.

---

Why not play Dystopia over Perish? It has a tendency to wreck your opponent's board. Dystopia also hits white cards which makes it much less narrow than Perish.

Seriously... On Perish:

One of my roommates has been playing RG Survival Advantage for about a year and a half. After I first built Deadguy Ale we played for a few days and I almost always would loose 2 outta 3. I made the switch to only 2 Perish in the side and started a winning streak against his deck which I don't think has been broken since. Now obviously I've gotten better at winning the presideboard games but Perish helps to fairly common matchups that can be pains (Gro and Survival) and randomly thwacks other decks.

Also Nezumi Shortfang has contributed greatly to winning every game I've ever drawn it in. It rather helps this deck actually win the game after the first frontloaded disruption puts them on their heels. Generally he is not stellar flipped, but when its so easy to keep their hand empty as it is with this deck, the auto 3 damage a turn and the potential 6, really help keep momentum in your favor.

EDIT: Dystopia's additional lifeloss wasn't so much a big deal with Necro since you didn't pay as much life per card, and had ways to get it back. This deck generally doesn't and Perish immediatly clears several critters outta the Shades way, letting you win asap. Dystopia would have cost me a LOT of life in several situations that Perish saved the day. About the only plus is it kills Compost, but Vindicate does that and only occasionally dings me for three.

This has been my experience with Dystopia in this deck as well. The lifeloss from it combined with the Confidant is just too much. Too often I had to let Dystopia go before it became truly effective. Perish may be more narrow, but it's really effective against a lot of the deck's problem matchups.

I agree with the Perish over Dystopia argument. The main difference is that Perish is instantaneous (albeit at sorcery speed, but you get what I mean) whereas Dystopia will take many turns. And in some matchups (RG Survival Advantage) it's not going to kill the creatures you want it to anyway (instead hitting Birds and Elves while the Baloths beat you to death).

@ Nezumi Shortfang: How many do you play? He seems like he would compete for the second turn plays (Hymns, Sinkholes, Wasteland activations, Verdict if you play them) and that he would encourage me to use his ability instead of other, more pertanent disruption. How have you been using him, and how does he play for you?

@ Withered Wretch Main: For anyone who has tested this, what matchups does it significantly improve, and have you found any problems with the loss of Engineered Plague or Verdict maindeck (or whatever else you took out), or are there any matchups that become worse?

In General: The two decks I'm playing right now in Legacy are Threshold and this one. The reason is that I haven't found any unwinable matchups for either deck, and they both immensely reward playskill, moreso than other decks I have been playing. What are others' thoughts on this?

quick question what gets taken out of a SB for Perish? Curtently using SB: 2 [UL] Engineered Plague
SB: 4 [U] Swords to Plowshares
SB: 4 [LE] Withered Wretch
SB: 2 [RAV] Darkblast
SB: 3 [SOK] Pithing Needle

I would personally take out the dark blast since youre going to be using perish in more games than you will be using Darkblast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B is for Big Job

You're going to be using Perish in more games than you will be using Darkblast

---

I don't know if that's true. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just actually don't know. Perish comes in against Thresh/Gro, Survival Advantage, and Elves (and probably more unplayed decks). Darkblast comes in against Survival Advantage (right? I think you wanna hit the mana creatures), Elves, and Goblins (and probably more unplayed decks).

I'm sure I'm missing something and sounding like an idiot, but the question between Darkblast/Perish seems to be the question between boarding against Goblins/Thresh. Perish is definitely better against Gro, but the recurability of Darkblast gives it a chance of even being better in the Elves or SA matchup (not that we should be metagaming for Elves ;). I really don't know which is better, I think I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. I was already convinced a while back to play Perish, but I can still see a big argument for Darkblast.