Yeah, I don't give up. But what makes me bit sad are those matches against Zoo, I just cannot win. What am I doing wrong?
Printable View
Yeah, I don't give up. But what makes me bit sad are those matches against Zoo, I just cannot win. What am I doing wrong?
Record yourself playing a few games against Zoo on MWS or something and post it here. Its not supposed to be an easy matchup. Zoo's creatures are huge and they play a lot of removal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksandr
In my opinion you have to do the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksandr
Just SURVIVE the early turns (that means try to stay at ~ 7+ life because of random bolt + fireblast) and develop the midgame. Get rid of lavamancer asap and try to get a jitte online. (and try to keep q. pridemage of the table)
You have some counters pregame and 4x stp, Jötun is very important because he stops goyf.
Zoo is a strong deck and outclasses your creatures in the early turns pretty much, but lacks of card draw (if you have counters spare use them to counter their library that enables them carddraw in the mid - late game). So if you survive the early game you develop your midgame and win.
A special problem is that there strategy acts like a counterstrategy to ours:
We try to establish game control by using CREATURES (that are outclassed by their creatures in terms of size). Their creatures > our creatures
Additionally the play a lot of spot removal that kills almost any of our creatures. Their removal > our gameplan
So maybe its a good idea to play important cards with backup. (i.e. if you are in desperate need of an angel, but suspect it to be killed asap -> play a creature first that looks strong, but is not in fact -> i.e. a mother just to get rid of the removal)
And to analyse games do the following:
Play the game and record it or write down what exactly happens, which cards you played when etc. and reevaluate the game afterwards if you lost. Rethink if one card played at another time (targetting something different) would have helped you to win the game.
A lot of players make the mistake of using their important removal spells/creatures and remove/block something not that important and give the opponent the opportunity to play something REALLY important and you have nothing to get rid of it.
In Magic you loose if you have 0 life. You are in the game if you have 5 oder 1 life, so try to spot out WHY you lost and try to find a way if you could have won the game with the draw you had and the given information (the cards your opponent played).
Its pretty time-consuming, but you will understand pretty fast how your decks works best in a specific matchup.
Edit: Im no native speaker, so excuse if something is not clear/understandable
A lot of this was pretty accurate, but some amendments are: mother is far from useless vs. zoo. In the situation you described, your opponent wouldn't be making a "bad play" by bolting mother, er I mean it's not like he'd be getting "tricked." If he doesn't bolt mother, he won't be able to bolt avenger.Quote:
Originally Posted by hiyouthere
Generally, I try to lure out bolts with wayfarers. They can't afford to not bolt it in the early game obviously, so what do I mean by lure?
Say it's turn 1, and you have mom and wayfarer. I play wayfarer because it's the superior strategy if my opponent has exactly one removal spell. I'd much rather see a wayfarer get burned unless I'm mana screwed than a mom.
Also another amendment is our creatures are usually ~ their creatures ever since the addition of sphinx. However, I may be cutting to 1 sphinx for the 18th land since every match I lost in the most recent tournament was to mana screw and mulligans to mana screw with the exception of one game vs. dreadstill.
The issue is this: you may look at zoo's best creature and go: wow that's a lot better than our best creature. The problem is both sides have counters and/or removal, so what actually happens is everybody trades down and the comparison that matters is something like our 2nd or 3rd best creature vs. their 2nd or 3rd best creature. (best in the sense of once it's in play, not taking CIP effects into account.)
Anyway, it's not actually clear to me who has better creatures. If they just straight up had better creatures, we wouldn't win. I mean in the old build we had a bunch of draw but weaker creatures, and then we lost cause you don't get time to draw like 2-3 bad creatures to their 1 good creature. (and to play them as well.)
So it can't be that our creatures are getting outclassed. If you think about how wayfarer demands a burn spell, and how mom neutralizes their best creature (and possibly also the exalted off a qasali), avenger at least trades for nacatl, and probably also deals some damage beforehand, grunt stops goyf and locks horns with lavamancer, while walling nacatl or QPM, kird ape/figure of destiny, etc, you see the interactions aren't as 1-dimensional as you suggested.
The scariest kind of decks for UWT are all-in decks, because all-in decks are the decks that are most likely to statistically fluctuate far up enough to beat UWT. For a more numerical example, think of like: you have to beat 65, and you can either choose to have a uniform distribution: 30-70, or a uniform distribution: 10-90. You obviously pick the latter. All in sorts of decks are like almost every combo deck, including things like painter, even the dreadstill I lost to, reanimator...
As another example of this, observe that LED ichorid is much scarier for UWT, since regular ichorid always loses. (It even loses g1 like >50% of the time in testing.) If you play LED, at least you can roll the dice to see if you get lucky 2/3 times, and pull a turn 1 win or something.
Sometimes this thread looks like propaganda. I'm sorry but I fail to see how we can have a 50% game 1 against Ichorid, just doesn't compute... what do we have over Bant for example? Jitte and Jotun? Maybe Spell Pierce? Still doesn't look right, especially with those White Weenish hand that this deck gets more oftenly than I would like.
All of Zoo's creatures are superior to ours. Eventually it's going to come down to a point where you have to use Mom to block and use to give protection to your blocker, then it gets removed. They have a huge pile of removal, and sometimes they can just ignore our puny 1/X's and just attack/remove our creatures until we die.
The two things we have on them is Jitte and counters. But that becomes somewhat irrelevant when they just out power every single one of your guys with their weakest creature.
PS: This post is so getting deleted isn't it? Sorry, I had to do it. Nah, just gave it the ol' Entnazifizierungsverfahren. The rest of the post is fine. ~NC
A 50% game with ichorid comes with thinking. As long as you don't make errors, this should happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by alderon666
Ichorid loses to itself some of the time. When it doesn't lose to itself (assuming LEDless) then it still takes a while for it to get going. I dunno you just have to practice it, and once you get good come back and talk to me if you don't have >~50% g1. Even if you can't get 50% g1, you have like 90% g2-3 anyway so it doesn't really matter.
Also, don't forget that UWT players are probably on average better than Bant players. Bant has a few pro pilots, but on average their contribution gets swallowed by the sea of people who play bant. But any regular player who plays bant probably had to actively shun UWT to get there. They're the same kind of people who still to this day go like: wayfarer is not good. Oh fuck, I just got wastelanded 3 times and my opponent came out of his mana screw. Not only are players who don't play UWT more likely to be bad players on average, but specifically they are much worse against UWT because they grossly underestimate the deck. (That's why they aren't playing it.) So people like me get two advantages against other decks automatically before we even look at lists. I'm also a pretty good UWT pilot, so that's a 3rd advantage. Then everything you mentioned that we have over bant are further advantages. You can probably see how grunt is pretty good, but I'd guess you're underestimating jitte. As soon as jitte charges up once, they probably can't get bridges for the rest of the game. It also stops ichorids and narcomoebas before they can be sacrificed to anything.
I already showed it's not the case that zoo's creatures just "outclass" ours. Since I was only stating facts, proofs, and no opinions, I don't really understand what more there's left to say. As long as you believe that logic is a valid way of thinking, you should be on board with my claim. If not, point out a fallacy. I can even additionally point out fallacies in your claims. You assymetrically pretend that he has all this removal but we don't have any, but we have 4 swords, 2 jittes, 2 SFMs to get them, and then we can counter creatures as well with 7 additional counters. We also draw our removal much more than they draw theirs, being that we have 9-10 draw spells. Incidentally, the draw spells also somewhat offset the rather weak argument that FOW is a slightly worse removal spell. In fact, against zoo I'd gladly trade a card and a life to make the removal 2 mana cheaper than the best removal spell that doesn't give them like 4 life.
Logic is consistent. If anybody successfully proves a claim one way, then no matter what other way you look at it you won't find any way to debunk the fact. It perplexes me that you're looking. Are you one of those philosophically tormented individuals? If so, join the club, but I get bothered by other things besides the way reasoning works.
In case you can't just trust me that UWT is actually as good as stated, you can look at data. You said you thought I was spewing propaganda, so you're probably one of the people (person? You all are just multi's of the same person right?) who thinks that data magically becomes useless when it isn't pristine. Then pull up tournament data. We did that once, and it revealed that UWT won 65% of its games in tournaments. I don't see how there can be further accusations when there is data. We're not censoring you: go look up whatever data your heart desires. You'll probably look for data that confirms your claims only, if you're into slimy debate tactics and that sort of thing. I'd be surprised if there even existed a tournament where UWT lost more games than it won. On average, it will be ~65%. Perhaps by now it's higher since players are more practiced. But I doubt even the most dishonest debater could produce anything suggestive in the way of data.
I don't really get why people are still fighting the statistics. If you don't believe them by now you obviously are just not believing them because you do not want to. Go read the first 10 pages or so. This argument has been brought up many many times. I personally am only about 40-60 against ichorid in testing, but there can be many reasons for this. (ie. I make some minor play errors, my opponent passively mulligans, which occasionally gives him slow hands, also we could blame shuffling errors, or a fail mws randomizer)
I have been really enjoying this deck, as I have not run into any matchups that are just insta-lose. Sadly many people in my area now understand what the deck is trying to do, and next month my tournament report will show whether I place due to skill or just surprise factor. There is also a Grand Prix Columbus trial that I am looking forward to attending.(Its in the hometown) =]
I'm not really in the "UW Tempo beats everything" camp. I'd rather say, it has a reasonable chance to go at least 65%+. I'd be first to argue that's a false claim, but I myself seem to be doing just that. I'm not even that good at magic (I absolutely suck at limited for example). I haven't been doing good with Landstill before I've started playing UWT (and I've played the deck for 1.5 years).
I've went 4-0 today, beating Burn 2-0, Reanimator 2-1. BW Pox 2-1, Merfolk 2-0.
The total stats are: 69-28-6, which amounts to 67% of wins. I've even gained some % since Forbiddian last updated the first post.
The problem I have with the statistics is that I played heavily with the deck and the so called easy matchups, didn't turn out to be so easy. The best Merfolk hand is unbeatable, you can't beat a perfect lord draw. Ichorid is definitely doable, but 50% is a lot claim against a deck that is generally accepted a "100%" game 1 win. Zoo was a disaster... I was actually testing against a very poor player and he rolled over me making the worse play possible every time. It's just stupid how big their creatures are and how much removal they have. Enchantress was also another hard matchup, I had to choose between Dazing acceleration or not Dazing anything at all, then I could counter all of his bombs and couldn't put a decent clock on him. I suppose game 2 is easier with Aura of Silence, but other than that the match felt abysmal.
But against deck like CB Top and less aggressive decks that run 4 StP's as removal, this deck rolls over them. Wayfarer keeps them low on mana, and even when they land CB Top soflock Vial + Stonforge and Jotun allow you to fight their threats pretty well. Also goblins, Jitte > Goblins.
Has Divert been already dismissed? It looked promissing against decks with lots of removal, maybe with a 4th Wasteland instead of the Sphinx we can tax the opponent on a regular basis 2-1'ing him.
Sooo Ichorid is accepted with having a "100%" game win but you cannot accept that UW tempo has a 50% or better? I guess it just comes down to if you know the deck. I have had some issues with zoo but I am still about even with game wins. Enchantress on the other hand I have not tested, but it seems to be a bad matchup. I don't exactly know what to counter of theirs. And not many decks can beat an amazing lord draw against merfolk. I mean if were gonna play that game the matchups are probably all >50%. If every deck you test against gets divine draws and makes no play mistakes yes this deck will have issues.
I'm yet to face that mentioned 'perfect lord draw'. I guess that happens much rarer than average, yet winning, UW Tempo draw. Or I'll rephrase, their average draw is crap compared to UWT's. So far, my experience tells me that you have to make an effort to even drop a single game. 7-0 by matches and counting. (10-0 including magic-league).
Zoo is tough, but doable. You're not favored, but there's nothing abysmal. I think I even have a slightly positive record.
Enchantress is cold to Aura of Silence and/or Ehtersworn Canonist postboard, so the match isn't that hard. It also pretty raceable preboard, given you don't let him get 2+ enchantress effects. I haven't played the match a lot, since the deck barely shows up, but where I played Aura, I just won.
I was going to post about enchantress but tinefol got most of it. Actually, even g1 is pretty easy. The idea is something similar to the stax matchup, where I posted an example of what I'm about to say. You try to beat them down, but if it fails, you have the back up grunt my grunt my grunt to recycle wastelands and countermagic plan, until they're either decked or they run out of resources. Look at Matt's videos to see this happening vs. stax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinefol
@alderon666
If you're playing the deck as well as you should be, the numbers make more sense. The deck has a lot of power, and if you are simply a better player than your opponent, that helps a lot. Some decks are a little bit more forgiving than UWT, so if you mess up too much, you can seal your own fate. But Zoo can be hard if you can't get a Mom on the table to help out...it's difficult, not impossible. But my experience against Zoo is on MWS and "for fun" games against friends, so my samples are probably not as accurate as they could be.
I haven't piloted UWT in a while (took a break), but I had experience playing other tempo decks like Tempo Thresh and when I played, I felt confident that I had a fair chance against any deck that I had to face (50/50).
@pi4meterftw
Do you mind posting or PMing me your most current list?
I'd just add, if your meta is Enchantress all over the place, you can add 1-2 Aura Fluxes to the sideboard, stop worrying and start loving the bomb.
Missing a tourney due to work today >:-|
I would have just run the accepted list probably in a metagame of Ichorid, zoo, ANT, goblins, belcher, new horizons.
Mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh There aren't a lot of Legacy events where I live so I'm bummed. Maybe next time ;-(
is gold meadow harrier no good? I guess I'm looking for a creature that can bounce or remove crazy stuff like progenitus/iona/dreadnaught/ileviathan but can't seem to find anything with a nontargeting citp ability or similar.
I play Karakas for Iona, you can try Tariff, it gets rid of shroud creatures for the mere cost of paying one or two additional mana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Octopusman
Why play Tariff when you could be playing Curfew? Curfew also gets rid of shroud creatures and has the benefit of getting around Iona on white.
You play Karakas? How has that been working out for you? It looks suboptimal to me when you could be playing more basics. It might be better in the Reanimator matchup, but you are likely sacrificing consistency in your other matchups in which wasteland is relevant.
By "play Tariff" I meant "play Tariff next to Curfew".
I use Karakas, because some people play Iona and 20/20. It is my 18th land, I play the usual lands as everyone else + one of Karakas.
Retribution of the Meek seems better. You'll probably end up paying at least 1 or 2 extra for Tariff under most circumstances.
But Curfew is just a lot better than either and there isn't really a void that Retribution of the Meek could fill.
Played on monday in a local tournament, only three rounds 1-1-1(3-3-1 in games):
Round 1 (BUg depths):
G1: Nothing to shout about, had to swords a marit lage which was fun. Grunt was a key player here just stopping those goyfs and beating when I needed him to.
G2: Didn't think I needed to side anything since it went so well before but he sided some cards. Nothing too exciting here either, got to wasteland a maze of ith and a dark depths. Wayfarer and Avenger get the shout outs here, 2 avengers a jitte and a grunt seems good.
2-0 there
Round 2 (LED-less ichorid):
This is actually a buddy of mine who usually plays merfolk but was playing with a mutual friend's deck instead
G1: Ichorid did the annoying thing it does and I didn't see any grunts to chomp on his graveyard.
G2: Sided in the normal hate package, left out the third grunt though since I didn't think I needed it. He pithing needled my tormod's so I sacced in response to needle coming into play to get rid of the therapy in his grave. Next turn was wheel on him and on to game 3.
G3: Saw an early wheel but not enough land to play it quick and no counter to the ray of revelation he had in hand. No grunts this game either and he got rid of my dazes early with a 2 land board therapy.
1-2 there
Round 3 (Bant Survival with loyal retainers):
G1: Not much land, he started with two swords and kept me off creatures, blah blah blah game 2.
G2: I know he has iona and loyal retainers, so in come the curfews. Long game, he paths me twice, swords me twice and I swords him twice. Eventually get there with 2 moms an avenger and a jitte. Interesting fact: Mulligan'd to 5 at the start and still made it out.
G3 : Another long game, another extensive removal game with lots of swords and some paths. Both grunts get the swords and neither of us really get there. Ended up going to turns and ends in a tie.
1-1-1
Ended up getting 4th overall which was alright. My buddy playing ichorid came in first and another buddy playing zoo came in second.
Notes: I have trouble knowing exactly when to mulligan, probably should have done so G3 against ichorid so I had some harder counters against him, and the third grunt should have come in. Not exactly sure what should come out, but the forge tenders never showed up for me, they just sat towards the bottom of the deck and waved hello when I was de-boarding at the end of the match.