If zoo is a hard matchup (and to a lesser extent, the merfolk deck with 16 lords) and these are both a large portion of the metagame, is it good to board in 3-4 Threads of Disloyalty? Has it been tried?
Printable View
If zoo is a hard matchup (and to a lesser extent, the merfolk deck with 16 lords) and these are both a large portion of the metagame, is it good to board in 3-4 Threads of Disloyalty? Has it been tried?
Bant aggro doesn't run the same creatures as Zoo or RGW Loam, though. Bant aggro runs rhox war monks and usually doesn't run pridemages, zoo runs little guys and lavamancers, Loam runs crushers and terravores, etc. Your creature base is literally the same, besides fathom seers, which in combat is obviously terrible whatever its other benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinefol
I explicitly stated that counter-magic clearly improves some matchups. I think it is obvious that it also worsens others, and I think goblins is one of them.Quote:
* UWT runs permission, which, unlike you assume, not only highly improves some matches, but also improves overall consistency of the deck and its susceptibility to hate. It just doesn't worsen the deck anyhow. In fact it'd be hard for me to name a match up where D&T would be better. Surely not goblins.
Your deck 2 for 1s itself off FoW, lacks protection from colour guys, has no karakas inevitability engine and has dead late draws (daze, FoWs without blue cards etc). I don't see how it could *not* be worse than D&T against a deck with high card advantage and relatively little vested in individual drops :).
But I'm not the one making wild claims. You are. The lackey/sphere comment is only one of your specious comments.Quote:
So the point stands, if you switch lackey and vial for Chalice and Sphere, add some 2 mana lands and morphs, the decks are the same, yeah.
I'm inclined to, since you're claiming stupid wild things based on nothing (wait, you played 1 game?).
I played a match against a rare deck whose threat presentation closely mirrors a much more common deck (even if its strategy does not), was surprised and interested by its card choices but felt there were theoretical issues in what it gives against an aggro-leaning meta, and rolled over to the forums to discuss it.
Certain bant aggro builds run Kotr, Qasali and goyf, Zoo does too. RGW Loam I'm talking about runs neither Vores, nor Crushers (a player from my meta placed 17th at GP Madrid with it). Therefore the decks are equal, since they share 12 creatures.Quote:
Bant aggro doesn't run the same creatures as Zoo or RGW Loam, though. Bant aggro runs rhox war monks and usually doesn't run pridemages, zoo runs little guys and lavamancers, Loam runs crushers and terravores, etc. Your creature base is literally the same, besides fathom seers, which in combat is obviously terrible whatever its other benefits.
Yeah, UWT totally runs Mangara, Stonecloacker, Goldmeadow Harrier, Flickerwisp. Benevolent Bodyguard, Spectral Lynx, etc.
D&T on other hand runs Wayfarer, Fathom Seer and Sphinx. Oh wai...
Totally wrong. In fact, both Daze and FoW are very fine tools against goblins, since they counter the important stuff vs goblins.Quote:
I think it is obvious that it also worsens others, and I think goblins is one of them.
Since when that was an argument? Since when FoWing Ringleader is worse than, uhm... using Mangara on it?Quote:
Your deck 2 for 1s itself off FoW
LOLWUT? Mother of Runes?Quote:
lacks protection from colour guys
Craprakas engine? Against Goblins? Seriously? You are probably busy Wastelanding their Flagstones of Trokair.Quote:
has no karakas inevitability engine
You keep forgetting that UWT has a load of card advantage. And it has less dead draws, because it runs less lands. And Daze is almost never useless against goblins.Quote:
and has dead late draws (daze, FoWs without blue cards etc).
Except that it has the tools to counter that card advantage and gather card advantage itself?Quote:
I don't see how it could *not* be worse than D&T against a deck with high card advantage and relatively little vested in individual drops :).
There's a definition word about what you're talking about: saracsm. StudyQuote:
But I'm not the one making wild claims. You are. The lackey/sphere comment is only one of your specious comments.
As I told, thanks for sharing, it doesn't mean you're right, and I'll just keep rolling over Goblins.Quote:
I played a match against a rare deck whose threat presentation closely mirrors a much more common deck (even if its strategy does not), was surprised and interested by its card choices but felt there were theoretical issues in what it gives against an aggro-leaning meta, and rolled over to the forums to discuss it.
All of the huge egos in this thread make it almost impossible to resist the urge to troll.
Man i cant resist.
Maybe you should play guard duty. I think its better than STP because they dont gain life.
Where is Pi4meter when you need him?Quote:
Originally Posted by cseraph
He's currently banned from the source, actually. I would make some huge remark about what an idiot the guy is, but I hope the people in this thread are smart enough to know that this is a clear case of some elitist "pro" trying to spout nonsense without ever learning how to play the deck.
But clearly, he has a point. Force of will is so bad because it 2 for 1's you. Every deck should cut it right now. And clearly, the karkaras inevitability engine is so much better than Fathom Seer.
Do you board Force out against Zoo? Why? / why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Isei
Haven't you heard? Forbiddian and Pi4 are the same person. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by menace13
I do miss reading his trolls. It was like having Jon Stewart read the news. Even if you disagreed with him on something, it was still awesome.
I expected the FoW-related trolling. FoW is a fantastic card, holds the format together, etc etc. But assuming it is great in every matchup is silly.
FoW without a strong card advantage engine - and I don't believe fathom seer and a singleton sphinx are a powerful card advantage engine, not by format standards - is good in two situations:
1) Against powerful but fragile decks that crumple when a crucial piece is disrupted.
2) When you can quickly take advantage of the tempo/disruption advantage.
I agree that it accomplishes the first goal in this deck, but goblins is not that kind of deck. Goyf blue decks have the speed to benefit from the second, but this deck doesn't.
So yeah, I don't think FoW is as good as, say, burrenton forge tender against goblins.
You're entitled to disagree, but the degree of animosity here is rather amusing :wink:.
Obv the most played card of Eternal formats must be bad across a huge spectrum of match-ups, k got it thx for stopping by i'll take your advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by cseraph
You misunderstand the deck once again. You're assuming that all of our card advantage is in Fathom seer? Try Weathered Wayfarer. Sure, some might say it only gets land, etc. But, unless you happen to be a neolithic idiot of a player, you don't evaluate cards in a vacuum. Wayfarer makes UW Tempo basically the only deck that can, with fair consistency, turn Brainstorm into Ancestral Recall. Also, since the deck only runs 18 land in the first place, quite a lot of your draws are going to be business. This is even more noticeable with an active wayfarer, which in itself can be called card advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by cseraph
Also, animosity in this thread is mainly directed towards people that have no idea what they're actually talking about.
I may well be under-estimating wayfarer - but you're probably also over-estimating how easy it is to stay behind on lands against a more aggressive aether vial deck.
Your use of logic about the role you see wayfarer playing is good, though. The Ad hominem about having no idea what one is talking about isn't.
It's not an ad hominem to say that you don't have any idea what you're talking about because, in fact, you do not. Everyone could be nicer about it, but like most of NG's critics, you came into the thread brashly insisting that one of our strongly favorable matchups is actually unfavorable because you saw it play once (which is better than most, I admit) and are now officially qualified to commentate. In reality, Goblins is very easy for NG and despite my unfamiliarity with D&T, I suspect for them too. You're welcome to believe it isn't, but as Tinefol said, it's more or less proven and if you're going to insist against the facts, you're welcome to keep it to yourself.
About NG specifically, it's the most consistent t8 finisher of the 3 decks in the format that currently run a white weenie strategy. Uniquely among them, it also has (as you mentioned) a problem Zoo matchup, somewhere between 40/60 against and 50/50. Unfortunately boarding more heavily for an easy matchup with an entirely different strategy won't help us against Zoo, so you'll have to take it on faith that it gets kind of exhausting to have the thread cluttered by trolls rather than ideas for how to handle the real problems.
After testing the matchup with pi4meterftw, I'm not so sure it's a negative matchup at all. It is probably right around 50/50, hovering towards 55/45, with correct play. Threads of disloyalty in the sideboard are quite good.
A post is worth very little when ad hominems' and straight assertions take the place of analysis, and whatever else you think of my posts, they do contain reasons and logic. Simply saying "goblins is a very easy matchup" without assessing why or how you believe that to be the case is a waste of the reader's time. Merfolk is widely agreed to be very soft to goblins, even with jitte and a white splash, so I'd be very curious to hear why a superficially similar strategy plays out so differently for you (and yes, mystic is incredible, but goblin players who haven't adjusted to beat mystic are behind the times).
Still, I didn't come here to bash anyone's pet deck, and I'm sorry if I have been interpreted that way. I follow the online legacy meta primarily and D&T is far and away the top white weenie performer there, but if UW-Tempo is a better deck then it will presumably see more play in the future. I'm happy to test with what I have available with anyone looking to make it so.
If you stopped being a pretentious bastard, people probably wouldn't bash you as much.
First of all, let's start with what an ad hominem really is. It is a statement, often critical, following an argument to make it seem more persuasive, and is considered a fallacy in logical argument. A good example would be:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
The second part, which is the ad hominem, is directly linked to the first part of the statement: trying to discredit Jack. Now, let's compare this to what I put in my post:
"Also, animosity in this thread is mainly directed towards people that have no idea what they're actually talking about."
This is quite clearly an aside, addressing another point you had included in your previous post. As written, it is functionally interchangeable with the postscript of a letter. Just because something is gratuitous abuse of other people does not automatically make it an ad hominem. Here's another, theoretical example of one for you, that someone could possibly type if they wanted to use an ad hominem:
"Cseraph doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to UW Tempo. He's just a bad magic player in general."
The "He's just a bad magic player in general" being the ad hominem.
Now that we have that settled, I'll continue with actual, on topic discussion.
Merfolk loses to goblins because it tries to compete with it on a creature to creature basis. Even decks that run Tarmogoyf cannot manage this-- Canadian Threshold's way to win was to draw the sideboarded pyroclasms. Goyf only bought time. UW Tempo, on the other hand, has creatures that actually have abilities. This may be a difficult concept, so give it a couple minutes to set in before continuing.
The most notable is Mother of Runes. This card absolutely trounces Goblins, forcing them to not want to attack into your ever-untapped Serra Avenger. Weathered Wayfarer can keep up the aforementioned card advantage while, if needed, trade with a Lackey. All of this is on top of running 4 effective jittes (2 Stoneforge), and very few dead cards in the matchup (compare: 2 Spell Pierce vs. 4 Standstill and up to 4 Stifle).
Another note I'd like to make is that you have yet to actually offer anything constructive to this discussion as well. It seems all your posts can be summed up as such:
"LOLZ DNT is SO good. I love it. It makes me cream my pants. So, every other deck must suck. So, UWT sucks. It has bad matchups vs everything. I mean, there must be some reason everyone plays DNT. After all, who would actually play a deck that isn't the best in the format online? Since DNT dominates online, it's obviously the best ever ever ever."
I may exaggerate a bit, but you get the idea. Please, if you post here again, actually say something other than attempting to use Latin phrases when you have no actual idea what they mean.
Exaggerate a little? Please. Read your own post again.
I could as easily have phrased as my first post as "hey, it is super-cool that you're using a white weenie base with a much stronger combo matchup than D&T. Too bad it looks like it sacrifices the aggro matchups some." That I put a more negative twist on it is I suppose my mistake.
Obviously FoW is a remarkable tool against combo for a WW deck, and I think D&T has its own issues. Online is a bit weird vis a vis paper in that card availability works very differently, but it also sees a lot more actual games played than paper does, which is of some value. I flipped through the decks of the week for last week as a quick reference, and D&T made T8 four times in 5 events, UW Tempo zero. Other weeks I've seen are roughly similar, though I haven't bothered tallying them.
It is possible that this is because people online are missing the power of the deck, and if so, I'd be more than happy to see online fans of it prove me wrong. My initial reaction was that online has a ton of aggro decks, and what looked to me like an aggro weakness might be the culprit. I don't think that's crazy or foolish.
Finally... if topic-free abuse of a person in a public forum isn't intended to degrade their points, what exactly is it intended to do? It wouldn't be respected in a work or academic setting and I don't particularly respect it here.
The major reason UWT/NG is not online as much as DNT is more to do with budgets of said pilots than anything else. The cost of UWT is more than double and that is in just the 4 FoWs alone....... Also the reason why decks like Goblins are as poular online, people won't/can't buy the duals and FoW. As of 6/28 the standings for online events showing the top 3 decks are: Goblins(64 wins) Zoo(63W) and DNT(53W).
Yup. FoWs are in the 75-80 dollar range each, dazes are 8-10 bucks each. Throw in two sets of fetches, wastes and a grip of tundras, and you have a very, very expensive deck online.
I'm still building it - but it's not going to be cheap, and I can see that turning a very high percentage of players away from blue in general online.
Yeah, I would not take that kid seriously at all. He plays budget gobs online and all of a sudden is now qualified to comment and share his amazing insight into a format he has not even won one event in???? go buy some fukn duals you broke bastard!!Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckpixel