I personally haven't had any problems with go wide strats; tnn, jitte, and appropriate use of targeted removal tends to do the job. You don't beat go wide strats by finding enough 1 for 1 removal to power through, you need to resolve your bombs to make their advantage meaningless. Pyromancer and its tokens aren't going to do so hot against a 4/4 vigilance lifelinker, DNT and its lack of countermagic are going to have problems with voltron'd TNN, etc.
On another not, I notice a lot of complaints about the controlling lists seem to come down to lack of experience in playing against a certain scenario. A lot of "there are a lot of creatures and we don't have enough removal" or "they have discard and kcommand, sfm is worthless". These situations require judgment on what threats are worth committing to and protecting, which ones are bait, should you be defensive or aggressive, stuff like that. Like there is a lack of knowledge or experience on how to pilot the deck on a strategic level.
What sofai in side for?Originally Posted by Mzfroste
Hello,
How underpowered would an oldschool UW list without splash be right now? Maybe even running stuff like Mishra's Factory and/or back to basics. Is the red splash absolutely necessary. I'm mainly asking due to me owning Tundras but having to buy Underground Sea or Volcanic Island seems a pain right now... If it is completely underpowered, I might just look for a different deck.
UWr is very similar in playstyle to straight UW, the red just gives you different role players. If you don't want to run a 3rd color you'd just be running more stuff like Council's Judgement and Spell Snares, which would be fine. Also UW Stoneblade did win the challenge this past weekend, so presumably it is fine power level wise.
The power level of the deck is much more tied to the skill of the pilot than the exact 75 being played. For example, a straight UW list made Top 16 of GPLV so it definitely still has some legs. That being said, the splashes afford you different strengths and weaknesses which may be more or less relevant in your meta. UWr has better mana than Esper and a better fairdeck MU (extra removal from Lightning Bolt) and blue MU (Blast effects post-board). Esper has more strengths against combo and control due to having access to targeted discard, but forces you to fetch duals early and limits the number of basics you can run.
Overall though, either splash is only really impacting 5-7 cards in your list between main and sideboard so it really is mainly a tweak for your particular/expected metagame. Given the high degree of similarity between the different decks, I don't really think you can classify any of the decks as under/over powered. The question really is: can my particular version of Stoneblade do well with my playstyle in my metagame? This is a much harder question to answer and can only really be solved through testing.
That is a very accurate and articulate description of the stoneblade archetype
On a complete aside. Has anyone tried teferi's response? I bought a foil Japanese copy so I feel obligated to play it for funsies lol. Teferi's + snapcaster might be somewhat comical against port/vial/wasteland decks at a LGS tournament. Maybe one of us can live the dream and teferi's in response to dustbowl
Teferi's Response seems more cute than good. You have to run enough that you'll have it in hand when you need, which is probably far more often than you want it. I can't see this being better than other options.
I'm trying out various builds of straight UW and UWr lists, and I have a handful of questions:
- It seems like a number of the UWr lists are running a basic Mountain. I appreciate the the consistency of running basics, but how does this make the mana? It seems like drawing the mountain is pretty bad, and is mainly useful as a fetch target in post-board games to have Pyroblast handy. Can anyone running this config provide feedback?
- I really want to run some non-basic hate. I feel like if I'm running a list with 6+ basics to beat Wasteland, I might as well win some games via Back to Basics or Blood Moon. It seems a good number of lists are running both cards to good effect. Does anyone have feedback on these cards? Obviously Blood Moon is the more powerful piece of hate, but I can see it being awkward to cast on occasion.
- Is Path to Exile just not good enough anymore? I've been wanting to include some additional removal in my board and it seems like everyone is running EE, Verdict, or another sweeper.
Sure running 3 colors will always have tougher mana than 2 colors, but the red is pretty unobtrusive since you don't need to hit red "on curve". And as for your basic mountain not tapping for blue or white, that can come up but its only 1 land and the only times it would come up are if your only lands are island and mountain, which would prevent you from casting SFM or CS on curve. But that's the trade off you make for being able to fetch a non-wastesable red source, which I do think is worth it.
I've ran a UW list with 8 basics and 2 main deck back to basics with success and enjoyment. Highly recommended! I'm not an expert on blade decks but I put it together after miracles was banned just to use my UW cards.
I believe basic mountain is good if you want to run bolt/blasts versus wasteland decks. I dont see you running (the spell) Counterspell with basic mountain in the deck. The early UU is problematic if you also want to fetch basics.
@ mz froste:
I'm thinking about building an uwr list similar to yours, and there were a few questions I wanted to ask you based on your legacy challenge list:
Running SoFi in the board: wouldn't sword of feast and famine be a better option against combo, adding an additional angle of attack (discard), and allowing you to keep your shields up at all times? Or is that slot not purely dedicated to making the SFM package better against combo?
No blood moons in the sideboard? Aren't the percentage points they'll give you against certain decks just too much to pass up?
Disenchant instead of wear tear: I assume you find the fuse mode does not come up often enough to make it worth having to fetch red to destroy an artifact? It does seem that certain decks could present both targets though (lands, off the top of my head)
Thanks for your answers!
I'm surprised at the lack of interest regarding the UW variant. I think it's cool because it's streamlined and plays wastelands. The 4 containment priest sideboard is awesome
I think feast & famine is better than fire & ice. I believe mzfroste already explained somewhere why he changed the FaF in my list to a SoFi
Bloodmoon is annoying because it stops your own fetches. It's personal taste. High risk high reward
Disenchant is easier to cast on a stable mana base. Opportunities to fuse rarely come up
I've wondered about this myself and I think it mostly comes down to the meta that you expect. We have a pretty high curve, so running Wasteland requires upping your total number of lands. Michael Bernat was running 24 total. This gives you an edge against greedy fair decks, but Waste is far less potent against combo. So if your meta is very fair, I imagine finding a way to fit Wasteland in your deck will benefit you. If your meta is not, the decreased spell density will hurt rather than help you. Completely agreed on Containment Priest, that card alone has really made me want to jam white in Legacy. It is such a stupid powerful hatebear against a number of hard MUs.
I used to run a singleton SoFaF in my board for combo, where it did a ton of work. However, this was before the inclusion of TNN in the deck. SoFaI is helpful against combo in that it gives you a substantial clock in a single card that also draws you additional disruption. SoFaF is almost certainly better against combo, but SoFaI also shines in fair MUs when you can Voltron your TNN. Seven unblockable damage a turn tends to end the game quickly. I think the flexibility of SoFaI is what makes it a strong choice, since SoFaF is much less impressive against fair decks (not dead, just not as good). Also outside of Snapcaster and Jace, the deck doesn't have much in the way of card advantage so being able to draw every turn is pretty sweet.
Disenchant is better on the mana, Bloodmoon is always kinda hit or miss and unless czech pile becomes the run away best deck I don't think I'll run it.
I don't think Feast and Famine is any better than Fire and Ice against combo. They both net you 1 card, but letting your opponent choose what to discard isn't good enough to stop combo I don't think, unless you hit them 2-3 times and if that is happening the game is over no matter what is equipped to the SFM. But Fire and Ice is incredibly good against other TNN decks, the other blue control decks, I really can't understate how good its been for me.
There's been quite a resurgence in deathblade and esper. They're both pretty good with the new addition of collected brutality to discard the extra lands all stoneblade decks inevitably flood into
Thanks for your comprehensive advice on how to approach these matchups. Really appreciate it.
Going by this list of yours, let me know if you would have boarded the same way as me.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=16063&d=298911&f=LE
Jund : - 4 FOW, -2 Jace, TMS for Disenchant, EE, 2 RIP, SOFI, Surgical Extraction
4c Control: (this i am not too sure how to board): -4 FOW, -2 Spell Pierce for EE, Izzet Statiscaster, 3 Pyroblasts, SOFI
Lands: -2 Lightning bolt, - Supreme Verdict, - 2 Spell Pierce, -1 FOW for 2 RIP, Surgical, Meddling Mage, EE and disenchant
Not sure about the online metagame, but do you consider RIP to be superior to extraction right now? Especially when it negates snapcaster mage and might be tad slow against B/R reanimator.
I don't play that same list anymore, but the general idea I adhere to when siding against those sorts of decks are to know if I can play a more controlling game, or if I have to ride a powerful wincon to victory. I generally bring in as much countermagic as I can against 4 color to protect my threats. I obviously bring in my red blasts to answer their Jace, Leovold, Snapcasters. I also tend to overload their Kcommands rather than avoid them, so I'll have all 3 equipment postboard. Because I think riding a threat to victory is better against them than trying to be the better snapcaster deck, I keep in all my threats other than Clique since it matches up to terribly against Strix. I cut the EE since there isn't any problem permenant I have to blow up that isn't also answerable with Blast or STP. I do cut a coupld STP though since 6 spot removal is overkill when I'm only interested in hitting Leovold and DRS, and Bolt does back up my aggro plan a bit as well as being an answer to Jace. Also I've been experimenting with RIP since they rely on the gy more than me and it might give me the edge, but thats 2 more cards I'd have to cut so I'm not sold yet.
For Jund, its tougher and more all in on protecting a threat. Half the time I don't bother trying to wait for countermagic to protect the TNN, just throw it out and hope they don't have LOTV, unless your hand is set up to easily protect it, like playing out a Snap first or something. RIP are a must, if you have Surgical you can try it if they have Pfire. Same like 4 color I try to overload threats and keep in all my equipment since something is going to get discarded or Kcommanded and the easiest path to victory is Voltron TNN. Answering DRS is super important, and if you can keep their threats off board you have time to topdeck out of their discard, so I'd keep in most of the removal. And between Hymn and LOTV and Kcommand I'm definetly keeping in Spell Pierce.
Basically against decks that can outgrind you, it's more important to be resolving threats, so the countermagic that protects their threats and disrupts their card advantage are more important. So like I said all countermagic expect for Forces comes in vs 4 color, and I sometimes keep in 2 Forces. Against Jund, same as before expect the blast are obviously not coming in, and their aren't enough targets for Fluster imo. But the board wipes and anti permenant cards are more important than against 4 color so those come in instead. But as a general rule of thumb, if they run DRS you keep in most/all of your removal, and if they can outgrind you, board in a way that can protect a threat.
People need to write more articles and posts like this rather than just saying Out: These cards In: These Cards
While i'm not opposed to someone bringing sideboarding notes to a tournament, (i've done it myself and they help), it's concepts like these that really make you think about WHY you're boarding not so much HOW you're boarding and I think the more you think about WHY you're boarding the better decisions you'll typically make between games.
Yup, totally agree with you. Thanks so much, Mzfroste for the detailed analysis of these matches, appreciate it
I'm on straight UW and I feel like a very unplayed card in the grindy DRS matchups is misdirection. I'm playing 2 in my board. While it doesn't 100% sure up the matchup, it certainly helps you beat some of their 2 for 1s.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
