Force of Will, Daze, Counterbalance and Thought Seize is an extreme disruption package even for Threshold, going 2-4 against a deck that's almost designed against you is extremely good.
Thought Seize is just a fucked up card for TES to deal with, getting your Vexing Shusher discarded is bad times.
I went 2-4 versus a very anti-combo list, that was almost 3-3, if you look at the match results I went 1-2 a lot. If I could've squeaked out a win in one of those it would've been 3-3. Which would've given people a quite different reaction. I still don't believe UGW Threshold is too tough, Thoughtsieze is what won him so many games. Against normal UGW I think I would've went 3-3 or better.
Not to be a dick or anything, but the "results" are pretty shitty as far as reporting. For all the hype and huge opening post, could we get at least some details? Did Counterbalance win the games, did TES try to go off without protection, I guess I would just like a little more than 2-1
The results will be up eventually. Writing up seven rounds takes time, I won't lie, I have two done and they're more effort than it's worth. Mine are going to be brief, I have things to do. I can't drop my responsibilities for Magic: The Gathering. I only saw four people volunteer for this experiment, if people continue to complain, there won't be another. There's nothing in this for me or the other three people, so we have no motive. I could care less if another didn't happen.
I'm interested in seeing the results. Were there any mid-game MWS malfunctions?
Results?
Edit-
He went 7 and 9 in games. Not that bad. Thoughtseize was probably a house in taking Vexxing Shusher away. Also, decks with no clocks gives TES more time to set up. MUC, Landstill, Fishesque decks (weak creatures) are slow to kill us and leaves us all the time in the world.It's not bad for a combo deck, but considering that you're going 2-4 against a deck that makes up a big share of the metagame (especially when adding other blue-based decks that run CBalance + Top, Force, Stifle and additional disruption, like Dreadstill, UWb Fish, Merfolk or CTop MUC into the equation), it seems to be not enough to get up to Tier 1 status.
And is there any chance for there being a competition against Stax/Stompy builds, or do you guys (emidln + Bryant) have better things to do in the next weeks ? Because I find those things very interesting...
Can you all stop talking about Thoughseize as some kind of shocking new tech? Every Threshold deck should be maindecking a playset of that card, and you aren't doing yourself any favors if you test against lists without it.
Nobody said it's "shocking new tech". They just said that it's good against TES.
Less than 10% do.Every Threshold deck should be maindecking a playset of that card,
That's why they're testing against a list with Thoughtseize, I guess.and you aren't doing yourself any favors if you test against lists without it.
What was the point of your post again? Promoting Thoughtseize in Threshold?
I was referring to this attitude:
You cannot claim that a deck has a favorable matchup against Threshold, but concede that it gets murdered by versions with Thoughtseize. As I said, anyone who focuses on testing against Threshold without Thoughtseize is doing a disservice to themselves, because he or she is testing against suboptimally-built decks.
I'm sure you have all sorts of factual evidence to back this up, but it isn't very relevant here unless our goal is to develop decks specifically for underdeveloped metagames. Thoughtseize in Threshold is not new, but it is recent (by the standards of Legacy technology), and I can assure you that people will continue adopting it in greater and greater numbers.Less than 10% do.
Also, I lied. I know you don't have any factual evidence to back that up.
They're testing against a list with Thoughtseize because their testing volunteer, as someone who actually follows the development of Threshold, provided his own decklist. When this "challenge" was originally proposed, Bryant suggested a thoroughly outdated UGW list. And the only objection made about that was that it had Pithing Needles in it!That's why they're testing against a list with Thoughtseize, I guess.
The point of my post was to bring a little objectivity and honesty into this thread. You cannot write off an unfavorable testing result against Threshold because the testing list had Thoughtseize in it. Winning two out of four matchups is not "okay" because you would have done better against a worse list.What was the point of your post again? Promoting Thoughtseize in Threshold?
Actually there are many many UGR ******** lists which obv donīt play seize. So I think the list they are testing with is especialy hard to beat.
And UGw as well.
It's not like UGb is the only variant in the DTB forum. There are three of them. Let's not make such preposterous statement like
On the other hand,
is true, but I don't think that was the point of what was being said. The results are meant only to be compared to the FT ones anyway, so there would be no point "writing them off" since FT will test against the same build.
Last edited by ParkerLewis; 05-17-2008 at 06:33 PM. Reason: typo
Well if you want to count on bad players coming, or decent players coming with bad decks, Im not so sure how worried we should be about beating those people anyways
Really though, listen to Alix, hes probably better more knowledgeable than all of you about Threshold. Thoughtsieze is basically a Force of Will, except you dont lose another card, and you get to completely choose what goes. It should be in every list because every list should probably be 4 or 5 colors.
All they're saying is that they'd have a better matchup against a list without Thoughtseizes. Nobody said the matchup was positive.You cannot claim that a deck has a favorable matchup against Threshold, but concede that it gets murdered by versions with Thoughtseize. As I said, anyone who focuses on testing against Threshold without Thoughtseize is doing a disservice to themselves, because he or she is testing against suboptimally-built decks.
Factual evidence #1: LinkAlso, I lied. I know you don't have any factual evidence to back that up.
Factual evidence #2: Link
I'm not that stupid.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)