Originally Posted by Kodieyost
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
2 Tendrils of Agony
1 Dark Petition
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Infernal Contract
4 Cruel Bargain
1 Slithermuse
4 Shield Sphere
4 Phyrexian Walker
2 Ornithopter
4 Mox Opal
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Chrome Mox
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Culling the Weak
5 Swamp
I sat down to goldfish 50 hands, looking for a T1 kill on the play. Here are my stats:
T1 kills - 20 (40%)
Fizzles - 15 (30%)
Mull to oblivion - 15 (30%)
By way of comparison, the last time I ran this exercise for PSI my stats were an identical 40%/30%/30%. This suggests to me that a Mox Opal build of mono black SI is equivalent to PSI in terms of speed and consistency for goldfishing.
I strongly suspect that in actual games it will be the stronger deck, as you don't have to worry about killing yourself with Pact, and you can drop a blocker when you are slow playing. You also probably have more flexibility with sideboarding.
I'm putting the deck down for a while, though, as my +3 Ad Nauseam have arrived and I want to try SAINT.
Ah I see. And when you are goldfishing do you take the all-out approach for a T1 win or do you play it as if it's a real game and wait for T2/3 on some hands missing a resource?
I sat through and played 100 goldfished games going for the T1 kill as much as possible and pushed a lot closer to 60% (a significant number were T1 belcher with activation on T2 for GG, which I don't count as T1) with the traditional PSI list. However in practice I've ran into the issue of Pact -> Business -> FoW on business. Only one time was I able to LED and pay for my Pact before making a comeback to win, the rest of the time it's worthless to try fighting back on that without perpetual resources.
I'm thinking of jamming 8 tall men 4 cabal therapy 3 duress in the SB and just saying eff blue lol I think the tallmen are better there than the Pacts and ESGs
I'm not counting anything that does not actually kill on turn 1. This means throwing away a lot of very good hands that would almost certainly kill on t2, which is 'fast enough' to race most hate. I'll eventually run some other tests - turn 1 on the draw, turn 2 on the play, etc - but because SI has always been about that 'headline' t1 kill rate, this is a quick and easy way to compare two builds.
I gotcha. I've been considering 7 discard spells +MB over the Pacts, cantor DRS skull winder. Then again I feel like that diluted my g1 against nonU decks, so maybe I'll just board into it.
That list seems sub-optimal without Vault of Whispers, there's no reason to add more Artifact Creatures to the deck over Artifact Lands if all you're doing is testing the gold fishing speed. I'm not convinced either the Summoner's Pact or the Mox Opal lists are really any faster than Kobolds, Summoner's Pact loses speed due to having to sacrifice its land drop and Mox Opal loses speed due to not being able to imprint its creatures for mana so one thing or another costs you speed.
I disagree, Pact is EITHER a dude OR a mana. 2 Pact/Pact + ESG = 1 B mana, which neither robots nor kobolds create.
From a goldfishing perspective, you are probably right about Vault of Whispers. I went with Swamps largely because I was unsure of how I would want to sideboard. If I wanted to be able to bring in a green splash, then those Swamps could become Verdant Catacombs or Land Grants without negatively impacting performance, but if I had built the deck around Vault of Whispers, I'd be losing critical artifact density.
Equally, if my meta changed and I wanted to switch back to Land Grant and Belcher in the deck, Vault of Whispers would prevent that. I'm not saying Vault of Whispers is wrong, just that it shuts down a load of different options.
I also agree that the Pact builds have some weaknesses. Culling the Weak is far less powerful in those builds because all your creatures effecively cost 1 mana, making CtW +2 rather than +3 mana. Even the 'free' creatures cost you at least 1 mana. Dryad Arbor costs you 1 mana from the Swamp you can no longer play, Vine Dryad costs you 1 mana from the ESG you had to pitch, and Skyshroud Cutter costs you 1+ mana in the extra storm you need. Playing the original tallmen was quite an eye opener in that regard.
I think you'll find as you gold fish the deck a lot of the Pact SI changes have an adverse affect on your draw 4 chains compared to the creature SI lists because while Pact SI might be better able to get out of the gate it stumbles at the end of the finish line because there are more hurdles to Culling the Weak->Tendrils of Agony as well.
Swamps and Kobolds, despite being simple in and of themselves are actually adding a lot of consistency and complexity to the deck because you can play Swamp, cast Therapy, play Kobold and Flashback in order to take the deck into later turns without being any slower of a deck.
I definitely agree that Kobold SI and RoboSI are more consistently going turns 2+ and winning, as you'll often just lose to a Pact on T2/3 if you fizzle (usually will, sometimes we have perpetual resources from a long chain).
My point was merely that Pact isn't less consistent or slower T1, because it pulls double duty. There are hands where double Pact or Pact+ESG allow me to cast a Drit or Crit, which otherwise wouldn't have been possible with creatures instead.
As I get back into Legacy after many years away, I am conscious of how much skill and competitive knowledge I have lost - although the fact that our events are mid-week, evening affairs finishing up at around 23:00 after a long day at work probably doesn't help either! So, I've started making more detailed records of my competitive matches and then analyze them after the event. Because so few people play this deck, I'm posting my thoughts here, in case they are helpful to anyone else.
Tournament was a weekly event, four rounds of Swiss parings. I brought the following:
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
2 Tendrils of Agony
1 Dark Petition
4 Infernal Tutor
4 Infernal Contract
4 Cruel Bargain
1 Slithermuse
1 Skullwinder
1 Deathrite Shaman
1 Wild Cantor
2 Simian Spirit Guide
4 Summoner's Pact
4 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Lotus Petal
4 Chrome Mox
4 Dark Ritual
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Culling the Weak
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Swamp
1 Dryad Arbor
Sideboard
3 Swamp
4 Duress
4 Cabal Therapy
1 Past in Flames
3 Nature's Claim
The only change since my last event was the sideboard. In theory, Swamps offer diminishing returns (lol) after the third one, since that's how many I need to hardcast a D4. So I thought I would try trimming one to see how it felt.
Having thought about it, the only cards I can't race are Chalice and Leyline. Claim deals with both of those.
Round 1 - Turbo D&T?
Game 1: He wins the roll and plays Lotus Petal > City of Traitors > Ancient Tomb > Thalia, Heretic Cathar. Huh.
This slows me down by a turn as I have to play my fetchland out tapped. He swings for 3 the following turn, but I untap the Verdant Catacomb and proceed to win by playing a D4 into an IGG loop.
Game 2: I expect Chalice, so -4 Pact, -2 SSG, +3 Swamp, +3 Claim. While we've been rubbishing PSI a little recently, it actually plays through Chalice better than the other builds because although we lose the utility of Pact, the Culling package still works.
My opponent mulls to four, but it's the perfect four. T1 - Plains, Chalice (0). T2 - Plains, Thalia, Guardian of Thraben. Ouch!
We play draw-go for a few turns as I play out my lands. This allows me to hardcast a D4, which draws me into Nature's Claim and enough gas that I have a shot at going off through Thalia. He topdecks a second Chalice, which he plays for 1, and it's game over.
Game 3: I de-sideboard, as I can now attempt to race Chalice on the play. I manage to do just that, although it takes a convoluted Skullwinder chain to do so.
1-0
Round 2 - U/R Delver
Game 1: I've played this opponent before, so he knows what to expect. I win the dice roll, and he mulls to four looking for Force. He doesn't find it and I win on turn 1.
Game 2: -4 Pact, -4 CtW, -1 Cantor, -1 Skullwinder, -1 Slithermuse, +4 Therapy, +4 Duress, +3 Swamps.
My first hand was a tutor chain off Lotus Petal. With no perpetual resources, I would essentially be throwing my hand away if he had FoW. I mull, and draw two Swamps, acceleration, and discard. There is no business, but I have the scry, and I can be playing lands and discarding his cards for a turn or two while I look for business. I decide to keep.
That turns out to be a mistake, as half a dozen turns later I die to Delver beatdown without ever seeing a business spell.
Game 3: A solid hand with perpetual resources, acceleration, and business. I keep, and go off turn 1. However I draw into nothing but discard. Not ideal.
I use the discard to make sure he has nothing relevant, and then try again the following turn, having untapped and played a land. This time I draw into nothing but acceleration. He bolts me on his turn for the win.
U/R Delver is a difficult matchup, as they have both speed and disruption. The disruption forces us to slow down, and they are well positioned to take advantage of our life loss.
1-1
Round 3 - Stax variant?
Game 1: I win the dice roll and keep a decent hand. I play a turn 1 D4, drawing into a hand that will win next turn. He drops Trinisphere. Game over.
Game 2: Since I'm on the play, I intend to race the Chalice that I know he's mulling into. It's a good plan, and it works.
Game 3: -4 Pact, -2 SSG, +3 Swamp, +3 Claim. He mulls into a turn 1 Chalice (0). I play straight through it, chaining rituals and D4s until I use IGG to get Hellbent and Tutor for ToA.
2-1
Round 4: Elves
Game 1: I'm on the play, and we both mull to five. We each know the other is playing a combo deck, and there is a tension between going off first, and going off too early. I get the timing right, and he doesn't; he goes off when I expect him to, but he fizzles.
I go off the next turn, but discover the perils of Deathrite Shaman with Wirewood Symbiote. First, he targets the land that my own Deathrite was targeting for mana. Then, he used the mana gained to (later in the spell chain) deal two damage to me after my final D4.
This loss was entirely on me. Partly because I'm very rusty, and partly because his cards were all in Japanese, I did not appreciate the Wirewood, Deathrite, black mana floating interaction. If I had, all I would have needed to do was pass to my second mainphase to either drain that mana or force him to use it at a time when the damage would not have been relevant.
Game 2: I keep a turn 1 tutor chain hand that require me to dump a ToA into the graveyard when I crack LED. He has Surgical Extraction in hand, and removes my wincons. Game to him.
2-2
Afterthoughts
I felt there was a lot going on here, and a lot to think about. I had 5 T1 tournament kills in 11 games, or 45%. More importantly, I feel that there was really only one game (R2G3) where the deck let me down; I bricked on my D4 on two separate occasions, handing him a match that I had otherwise won, despite my poor keep the previous game. The rest of my losses were either due to good fortune on the part of my opponent (mulling to the perfect 4, ripping Trinisphere off the top) or my own play mistakes (see R4).
In other words, I am currently the weak link, and in the hands of a better pilot (as I hope to become), the deck will perform better.
On to specifics, though.
Surgical in R4G2 took me completely by surprise. A strong indicator of how rusty I am, I didn't even consider this very common sideboard card when playing against a deck that plays black cards. Ugh!
On one hand, I could have dealt with the situation by simply mulling for a hand that did not expose ToA to Surgical. On the other hand, that same exposure could have happened anywhere along the D4 chain when I needed to crack LED. How would I handle that?
On one hand, adding a second win condition - EtW, which has some issues with Pact, or Charbelcher, which would require modifying my build - is an option. I suppose Brainfreeze and Grapeshot are technically wincons as well, and while I've never tried pushing the storm count up that high on purpose, Grapeshot doubles as removal. The idea does make me smile.
ANT plays only one wincon, though, but they have the card filtering to get it out of their hand. Still, dropping to one ToA against black would minimize the chances of exposing it to Surgical. I'll need to give this some more thought.
I can't say whether or not I felt that only being able to bring in 3 Swamps was useful against blue, as I didn't really get that many games against them this time around. Is that a meta shift? I can hope! However, it was really nice to be able to board out Pacts against Chalice decks on the draw. Boarding to play through Chalice, rather than try to answer Chalice, was not something that had occurred to me before the tournament. I do like the idea of a proactive solution, rather that a reactive solution. If I were to put EtW back into the sideboard (Pact comes out in that matchup anyway), then I also have my second wincon against black, and an out to Leyline.
And as a side note, Chalice counters your spells, so you can still play out all those Moxes and petals to generate storm.
Last edited by Silent Requiem; 07-26-2017 at 07:07 AM.
Remember that Surgical can be played by ANY deck, not only black ones.
On a side note, I went 2-4 in a recent event, fizzling/bricking with D4's is a pain. Currently on something else, but when I return, I will probably test SAINT. Mainly for the 'stalling with (s)tallmen' and the 4 Cabal Therapies main. Which gives at least some fighting power against blue game 1 (I have a very blue meta)
That is a very good point! An easy 'fix', then, would be EtW in the sideboard and always go -1 Pact (it's a non-bo with EtW), +1 EtW in sideboard games. Alternatively, -1 SM (he tends not to be much good when people are mulling into their hate cards), +1 EtW.
Either way, it looks like I need to find a spot for it in my sideboard. I love the idea of Grapeshot, but even with a double IGG loop, the last 3-5 storm are likely to be very painful.
If I see that little blue over the next couple of events, though, I may just go back to GCB.
How do you like the 8 discard post board? And against blue, is cabal therapy always naming FoW the first time?
Thanks for the report. I'd also recommend just running another wincon over mulliganing away anybhand with tendrils.
-rob
Agreed. The comments on this point have been very helpful, and at the very least EtW will be going back into the sideboard.
Typically, post-board games against blue are an attrition game. The advantage of the black disruption over the green disruption is that it allows me to focus on developing my recurring black mana sources. The more recurring black sources I have, the fewer cards (ie, ritual effects) I need to put into each D4 I cast, helping me win the card advantage war. Note that this is only possible if you actually have recurring black mana sources (aka, Swamps), so Belcher builds have to take a different approach.
The only sources of B/G mana are Bayou, which is vulnerable to the Wastelands tempo decks usually play, and Carpet of Flowers, which can be played around, and which require their own green mana source in order to get into play. Ironically, mono black SI probably has the easiest time playing green disruption, being able to play Mox Opal as an addition to any other green sources.
You could use consumable mana sources to cast disruption (of either colour), but unless you can win immediately, you've just 2-1'd yourself.
The discard plan clearly works when it comes to clearing counters. Taking my R2 post board games as an example, my opponent didn't get off a single counter spell, and each loss was down to not drawing what I needed to close out the game. Arguably, I may have brought in too much discard, as it caused me to fizzle in R2G3. If I had left in a couple of CtW (I still have Dryad Arbor and Deathrite in the deck), or had a higher threat density (bringing in EtW or more ToA for multiple mini Tendrils) that loss might have been a win.
I can't give you any blanket rules for Cabal Therapy, and if I did you should ignore them anyway - CT is probably one of the most skill intensive cards in Magic, and my skill is not what it used to be.
That said, FoW is often the correct call, especially before they have their second land. In the mid game, Brainstorm is a good call if you have a way to flash back CT - blue will often let you name blind, and then Brainstorm in response to the flashback, essentially forcing you to name blind a second time. And in the late game things change again; against UW Control with two cards in hand and 4 mana open, I'm probably naming Counterspell.
Please help me with sideboarding :https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetyp...bg-36731#paper
Just for broad strokes like Delver, Stoneblade, Combo, Lands, Chalice decks.
I love this list and any help would be appreciated.
Hello everyone, could be Paradoxical Outcome a good engine for the deck? (tallmen list)
It seems to me that you would need at least four 0 cc artifacts in play before it's not an over-costed, off-color Cruel Bargain. That's a lot in a deck that uses 0 cc artifacts as fuel. You also only have Lotus Petal and possibly Mox Opal to generate U.
The big problem with Spanish Inquisition - of any flavour - is the lack of consistency. It's really fast, and it grinds well after sideboarding. But sometimes you just lose to a bad D4. SAINT was an effort to improve consistency via Ad Nauseam, but that never really seemed to take off. But what about Past In Flames?
I know most of us have played PIF in SI at some point, but I'm talking about modifying the deck to work around PIF as a major engine. What would that look like?
Off the top of my head...
1) Belcher becomes worse since you can't PIF it.
2) Entomb becomes a great tutor effect, finding PIF, or something that you want to give flashback with PIF. Are there any other cards we would want to put into our graveyard? Narcomoeba gives us a creature, I guess, but we already have plenty of ways to find culling targets.
3) Producing R becomes more important, and Manamorphose becomes better.
Still, I'm not much of an innovator, and all this stuff is just tweaking the deck. Is there room for an SI PIF engine?
Edit:
And while I'm throwing out crazy ideas, could the deck be made more consistent with the addition of more draw? I'm thinking Night's Whisper and similar cards.
Last edited by Silent Requiem; 11-02-2017 at 08:14 AM.
You know why I freaking hate using this forum?
I just typed up the entire tournament Report for tonight (3-1 finish, some fun lines taken) and when I hit submit, it told me I wasn’t logged in.
I HAVE BEEN LOGGED IN SINCE I FIRST MADE THE ACCOUNT!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote