[Deck] CounterSliver 2.0 (MeatHooks.dec)

[TheDrunkDwarf]

Has anyone tested Muddle the Mixture in place of counterspell? Now it wont stop a disk or a deed (the first of which can be harmoniced) but it seems to serve the same purpose as counterspell by stopping board clearing sorceries from going off. In addition, against decks that dont run any sort of clearing spell, u can always use it to tutor for whatever sliver u need. thoughts?

[sammiel]

cause you are more likely to see pernicious deed than wrath of god in legacy, and a resolved deed means you lose your entire board.

[iOWN]

cause you are more likely to see pernicious deed than wrath of god in legacy, and a resolved deed means you lose your entire board.

But you are also more likely to see Swords to Plowshares, Vindicate + various other removal spells, and Muddle can fetch the Crystalline which protects you from all of that. Muddle can still deal with any kind of disruption (Sinkholes, Hymn, etc.), which in total appear much more than a single problem card. I think Muddle over Counterspell can be considered a metagame decision because obviously it isn't going to work as well in say, the San Diego metagame, where Landstill would appear more often than most else and all counters need to focus on stopping board-clearing.

[Kronicler]

Maindeck mages are bad because they give your opponents' targeted removal a use.

Wordly tutor is bad because this deck has no way to recover from card disadvantage. Also, with 8 muscle slivers, the tutor effect is simply unneeded.

Muddle the mixture is bad because it can't counter the 2 best board sweepers against us, deed and EE, and because the tutor cost is rediculously over priced.

I'm sure someone will go into a little more detail, but these are the general reasons why these cards are bad choices. .

Kronicler

[Volt]

Maindeck mages are bad because they give your opponents' targeted removal a use.

Wordly tutor is bad because this deck has no way to recover from card disadvantage. Also, with 8 muscle slivers, the tutor effect is simply unneeded.

Muddle the mixture is bad because it can't counter the 2 best board sweepers against us, deed and EE, and because the tutor cost is rediculously over priced.

I'm sure someone will go into a little more detail, but these are the general reasons why these cards are bad choices. .

Kronicler

Meddling Mages in the maindeck aren't "bad," per se. They're just not optimal, imo. By putting them in the main, you are necessarily watering down your Goblins matchup, as well as other aggro matchups. Nihil, for example, cut down to 1 Winged Sliver to help make room for the Mages. Winged Slivers are too important to only be running one. Sure, I know he's running Eladamri's Call, but the tempo-loss from that card has been well-discussed. I used to be the strongest advocate of EC, but even I have cut it.

The combo matchups are just fine with Mages in the sideboard. You're no worse than 45/55 in game 1 of the major combo matchups, and solidly favored after.

Kronicler is spot on about Muddle and Worldly.

[Nihil Credo]

Maindeck mages are bad because they give your opponents' targeted removal a use.

Only if you have Crystalline Sliver in play before they have the chance to play their spot removal, otherwise they'll just pick off some Slivers in response. Moreover, a very large part of the metagame runs 4 or less targeted removal cards (Not counting Jitte, which hurts even without being able to use the -1/-1 counters).

Wordly tutor is bad because this deck has no way to recover from card disadvantage. Also, with 8 muscle slivers, the tutor effect is simply unneeded.

I practically always fetch one of the following with Tutor: Harmonic Sliver, Winged Sliver (I run both as 1-ofs) or Crystalline Sliver. They all provide such massive, game-winning effects that drawing a card pales in comparison.

Meddling Mages in the maindeck aren't "bad," per se. They're just not optimal, imo. By putting them in the main, you are necessarily watering down your Goblins matchup, as well as other aggro matchups.

That's true. I see a lot more aggro-control, control, prison, and even combo than straightforward aggro decks nowadays, which is why I adopted MD Mages (For the same reason, for example, I maindeck Duress in UBW Fish).

Nihil, for example, cut down to 1 Winged Sliver to help make room for the Mages. Winged Slivers are too important to only be running one.

I will disagree on that. My Slivers are almost always bigger than whatever's on the other side of the board, and if there's something bigger, it often flies (Enforcer, Angel, Drake). Winged Sliver is really only useful for flying over a swarm of weenies.

Sure, I know he's running Eladamri's Call, but the tempo-loss from that card has been well-discussed. I used to be the strongest advocate of EC, but even I have cut it.

The tempo problem is exactly why I'm switching to Worldly Tutor (and from the first dozen games I've played, I'm inclined to keep it in). See above for my defense of Tutor.


Regarding Muddle the Mixture: I found Eladamri's Call's GW cost to be a big issue with that card; I'd rarely if ever be willing to pay 1UU for a tutor that can't even get Harmonic Sliver. It is not close to compensating for being worse than Counterspell.

[kicks_422]

That's true. I see a lot more aggro-control, control, prison, and even combo than straightforward aggro decks nowadays, which is why I adopted MD Mages (For the same reason, for example, I maindeck Duress in UBW Fish).

Regarding the MD Mages issue, I think I'd rather keep Stifles MD against combo instead of Mages.

I will disagree on that. My Slivers are almost always bigger than whatever's on the other side of the board, and if there's something bigger, it often flies (Enforcer, Angel, Drake). Winged Sliver is really only useful for flying over a swarm of weenies.

Which is why Winged Sliver is so important. Against aggro, the ground gets too gummed up. Mising a Winged Sliver lets you fly over to win instantly, rather than powering through with Slivers that are bigger than their creatures.

[Illissius]

Maindeck mages are bad because they give your opponents' targeted removal a use.

This is the usual argument and the one I used for a long time. In the abstract, it makes a lot of sense. But as Toad pointed out, considering the actual concrete decks popular in Legacy:

- Meddling Mage is obviously awesome against combo, they run very little removal and Mage forces them to waste time to find it and/or die.

- Threshold and relatives also don't run much targetted removal, most of the time only Swords to Plowshares. So against them, you can just... name Swords to Plowshares, making Mage into something like half a Crystalline Sliver.

- The removal in Goblins is all dual purpose: either removal, or a Goblin. So they get to use Incinerator on your Mage -- tremendous loss. Otherwise, they would've hardcasted it as a creature and not cared too much. Mage is obviously not optimal in this matchup, but it's not really worse in Slivers than in any other deck.

That accounts for the top three decks in Legacy. For Meddling Mage to be a liability, your opponent needs to be running lots and multiple kinds of targetted removal, which I don't think is too common (Rifter, Burn... what else?). Against them, you side it out. Whether you want to side it in when you want it or side it out when you don't is up to you, but "it makes their removal good" isn't a good argument, I think.

[xsockmonkeyx]

A few questions regarding everyone's build right now:

1. How many lands?
18. 3 basic, 7 fetch.

2. Counterspell?
3 is the right number for me.

3. Sideboard?
This is what I run:
4 Meddling Mage
3 Harmonic Sliver
2 Tormod's Crypt
3 Stifle
3 Needle

[Pinder]

This is the usual argument and the one I used for a long time. In the abstract, it makes a lot of sense. But as Toad pointed out, considering the actual concrete decks popular in Legacy:

- Meddling Mage is obviously awesome against combo, they run very little removal and Mage forces them to waste time to find it and/or die.

- Threshold and relatives also don't run much targetted removal, most of the time only Swords to Plowshares. So against them, you can just... name Swords to Plowshares, making Mage into something like half a Crystalline Sliver.

- The removal in Goblins is all dual purpose: either removal, or a Goblin. So they get to use Incinerator on your Mage -- tremendous loss. Otherwise, they would've hardcasted it as a creature and not cared too much. Mage is obviously not optimal in this matchup, but it's not really worse in Slivers than in any other deck.

That accounts for the top three decks in Legacy. For Meddling Mage to be a liability, your opponent needs to be running lots and multiple kinds of targetted removal, which I don't think is too common (Rifter, Burn... what else?). Against them, you side it out. Whether you want to side it in when you want it or side it out when you don't is up to you, but "it makes their removal good" isn't a good argument, I think.

You make a very strong point there. The only question is, what would we take out? I'm not removing any slivers from the deck. And that's not really a rhetorical question. I really want to hear thoughts on this.

I suppose that since Meddling Mage is sort of a counterspell on legs, we could theoretically remove the counterspells and one other thing for 4 Meddling Mages maindeck. It's worth a shot if we do it right.

[Volt]

This is the usual argument and the one I used for a long time. In the abstract, it makes a lot of sense. But as Toad pointed out, considering the actual concrete decks popular in Legacy:

- Meddling Mage is obviously awesome against combo, they run very little removal and Mage forces them to waste time to find it and/or die.

- Threshold and relatives also don't run much targetted removal, most of the time only Swords to Plowshares. So against them, you can just... name Swords to Plowshares, making Mage into something like half a Crystalline Sliver.

- The removal in Goblins is all dual purpose: either removal, or a Goblin. So they get to use Incinerator on your Mage -- tremendous loss. Otherwise, they would've hardcasted it as a creature and not cared too much. Mage is obviously not optimal in this matchup, but it's not really worse in Slivers than in any other deck.

That accounts for the top three decks in Legacy. For Meddling Mage to be a liability, your opponent needs to be running lots and multiple kinds of targetted removal, which I don't think is too common (Rifter, Burn... what else?). Against them, you side it out. Whether you want to side it in when you want it or side it out when you don't is up to you, but "it makes their removal good" isn't a good argument, I think.

With all due respect to Toad, his CounterSliver build sucks ballz. He would have us maindeck Mages, moved Plated Slivers to the side (because "playing Plated Sliver is good way to lose to combo, silly American." Okay, I added on the silly American part.), cut Winged Sliver to 1, play only 3 Swords, 3 Muscle Slivers, no basic lands, and some other stupid shit like that. Seriously, his CounterSliver deck (which he has been playing "since before GP Lille" blah blah blah) is an absolute pile of crap. He should stick to Aluren.

Granted, the argument that "Meddling Mage is bad because it gives your opponent a target for his removal" is indeed a mediocre one (although not totally invalid). Personally, I don't use that argument. My argument against it is that I would rather hone the deck to beat Goblins and other aggro in game 1, and then side in Mages to deal with combo & control. I rarely lose to combo using this strategy. Board control decks like Landstill and Wombat are tough for us to beat no matter what. In this deck, slivers > Meddling Mage most of the time.

[kicks_422]

An FS keyword has been spoiled that I find interesting.

Absorb: 1
"If a source would deal damage to a Sliver creature, prevent 1 of that damage."

Assuming that it's going to get printed on a Sliver and not just used as an example, this would be a "better" Plated Sliver... I hope it gets printed at 1cc...

Back on topic, I have to agree that Meddling Mages MD have their merits (and I believe is one of the major reasons of the success of UGW Thresh), but for this deck, there's simply no room. It's a welcome addition to the SB though - not only against combo (where it's obviously very helpful), but also against board sweepers if it gets to stick (WOG's, Deeds, etc.)

[Goaswerfraiejen]

An FS keyword has been spoiled that I find interesting.

Absorb: 1
"If a source would deal damage to a Sliver creature, prevent 1 of that damage."

Assuming that it's going to get printed on a Sliver and not just used as an example, this would be a "better" Plated Sliver... I hope it gets printed at 1cc...

The only way it might appear on a sliver is if that sliver has an ability that is independent of all other slivers (which is unlikely, except for legendary slivers--which are hard to play comptetitively). Imagine "All Slivers gain 'Absorb 1'". That would be ridiculous. =/

No, I suspect we're looking at some other kind of permanent, sort of like Hivestone--which probably means that Plated Sliver won't be displaced.

As for the Mages, I agree with you--I think that they're best in the board, unless local metagames dictate otherwise.

[Pinder]

Imagine "All Slivers gain 'Absorb 1'". That would be ridiculous. =/

In that case it would stack, and Slivers would be invincible. Imagine if the first 2-3 (or even 4) damage to any Sliver was automatically prevented. And on a 1 drop? I mean, holy shit.

No, I suspect we're looking at some other kind of permanent, sort of like Hivestone--which probably means that Plated Sliver won't be displaced.

The fact that you're probably right about that makes me sad.

As for the Mages, I agree with you--I think that they're best in the board, unless local metagames dictate otherwise.

<3

[Nihil Credo]

Regarding the MD Mages issue, I think I'd rather keep Stifles MD against combo instead of Mages.

Stifles can be dead and aren't a threat, though.

Which is why Winged Sliver is so important. Against aggro, the ground gets too gummed up. Mising a Winged Sliver lets you fly over to win instantly, rather than powering through with Slivers that are bigger than their creatures.

Why is powering through with bigger Slivers such a bad strategy? The only time that's unfeasible (and the fat doesn't fly) is against Goblins.
In other words: what decks other than Goblins is Winged Sliver good against?

Imagine "All Slivers gain 'Absorb 1'". That would be ridiculous. =/

Why? "Absorb Sliver" (a 1/1 for W with the ability) would only be better than Plated Sliver when one of your creature is dealt damage from multiple sources in the same turn. How often does that happen? On the other side, it would be worse than Plated Sliver at making your Slivers survive Engineered Plague and Jitte counters. I'm not sure "Absorb Sliver" would be that powerful. You could go up to 5-6 Plated Slivers, but not break anything.

[Pinder]

Why? "Absorb Sliver" (a 1/1 for W with the ability) would only be better than Plated Sliver when one of your creature is dealt damage from multiple sources in the same turn. How often does that happen? On the other side, it would be worse than Plated Sliver at making your Slivers survive Engineered Plague and Jitte counters. I'm not sure "Absorb Sliver" would be that powerful. You could go up to 5-6 Plated Slivers, but not break anything.

Oh, I'm not saying that they would replace Plated, but if it was a 1/1 for W, it would definitely have a lot going for it in terms of inclusion alongside Plated.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Why? "Absorb Sliver" (a 1/1 for W with the ability) would only be better than Plated Sliver when one of your creature is dealt damage from multiple sources in the same turn. How often does that happen? On the other side, it would be worse than Plated Sliver at making your Slivers survive Engineered Plague and Jitte counters. I'm not sure "Absorb Sliver" would be that powerful. You could go up to 5-6 Plated Slivers, but not break anything.

If the sliver had Absorb 1, that wouldn't be a problem. Note, however, that I said that given the way that slivers currently work, it seems highly unlikely that a non-legendary sliver will have an ability that doesn't translate to all slivers in play (indeed, I'd be disappointed if that were to change). Meaning that if it were a 1/1 for W that read "All slivers gain 'Absorb 1'" (an ability that translates universally to all slivers), you pretty much wouldn't be able to destroy slivers with damage of any sort. And that, I think, would be too powerful--not to mention a headache to keep track of.

It's much more likely that Absorb 1 exists on a non-sliver creature permanent, or that the ability does not, in fact, reduce damage from ALL slivers, but only from -this- particular creature with the ability (in which case it's fine on a 1/1 for W).

[Nihil Credo]

Meaning that if it were a 1/1 for W that read "All slivers gain 'Absorb 1'" (an ability that translates universally to all slivers), you pretty much wouldn't be able to destroy slivers with damage of any sort. And that, I think, would be too powerful--not to mention a headache to keep track of.

That's exactly what I was assuming it could be. And as I said, it would not be that much better than Plated Sliver, and possibly even worse.

"All Slivers gain 'Absorb 1'" works just like "All Slivers get +0/+1" unless

1) the same Sliver is dealt damage more than once during a turn (Absorb is better)

2) -X/-X effects are involved (Plated is better)

Perhaps you are mistaken about how the ability would work (or perhaps I am)?

[Goaswerfraiejen]

That's exactly what I was assuming it could be. And as I said, it would not be that much better than Plated Sliver, and possibly even worse.

"All Slivers gain 'Absorb 1'" works just like "All Slivers get +0/+1" unless

1) the same Sliver is dealt damage more than once during a turn (Absorb is better)

2) -X/-X effects are involved (Plated is better)

Perhaps you are mistaken about how the ability would work (or perhaps I am)?

I think I see where we're running into problems.

The way it's currently worded, it would be absurd to conjoin absorb with "all slivers gain" because both are universal effects. To see my point, just replace "Absorb 1" with what it means, and you get: "All slivers gain 'If a source would deal damage to a Sliver creature, prevent 1 of that damage' "--which (I think) looks like it stacks, making it effectively better than Plated Sliver, since each sliver you control reduces the damage to every/any sliver by 1.

The difference in our interpretation lies in your example #1: there is only one clause on Plated Sliver, and it is a universal. Because of the way that Absorb looks to be worded, however, the Neo-Plated Sliver would have a universal subclause as well, which implies sliver-by-sliver stacking.

Now, it could possibly not stack, but then it would seem foolish to say "all slivers gain", since simply putting "Absorb 1" on the card in question would do exactly the same thing (and it would avoid the question of stacking sliver by sliver). In that case, it's far from broken, and probably not (strictly) better than Plated Sliver. I don't much like this option, however, since it doesn't mesh with the established flavour of slivers, except in a cheating manner (it is a universal effect, and it functions the same way, but it doesn't look the same :( ).

I think that should make more sense. Sorry for the confusion.

[Nihil Credo]

Ok, there was just a bit of miscommunication. I, unlike you, was assuming that "Absorb 1" means "If a source would deal damage to this, prevent 1 of that damage" - I think it would be kinda silly if they made a keyword that only worked for Slivers.