Yes, I know. But I think seal is better. Agro usually isn't a problem, therefore o-ringing a creature isn't as relevent. Seal deals with 3 of the 4 things you mentioned while being 1 mana less (not super relevent) and also sitting on the board and not in your hand, can be sacced to smokestack. I used it to kill an opposing crucible in the mirror, which should be considered more than a 1 for 1. A jitte in response to equiping, better than what o-ring would have done, and a lions eye diamond where I wouldn't have had the mana that turn to o-ring, possibly saving my ass. There is obvious cases where an o-ring would be better, but for now I like the seal. I am 2 for 2 top 8ing 50+ person tournaments, but last tournament I did have the rings in the board, however I think this version of the SB is stronger and has answers to basically everything.Originally Posted by Misplayer
Yep, the duress came out of the board for FT, doesn't seem bad especially against me.
Explosives surprised me in the stax list, although there was word before hand about a bunch of belcher and ichorid, so I believe it was a meta decision for tokens.
The thresh list with thirsts also ran some chrome moxes, but I don't believe the list was optimal.
Only other thing that suprised me was the old belcher list with plunges and spoils.
Holy crap! 8 rounds of magic for 6 packs! Man, I get pretty exhausted after 5 or 6 rounds and start to lose focus, and thats usually for a real prize. Bravo!
Just want to point that Chalice @ 1 >>>>>>>>> Chalice @ 0 against FT. If that was actually FT.
Keep moon-walking.
But chalice at zero stops them from going super broken; I had a wasteland in hand and a crucible on the board, so the plan was to stop artifact mana.
And it definately looked like FT, ponders, b-storms, etc. It may not be the exact most recent list
Hi guys,
I want to build myself a Geddonstaxx-Deck but I am not really willing to buy Ravages of War and a Tebernacle-Land. So here is my first question: Are these 2 cards Mandatory? And if not would the power level decrease or would it be more a playstile question and personal preference? So to ask the same thing again: Is a list containing these two cards strictly better then one without them?
This is the list I had in mind:
25
4xFlagstones of Trokair
4xAncient Tomb
4xCity of Traitors
6xPlains
2xWasteland
1xDarksteel Citadel -> really adds some gas to the “geddon” strategy
2xMishra´s Factory
2xHorizon Canopy -> very useful drawengine during mid- to lategame and is an additional white-mana-source
29
4xChalice of the Void
4xGhostly Prison
4xArmageddon -> If I had the money I would play a 2/2 or2/3 Geddon/Ravages split
4xTrinisphere
4xMox Diamond
4xCrucible of Worlds
3xSmokestack -> I sort of miss the Smokestack #4 …..Thoughts???
2xOblivion Ring -> Could be 1x + 1xRavages of War, but 1xO-Ring seems to random!
6
4xMagus of the Tabernacle -> Could be 3x +1xTabernacle -Land
2xExalted Angel
Sideboard:
3xTormond´s Crypt
3xDefense Grid
3xSupression Field
3xPithing Needle
3xAura of Silence/Seal of Cleansing
Other Sideboardoptions:
3xKarmic Justice
3xWheel of Sun and Moon
3xHumility
3xWindborn Muse
3xRule of Law
Other Cards that are at least interesting for some metas:
Normad Stadium
Kor Haven
(Eater of Days) -> Win More Tech with active Smokestack
Do you guys have any thoughts to my questions and remarks? Do you have anything to add to the possible cards that could go into the sideboard???
Thanks in advance
No, some list run only Armageddon and many don't run the Tabernacle.
But are they not being run because they aren´t needed or maybe even kill more or do people not play them because they are simply to expensive to buy them?
So is a list playing 5 geddons better then 4 ??? And is the single Tabernacle land better then the Magus?
So agsin: Is a list running Ravages of War and Tabernacle BETTER then the one that doesn´t run them??????
Armageddon is the card that makes the deck playable and competitive, I would run 5 if I had a ravages and believe the deck would be better. The tabernacle land isn't necessary, though can be amazing.
100% yes to the Ravages of War - in testing, I determined 5 to be the correct number of Armageddon effects, and IIRC others independently found the same.
90% yes to the Tabernacle - there might be some metagames in which it's superfluous, but it's almost always at least an excellent SB slot.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
Of course it is better to run them, but these card are not essential to the deck. I would love to run them, but they are far too expensive for me.
Absolutely true.
If I had four Ravages, I'd probably go bonkers with Darksteel Citadel and Chrome Moxen. As is, Stax can hold its own with no Tabernacle and only four Geddons.
@ list:
during my testing, I often found Horizon Canopy useful, but it was unspectacular even more often. I have it as a one-of but it's pretty much useless when you have the Smokestack or for a few turns after you geddon with a Crucible in place. That said, I run it as a one-of, but I seldom do more than cycle it once.
Depending on your meta, I would up the Wastes count, and very probably the Factory count as well. It's not only a win condition, it can chump infinitely with Crucible and still block Mongeese or any Goblin dead without it.
Darksteel Citadel is a card I really like but the usefulness is diminished somewhat by the fact that it's arguably worse (and certainly more gamestate -dependent) thany, say, Factory, and that you very often don't need it (Crucible, Flagstones, Moxen). As I mentioned, I'd be all over it if I had, say two or three Ravages.
I'd recommend upping the number of Smokestacks to four without Ravages since you have only four Geddons (as do I). Mana denial is absolutely vital to the deck and Smokestack does work to your favor even without Crucible. Trinisphere does little if you don't draw Akroma and your opponent plays land after land - especially true for opponents with a high permanent count on their own (Goblins for example).
While I wouldn't shy away from playing a singleton O-Ring just because it seems random, I have actually cut a Ghostly Prison for a second one. That's largely a metagame choice, though. I'm seeing Crucibles quite often.
I'm running 6 Geddon effects (3 Ravages, 3 Geddons) and I have yet to think "Hey, I really didn't want this Geddon I just draw". However, there have been times where I wish I wanted to draw it.
Running 6 Geddons also makes it possible to cut 1-2 Wastelands. While these are stupid with Crucible, we all know that, I just think Armageddon handles the mana denial better most of the times.
I have never liked the Tabernacle land however. The fact that it doesn't tap for mana is the thing that makes it a no go for me. And the synergy with Armageddon/Ravages is much more worse than with Magus. You can never play the land if you want synergy with it and the Geddon effect. Well, if you happen to have 5 lands out (Tabernacle being one of them), Armageddon in your hand and Crucible in play it could also work. Magus however works as soon as I have 4 mana to play him and then whenever I draw Armageddon the synergy is there.
That what I think atleast :)
Well, that's not quite it. With Magus you still need a fifth mana in order to play a Geddon.
What is absolutely huge about Tabernacle is that it is uncounterable. Even if (for example) Thresh has a favorable boardposition and you have nothing, your Armageddon can win the game right thereif you just follow it up with Tabernacle. It obviously can be pitched to Mox as well. The downside is that it doesn't provide you with a 2/6 body, but still a singleton is worth it's inclusion from what testing shows.
You're right about 5 mana being needed for Magus if you want him alive. But sometimes you might just have to play Armageddon asap in order to stay alive in which case it is possible with 4 mana when talking Magus + Geddon. You can never have this option with Tabernacle + Geddon. And as you said, Magus is a 2/6 body which is huge.
The conclusion I think we both can agree on is that Magus is strictly better then the Tabernacle land. Now, it was never a question wether you should go with Magus or the land so running both is an option. But I compared Magus with Tabernacle strictly to show that the land is not as good and I think having an extra Factory, Flagstones or even Crystal Vein is better than having the 1-of Tabernacle land.
"Strictly" is a lot to claim. Tabernacle saves you against Belcher pouring 14 tokens out on turn 1. Tabernacle saves you from Goblins' most busted Lackey openings, and is a Time Walk against them even if they Wasteland it next turn. Tabernacle slows Survival's mana development as soon as needed, whereas Magus only hits them after they've done some business.
In most of the current metagames, I think it's a dead card often enough (Landstill, combo, Dreadnought, Burn) that it's too risky to play maindeck. But assuming I had one or two copies, I'd never cut it from the sideboard.
YOU'RE GIVING ME A TIME MACHINE IN ORDER TO TREAT MY SLEEP DISORDER.
While Nihil is right that 'strictly' is a little on the strong side of the argument, I personally feel the deck is stronger without using the Tabernacle land in either the main or side.
My strongest argument against the land isn't cost, it's the simple inconsistencies associated with it. You absolutely cannot run it as a land since it doesn't produce mana (unless you are pitching it to Mox) - which means you have to run it in a spell slot (usually it's the 25th-26th Land or '36th-37th' Spell depending on your preference). So, you have to ask yourself if it is 'stronger' than the spell it replaces. I, personally, run only 3 Magus and sometimes the 4th in the side depending on the meta and almost never want/need the effect more often than that. For me, that's where I decide not to look further (I have tested several deck configurations with it, though), but just in case you want a little something more...
Here are some numbers to remember (please note that these don't take into account every situation/scenario - these are general probabilities), if you run it as a 1-of, you have a 12% chance of it being in your opening hand and only a 30% chance of seeing it in your first 10 turns. Play 2 and the numbers increase to 22% in the opener and 50% by turn 10. Playing 3 and 4 obviously increases these odds, but I think the point is moot since playing 3 or 4 Legendary Lands is almost never correct (almost - I do play 4 Flagstones, of course).
So, while what Nihil claims is definitely true (Tabernacle will stop a horde of Turn 1 Goblins and slow Survival's early turn mana development)... It's not doing it very often. If you play 2, you will stop those 14 Turn 1 Goblins once every 5 games with it. The other 4 times - you still need to find another answer.
I'm going to stop this argument there because this is where it gets very complicated because in order to evaluate the situation properly you have to discuss what you took out for the Tabernacles, what is/are the answers the other 4 times, etc. (most people just claim testing data, but remember that the numbers should support the testing - this, in and of itself, is another topic altogether, but my belief is that personal preference is usually misidentified as testing when the numbers do not support the conclusions).
The other point to consider is that The Tabernacle will cost you a land drop which for this deck is often more important than a spell. We play 24-25 lands plus 4 Diamonds giving us a deck that is nearly 50% mana sources. Hell, 7-8 of those sources produce 2 mana each. Mana production is very important to this deck and 'skipping' a turn to play The Taberancle must be carefully considered. As I said before, you have to ask - "Is The Tabernacle better/stronger more often than these 1-2 cards that I'm dropping?" My answer based on my testing and calculations is - NO.
Fred Bear...
It depends on your metagame. If you need a fifth taxing effect, Taberncale at Pendrell Vale is the right choice.
Besides, Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale has the advantage of not beeing a creature.
Magus + Tabernacle = 2 mana each turn.
Magus + Magus = 4 mana each turn.
Well, I do not play Tabernacles, because I can not afford them and I think the other lands I play are more important.
What do you think of Crystal Vein? I played them for a long time, until I realized, that they do not help me in getting a good start. If I sac them on turn one, I have to wait an additional Turn to play the next Spell.
The most beautyful scene in Angel Stax was
1st turn: 2mana Land, Mox Diamond, Morphed Angel
2nd turn: Plains/Flagstones, unmorph Angel
Crystal Vein was unusable for such moves, even playing a 1st turn Trinisphere felt bad, because one had to wait for two turns until the manabase "regenerated".
Now in Armageddon Stax we want to play our Armageddons and our lands are gone afterwards, so the drawback of Crystal Vein is redundant. How important is it to accelerate Armageddon? Usualy I want to setup my board first, playing a Magus, Chalices, Stacks, so it is unlekely that Crystal Vein is needed. What do you think?
Crystal Vein is not needed. And you are 100% correct with your evaluation. This deck wants to use its 2-mana lands to pound out things like Armageddon or Trinisphere, but when you use Crystal Vein to do this, you often sac the land and often end up slowing yourself down more than your opponent. Another 2-mana land would be nice, but Vein doesn't make the cut.
Fred Bear...
On another note... Has this deck gotten so popular that Ravages of War are really in this kind of demand??? I do a weekly search (I'd like to get the 4th English Version to complete my playset) and have found that the last couple of English Ravages have gone for $200+ on ebay, Asians are regularly topping $100, and I can only find 1 shop with them available - 2 Asian for $199.99 each and 1 English for $279.99! It might be time to sell...
Crystal Vein is not even close to either Tombs or City i'm aware of that. But having them in the deck does give you more first turn Chalices & Spheres (which are the biggest reasons to run them). I think getting these cards out on the first turn just has to slow down your opponent alot more than what the land can do to you, especially with Chalice. Getting Chalice out on the
2th turn instead of the 1st is really crucial. You really notice this the times you have Chalice on your hand but no cards to power it out.
Atm I have 2 copies of it in my deck simply because it nets me 10 lands that produces 2 mana. Thats 1/6 of the deck which means that on an average I get 1 of those lands in my starting hand. Not sure if this logic makes enough sense tho..
To sum it all up I can tell you that i'm not certain having Veins in your manabase is the right thing but atm I keep them there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote