+ Therapy with Robots is really strong.
Pact simply sux in a Deck with LED, because you cant use Pact to protect IT and you cant counter 1st Turn disruption.
Originally Posted by Pinder
Turns out that some weird chemical reaction between the Twinkie filling and Ranch Dressing opens up a portal straight into Hell, through which the Devil is then able to shit directly into your mouth.
No, Cabal Therapy isn't a viable choice, your only viable choices are Xantid Swarm and Pact of Negation. Cabal Therapy + Infernal Tutor sounds great until you realize it doesn't really work like that.
Originally Posted by wastedlife
I don't see the merits of PoN. If I go Land, Drit, Draw4 and they go FoW, using PoN is a stupid idea, because if the Draw4 is bad I've lost. If it were Therapy, I'd just Draw4 turn 2. This is my main problem with Pact, it doesn't help a countered Draw4.
That's a huge qualifier.
You should explain why it isnt, i have explained why i think that Pact of negation in a deck with 4 LEDs is a poor choice.
Swantid swarm? In legacy? We have STPs, smother, mogg fanatic, burns etc etc etc.
You're not really defending your card choice. I could have been more clear, by land I mean mana source.
Last edited by marit; 08-16-2008 at 10:07 AM.
I shouldn't need to defend the card choice, because if you've played Land Grant SI vs a competent Threshold opponent you'd know why Cabal Therapy isn't viable, those Land Grants and Chrome Moxes should be getting Force of Willed, Dazed and Stifled.
Disruption in Land Grant SI doesn't need to protect the combo, it needs to protect the mana sources, that's why the difference between a Badlands and a Land Grant totally changes whether or not Cabal Therapy is playable (i.e Lands are uncounterable)
You need cards like Unmask, Pact of Negation or Xantid Swarm (ESG) to get thru'.
So if they daze a chrome mox, do you reccomend playing Pact? It would put you in the same situation if they counter a draw4, praying for a godly 4 cards. I actually dont play therapy anymore, but I still think PoN is a terrible, terrible choice.
If it's the difference between top decking for mana and having a reasonable chance of success, yeah I'll risk it, that's really what it's there for.
Edit: You also have to consider Pact of Negation is just a round 1 card, round 2 Xantid Swarm comes in.
I currently play Belcher, but I'm wondering what the advantages of SI are over Belcher and even TES. It almost seems like a middle-man, having near the speed of Belcher but with protection and a Tendrils kill like TES(very relevant) over a Warrens kill. The one thing I don't like is fizzling on draw 4s, and it happens more often than I'd like. Going all in with a draw 4 and flipping nothing has messed me up a lot too. Does that happen often to you guys?
The deck emphasizes speed, but hands can be ambiguous at times, especially if they revolve around draw 4s, unlike Belcher where a hand blantantly tells you whether or not you're going to win this turn.
I mean no offense to advocates of the deck, I just want to know the reasons why I would ever choose to play SI over Belcher if I wanted to play fast combo, or maybe I'm just not playing the deck right?
EDIT:
couldn't you just replace 4 of the tallmen in tallmen SI for 4 pacts? It creates stormcount and thins your deck of actual tallmen so you'll have less of a chance to draw into them. Just a thought.
Last edited by badjuju; 09-17-2008 at 07:08 AM.
I believe in testing of Iranon, this deck IS faster than Belcher. It takes a little longer to master the deck though. Where Belcher is just looking at you current hand and look if you can win, here you have that part and a little more. Mulligan decisions are about the same. Just look at your hand and calculate how well you stand for it after your first Draw4( cards in hand, mana floating, what if they counter something). When to break a LED is another tricky point.
About fizzling. Even if you play correctly you can fizzle, that's the problem of Draw4, the advantage is that you have 4 cards in hand afterwards, and hopefully some mana. Just wait for the right todeck and try it again. You can also go for a smaller Tendrils. Just play 5/6 spells, Tendrils to get some life back, wait 2/3 turns and finish it of.
Just goldfish it alot and work on your statistics. If you can calculate how much chance you have to draw a card you need to continue combo you will become a better player.
BB
Thanks for the info. After goldfishing a bit more, I'm making all the neural connections associated with the deck to evaluate my hand and see what cards I need to win. I've also learned to use draw4's turn 1 just to sculpt my hand to get ready for the next turn.
Still not sure if the deck is actually BETTER than Belcher though. What are your opinions? I've had consistent success in Belcher testing, but I was getting tired of losing to answers for Warrens. Playing SI would eliminate this problem - but is the change worth it?
I'm more or less positive Kobold SI is better than Belcher, turning acceleration into threats with Empty the Warrens, ritual + threat for an even 2 for 2 FoW trade and lands to top deck into draw spells with just makes life so much better. All Belcher does is gold fish, but SI can actually "come back" when things go wrong and it has some flexibility in disruption.
The only down side of the deck is running Kobolds, obv. , or it'd be better than TES IMO.
Can you explain Kobold SI. There is absolutly no reason to run Kobolds over Robots. Or is it just for coolness.
About the rest your quite right. I play QSI myself and even if you fizzle I can come back some turns later. That's another thing you should remember playing SI. Don't overextend if you fear a FoW: play creature, culling the weak, Draw4 is better than creature, Culling the Weak, Dark Ritual, Cabal Ritual, Draw4( opponent counters.) It's quite obvious, but still.
This deck isn't better than TES, but only slightly worse. But I prefer QSI over TES anytime, becaue I can pilot QSI much better.
BB
Chrome Mox.
Aura of Silence is also played sometimes. Kobolds dodge that.
Also, when would you ever use the toughness? Prolly about as often as you fail to go off until your opponent's turn 3 and he Auras you.
Kobolds Imprint on Chrome Mox, and it makes a big difference in what opening hands can be kept and what Draw 4 chains can win. I never said Kobold Si was better than TES, I implied Kobold Si would be better than TES if it didn't have to run creatures.
One advantage of robots is that even a bad hand will stall Aggro starts until the end of forever.
***
Re my goldfish results: SI without Empty the Warrens would kill at roughly the rate Belcher had a successful combo; slower but well within the margin of error (200 games samples).
For clarification: anything that would kill a goldfish by turn 4 was counted as a success - turn 2 EtW for 10 counted, belching for 50 on turn 5 didn't.
If SI also runs Empty the Warrens, it's strictly faster than Belcher.
You might want to take my results with a grain of salt though. For example, in my testing the addition of Glimpse of Nature improved both goldfish speed and consistency... but other players didn't seem to get the same results.
The problem with the "blocker" argument is that it's just a wet blanket for combo players who can't mulligan, even with out them SI can take 4 damage before its ability to win is reduced and Kobolds still chump for a turn.
Vs control or aggro-control, the match ups that matter, Imprinting for red is more significant.
My other question is why the relative success of Belcher is so much greater than SI.
Is it because Belcher is easier to pilot? Is it because people don't want to buy Cruel Bargains? Since June, there have been about 17 top8s with Belcher in various tournaments (some small, some gigantic), and there has been 1 with SI. Do people just not prefer this archetype or do people not know about it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
