[DTB] Vial Goblins

[Patrick]

I don't normally post here, and not to be a dick, but making top 8 at a GPT isn't worth mentioning. I've yet to see one with a decent turnout, usually 12-16 people show.

[eclipsemonger]

to be fair there were 32-34 people in this GPT so...

[Eldariel]

I disagree I feel that the 23 lands is the correct number 25 is way to many I had to mulligan and I did keep a soso 2 land hand It was just my luck I didnt have any problems all day AND I also have said over and over 23 is the number no more no less .. with more lands you will have less powerful lackeys and ringleaders (mutavaults are not needed)

If your list runs few lands, then you're going to have hands low on lands. If you run a lower landcount, you will have worse mulligans (because mull hands have less cards and thus have a higher chance of having insufficient lands; Gobs with higher landcount mulligan better) and your ability to function properly when Vial/Lackey are dealt with is hindered. Also, it means you often cannot use your Wasteland when it'd be optimal since you need it for mana.

The extra lands weaken Ringleaders, true, but the difference between 31 and 33 Goblins is really quite small. In both cases, the expected value is two Goblins per Ring; point being, once you're resolving Ringleaders, you shouldn't run out of cards, you'll be running out of mana. As for Lackey, your Lackeys are just as good as with 23 lands as long as you don't cut Matron/SGC/Ringleader/Warchief for them. And again, when Lackey is connecting and opponent doesn't have a sweeper, chances are you've won already.


So in other words, the losses of playing fewer Goblins in those numbers are rather marginal (few percentages less per Ringleader; whoopedoo, you'll still be winning once they start resolving), while the gains for playing more lands are vast. Explain me why it's correct to play a landcount that:
1. Loses games where your landlight hand was unable to topdeck enough lands after Vial got countered/destroyed.
2. Costs you games because Wastelands were unusable as you needed them for mana preventing you from cutting opponent's color.
3. Forces you to be conservative with your hands as mulligan hands have a high probability to have insufficient landcount.

Do you have some magical cheat that prevents opponents from countering/removing Vial? Do you have some magical defense against land disruption decks? Or don't you just ever need to mulligan?

Yes, you've said "23 is the correct number." and I'm wondering how you ended up with that decision? How extensively have you tested higher landcounts? Seriously, I'd like to know where your conviction comes from.

[Mantis]

I guess 23 is the correct number in goldfishing. In reality 24 might be the better call. I personally run 23 lands but that's because I run 3 Relic of Progenitus which cantrip and allow me to draw into the mana I need lategame. That said, it could very well be that 24 is the correct number as I run 7 fetchlands that will thin my deck in the lategame. I do not think Mutavault should be in this deck unless you run 4 Gempalm Incinerator maybe.

EDIT: I totally agree with what GreenOne says in his next post.

[GreenOne]

I guess 23 is the correct number in goldfishing. In reality 24 might be the better call. I personally run 23 lands but that's because I run 3 Relic of Progenitus which cantrip and allow me to draw into the mana I need lategame. That said, it could very well be that 24 is the correct number as I run 7 fetchlands that will thin my deck in the lategame. I do not think Mutavault should be in this deck unless you run 4 Gempalm Incinerator maybe.

23 is the right number in any monored version with no fetches. 24 is a good number for any splash version that plans to play ports too. 25 is just too much: I tested it (in a BR version) and found it quite weak.

[deathdealer]

I don't normally post here, and not to be a dick, but making top 8 at a GPT isn't worth mentioning. I've yet to see one with a decent turnout, usually 12-16 people show.

I didnt take it as you being a dick

It is worth posting about because this is real data not a few forum junkies just repeating what others have said and dont even play the deck first hand..

As far as 32 players this will be the same numbers for the GPTs the friday of the GP which will be relevant as far as deck/win lose % ect ect / # of players .. single elim

THE SAME list also top 8d the week before in Chicago and that was around 40 people ..and finished 4th

I really fail to see how this info is not worth posting about

[deathdealer]

If your list runs few lands, then you're going to have hands low on lands. If you run a lower landcount, you will have worse mulligans (because mull hands have less cards and thus have a higher chance of having insufficient lands; Gobs with higher landcount mulligan better) and your ability to function properly when Vial/Lackey are dealt with is hindered. Also, it means you often cannot use your Wasteland when it'd be optimal since you need it for mana.

The extra lands weaken Ringleaders, true, but the difference between 31 and 33 Goblins is really quite small. In both cases, the expected value is two Goblins per Ring; point being, once you're resolving Ringleaders, you shouldn't run out of cards, you'll be running out of mana. As for Lackey, your Lackeys are just as good as with 23 lands as long as you don't cut Matron/SGC/Ringleader/Warchief for them. And again, when Lackey is connecting and opponent doesn't have a sweeper, chances are you've won already.


So in other words, the losses of playing fewer Goblins in those numbers are rather marginal (few percentages less per Ringleader; whoopedoo, you'll still be winning once they start resolving), while the gains for playing more lands are vast. Explain me why it's correct to play a landcount that:
1. Loses games where your landlight hand was unable to topdeck enough lands after Vial got countered/destroyed.
2. Costs you games because Wastelands were unusable as you needed them for mana preventing you from cutting opponent's color.
3. Forces you to be conservative with your hands as mulligan hands have a high probability to have insufficient landcount.

Do you have some magical cheat that prevents opponents from countering/removing Vial? Do you have some magical defense against land disruption decks? Or don't you just ever need to mulligan?

Yes, you've said "23 is the correct number." and I'm wondering how you ended up with that decision? How extensively have you tested higher landcounts? Seriously, I'd like to know where your conviction comes from.

My conviction comes from playing this deck continuously from GP philly 4 + years ..Im not going to get into a fourm flame war with you about 1% diff in drawing or not drawing lands vs goblins thats already be discussed with the argument of saclands to help the % on ringleader flops

As far as some "magical cheat" NO I play to draw the counters out (smart playing)

LAND disruption decks? are you serious??? what prey tell decks are you speaking of?
If I go second and my opp has island up Im sure the hell not gonna play a sac land first just to have it stiffed ..

I don't see the need to cut something to ad another land when the deck doesn't need it..when All others played 22 lands I kept pushing for 23..
24 is just to many.. if you wanna play 24-25 go a head ..

As I stated I mulled my first hand because I wanted a more aggressive hand
and settled for a sound 6 with 2 land (both basic mountains)
I lost 1 game on a mana screw

I posted this to share my experience with others who play the deck and to help sculpt the best list for the upcoming GP , not to go into flame wars with someone who would rather argue over .01% chance that caused 1 game loss All day.

My point is this EVEN if I had ran 1 MORE land I could have had the same results.. OR could have drawn a land instead of a threat .

I Hope your still not upset over the time I beat you for the 3 round byes a few years back ??? Or Am I confusing you with someone else?

Just seems like your attacking me for no reason hope not

cheers

[eclipsemonger]

um, actually you are confusing him with someone else....your thinking of emidlin.

[deathdealer]

um, actually you are confusing him with someone else....your thinking of emidlin.

Ahhh ok then I'll take that back

@ Eldariel I Understand what your saying about wanting to up the land and the reasons why .

If we agree to disagree it's ok the list I played only ran green for tin streets and grips (IF) I had played the R/B I'll Agree 24 land is stronger because the black mana is needed more g2-3 depending on your sb and build

[FoulQ]

23 is the right number in any monored version with no fetches. 24 is a good number for any splash version that plans to play ports too. 25 is just too much: I tested it (in a BR version) and found it quite weak.

I agree here, in testing 23 is the right land count for fetchless monored (which personally I think is the best right now). I also tested 25 lands and 3 siegegangs in rb goblins and it just did not work out for me.

What is the benefit of running 2+ or so mutavault in those flex spots in monored over say, relics or fanatics? It's not like merfolk where you get +1/+1 islandwalking shenanigans, the only relevant thing is haste, sgc sac effects, and piledriver. Seems to me it would be just another nameless 2/2 that can't get around tarmogoyf. It doesn't get revealed off ringleader, which I know is minor but 4 vials + potential relics g2/3 + mutavaults where goblins would be does create a pretty high count. Unfortunately I've extensively played 8+ nongoblins in my stupid days and it's unbearable, at least for me. I'd rather play fanatics, relics, or tinkerers in those flex spots.

Deathdealer, I know I'm not respected around here very much, but I'm glad you posted. Better than nothing.

Also, I just noticed in a "Legacy's Allure" article on SCG that goblins should not playing around daze, saying "The one exception is Goblins, which should play as fast as possible, Dazes be damned." Do you guys agree with this?

[deathdealer]

Also, I just noticed in a "Legacy's Allure" article on SCG that goblins should not playing around daze, saying "The one exception is Goblins, which should play as fast as possible, Dazes be damned." Do you guys agree with this?

Agreed The same is true playing against standstill (Ignore it and play threw it)

[Seriously]

Also, I just noticed in a "Legacy's Allure" article on SCG that goblins should not playing around daze, saying "The one exception is Goblins, which should play as fast as possible, Dazes be damned." Do you guys agree with this?

NO. I'll just drop fanatic first and beat with that instead. then do vial/lackey second turn.

[ForceofWill]

NO. I'll just drop fanatic first and beat with that instead. then do vial/lackey second turn.

It usually depends on my hand; the key thing to note is if you have a hand that you want to gain tempo or you want to resolve vial and go to midgame.

[GreenOne]

It usually depends on my hand; the key thing to note is if you have a hand that you want to gain tempo or you want to resolve vial and go to midgame.

If I have both lackey and vial I usually play lackey first and then vial:
Pros:
- They gotta find a solution fast, otherwise they just lose.
- Vial becomes Daze-proof, and if the opponent dazed lackey then you have gained some tempo.
Cons:
- Vial will have 1 less counter on it if it would have resolved.

So, basically, my basic strategy is to always play lackey first if I have a Lackey+Vial hand (both on the play and on the draw).
There are obviously rare exceptions, like against Chalice decks I usually play Vial first.
I feel like I'm not always making the optimal choice, so what do you thik about it? Do we agree on playing lackey first and then vial?

[Mantis]

I play Vial first against anything but decks with Daze in it. Against a deck with Daze I will play my Lackey first because I value my Vial against those decks very highly. Vial allows us to easily play around Counterbalance. The chances they don't have FoW and don't have Daze are pretty slim, so I'd rather use Lackey for bait on the draw. On the play I haven't quite figured out yet what the better play it, it largely depends on your opening hand I guess.

Against decks without Daze, just go for first turn Vial. Vial just a ton better than Lackey and the opponent will usually be able to deal with a turn 1 Lackey anyway. Even if they would not be able to deal with first turn Lackey I still think Vial is a stronger play on turn one. But it also depends on my hand, if I have a Siege Gang and a way to remove blockers the second turn I will gladly open with Lackey first.

Combo is an exception. Against combo just hope for turn 1 Lackey and then topdeck a Siege Gang Commander, because Vial is too slow in that matchup.

[deathdealer]

For the combo match up what do you all think of running thorns ?
instead of challace or pillars?

challace stops thier tutors (but they just bounce it)
pillar hurts (but they either bounce it or angels grace threw it)
thorns slows down tutors/mana excel (doesnt shut off ur spells)

[Mantis]

Pyrostatic Pillar is not your best bet against Combo I agree on that.
Chalice is great, like you said it stops the Infernal Tutor and greatly hinders their mana supply and significantly weakens Ad Nauseam. It makes your Wastes and Ports better and it doesn't take up any of your mana to do so thus you can quickly apply pressure. As combo can somtimes kill on turn 1 or 2 it's very important to be able to drop it early, Thorn or Pillar might just be too late.

Another thought I had was Root Maze, seems great at slowing them down and making your Wastes/Ports count. I think if we spend 6 or 7 slots on combo with Chalice and Root Maze the matchup might just be winnable. Root Maze + Chalice + Waste/Port + an adequate clock seems like a great way to beat combo actually.

[Eldariel]

Pyrostatic Pillar is not your best bet against Combo I agree on that.
Chalice is great, like you said it stops the Infernal Tutor and greatly hinders their mana supply and significantly weakens Ad Nauseam. It makes your Wastes and Ports better and it doesn't take up any of your mana to do so thus you can quickly apply pressure. As combo can somtimes kill on turn 1 or 2 it's very important to be able to drop it early, Thorn or Pillar might just be too late.

Another thought I had was Root Maze, seems great at slowing them down and making your Wastes/Ports count. I think if we spend 6 or 7 slots on combo with Chalice and Root Maze the matchup might just be winnable. Root Maze + Chalice + Waste/Port + an adequate clock seems like a great way to beat combo actually.

7-8 cards is correct, Root Maze isn't. LED works while tapped making it far weaker than it appears. Chalice+Waste/Port+Generic 1-Drop Disruption is your best bet to go with Lackey, but the true question is whether it's worth devoting that much SB on. I'd personally wager more than Chalices is a waste and even Chalices are ok only because they are useful elsewhere. REB is another such card to consider; really screws their setup cards. Unfortunately, it requires keeping mana open which slows down your clock.

[Ectoplasm]

7-8 cards is correct, Root Maze isn't. LED works while tapped making it far weaker than it appears. Chalice+Waste/Port+Generic 1-Drop Disruption is your best bet to go with Lackey, but the true question is whether it's worth devoting that much SB on. I'd personally wager more than Chalices is a waste and even Chalices are ok only because they are useful elsewhere. REB is another such card to consider; really screws their setup cards. Unfortunately, it requires keeping mana open which slows down your clock.

In my opinion, without running some kind of interaction with combo MD, the matchup will remain unfavourable unless you devote obscene amounts of sideboardspace to it. Just run some token allround disruption and consider it a lost cause, except for the occasional cabal therapy + prowled earwigsquad-fueled fluke win.
Taking out combo is what we have threshold players for :)

[Mantis]

Thanks for pointing that out Eldariel, that means Root Maze doesn't do squat unfortunately. You really think REB is worth it? Both TES and ANT don't seem all that dependant on blue. And while it can screw up their setup and therefore buys you some it also slows down your clock making it hardly worth the trouble I guess. Would you side in your Relic of Progenitus against combo? I usually do, but I'm unsure if the effect is big enough to really warrant siding it in.

I personally hate to just play the 'Glass Cannon' strategy. I mean if it works out that's nice but if you get paired up against combo you are screwed.
I also think that you really don't need much help from your sideboard against most decks. 4 Pyrokinesis and 4 Relic are mandatory, I already have 3 Relic in my maindeck so that leaves a ton of space to work with. So devoting a large part of the sideboard against combo doesn't seem too bad.

Also, deathdealer I really like your approach of just going RG. I would change some things, but I really don't think Warren Weirding is worth all the trouble especially with Relics in the maindeck. So I think you are spot on in that assesment. I'm not sure why you run 2 TSH though, I can see the purpose of one, killing off equipment but 2 just seems a bit redundant. I would prefer one of them to be a Stingscourger. Though I might cut all of them if I were to run your build because I just love Relic of Progenitus in the maindeck.