I could probably be convinced to go to 3 Deltas, but I don't think you really need 11 white sources. You don't play any white spells game 1, and the Tundras are actually worse than basics in that game. Games 2 and 3, you only ever need a single white, although having it stick around can be nice. I find that my first fetch rarely searches a Tundra, so it's possible that adding another fetch could be beneficial since it ups the chance that the second blue source could be a white source too. I'll play around a bit with it.Originally Posted by Finn
Glad you like the build though. It's really strong.
I find it amusing that a few pages back I was suggesting splash without brainstorm and people thought I was crazy for it :-P. I also suggested the lower white count ;). Minus swapping thrasher for sovereign, this is pretty close to my list. Anyways, yeah, I did some testing, it's pretty solid.
Any reason you chose not to go maindeck Swords to Plowshares?
It's not always that useful. I know it's sacrilege to suggest it, but it's rarely something you should be focusing on. It's beneficial vs. our matchups like Zoo, Elves, and the Mirror, but against stuff like Thresh, Landstill, combo, Ichorid, and the like, it's four slots that are better served by the consistency of the maindeck as I've laid it out. In other words, the more aggro the opponent, the more useful it is. I suppose if your metagame is decidedly bent toward aggressive decks, then it could very well be worth fitting into the main. In an open meta, however, I'd leave them in the board.
I'm curious to know what you'd be cutting for them, though. I've had some difficulty with the deck when it comes to sideboarding - Especially for a matchup like AggroLoam, where I want to bring in roughly 12 cards.
Ehh, I still prefer w/out the splash I think. Adam has gone to 21 lands though and kept STP in the side. I like that compromise.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
I don't really view keeping STP in the side as a compromise. The fact is that what hurts you with splashing is either the duals (land destruction) or the fetchlands (sligh decks). Fetching 3 times during a game essentially bolts you. And while you can use STP on your own critters to win some of that life back, that tends to be a last resort.
As for what I'd cut from:
4 Wasteland
3 Mutavault
3 Tundra
4 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
5 Island
4 Cursecatcher
4 Silvergill Adept
4 Lord of Atlantis
4 Merrow Reejerey
4 Merfolk Sovereign
4 Aether Vial
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
3 Stifle
4 Standstill
Well, I think I'd only run 3 STP main, as 4 is overkill. The first two drops are obvious for me, 1 critter and a daze. The critter would probably be 1 sovereign. From there, I've always run 20 lands not 21, so I'd be tempted to say a land. Though I'm sure you're running your manabase for a reason. I'm not sure what I'd cut for the last STP.
As for sacrilege, I already got stoned for not running brainstorm, so I hardly think dropping STP as well is that big of a thing. You're right, you want to keep up the aggro, and STP can hurt that by giving your opponent life. Was just curious what your thoughts were on the topic.
So what does the sideboard look like? I'm just brainstorming now by the waySomething like this perhaps:
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Relic of Progenitus
3 Ethersworn Cannonist (why not?)
3 Umezawa's Jitte
3 Back to Basics
So how would you side against Domain Zoo for instance? The cards you want out of your sideboard are Swords, Jitte and B2B. The cards that are less useful in this match-up are Standstill... and then what? Stifles are obviously very good against the fetches, so you want to keep these. Dazes may be cut, since it destroys your tempo and you need to keep up with Zoo. So that's 8 free slots and you need 10. 2 more. Perhaps drop an Adept and a Cursecatcher; they lack toughness and are easily burned down. Cutting into the lords seems like a bad plan versus Zoo.
So, taking Tivadar's list in the above post, with the sideboard I suggested, against Domain Zoo you should side: -4 Standstill, -4 Daze, -1 Silvergill Adept, -1 Cursecatcher, +4 Swords to Plowshares, +3 Umezawa's Jitte and +3 Back to Basics.
You could consider extra anti-aggro tech like Submerge, Threads of Disloyalty and Mind Harness, but you don't really have anything to drop for those cards, so you'd rather put some other forms of hate in your sideboard, like anti-storm with Cannonist and anti-Loam with Relic.
Amirite?
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
I miss the Wake Trasher in your List. He is bigger than the other Fishes because after the change of M10 you tapp your lands at the of turn from your oppenet without manaburn. That's makes him very big. I would cut the new Merfolk Lord and would play 3 Wake Trashers. Furthermore you need Stifle playset for manascrew.
That means:
- 1 Polluted Delta
+ 1 Stifle
- 3 Merfolk Sovereign
+ 3 Wake Trasher
Is the splash for white good? I don't think so. Maybe a Rushing River as an alternativ Removal and bounce him his creature. The same Job like StoP without a LifeGain. You play a fast game with Merfolk and the LifeGain isn't a good Choice. It's better to bounce his 2 creatures with only one card and make the way free to attack.
Greets.
Zoo<3
The discussion about Wake Thrasher/Sovereign is a page back (Nightmare's post). They deliberately chose for Sovereign over Thrasher. There are also already 4 Dazes in the list. Perhaps you should read better?
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
My Mistake with Daze. I mean Stifle. -> Edit, sorry.
Zoo<3
Stifles (or Dazes) don't necessarily protect you from a Tarmogoyf. Players often already play around them; by default they already take the lowest risk possible. Cutting a land isn't an option either I think, it'll sooner get you screwed than your opponent. Besides, Stifle is good, but not that good. As said before, as a Merfolk player you want to tap out and go broken. Stifle slows you down. I'd rather use my mana than to wait for a fetch.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
Ehh, I find myself missing the Thrashers now. I played Landstill last night. When I topdecked Sovereign after Wrath of God I was not pleased.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
Well, that was to be expected. To improve against match-ups like Tempo Thresh, where Fire kills a Thrasher and an Adept, or Zoo, where Thrasher lacks blocking power, you could opt to drop Thrasher and run a pumper so you can swarm better. And yes, swarms die to Landstill. But so do Thrashers: there are lots of Landstill lists where they run enough Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exiles or Vindicates to kill off that singleton Thrasher too. But you are correct, in that situation you'd rather draw Thrasher. But how often does it happen? I mean, you can also keep in mind that a WoG wipes your board and keep a few Merfolk as a back-up in your hand.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
Yeah guys, while that list was close to my actual list, it is NIGHTMARE'S list, and not my own. As for his sideboard, this is what he listed.
Generally I'd probably not run this list exactly. Since we don't have any way to search for things, and no brainstorming action, 2 ofs in the sideboard seem weak to me. I'd probably go:
3x STP
3x Relic
3x Absolute Law
3x Threads
3x Canonist
I do like the canonist from the sideboard for the combo matchup here. Though the one thing I'd like back in the above is the Blebs. Part of the reason I'd try to maindeck STP and have BLEB be in the board.
Oh right, Threads > Back to Basics when you splash white, ofcourse. Makes alot more sense.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
Coming from the perspective of someone who has tested the TES matchup rather extensively - since Bryant basically lives at my house during summer break - I'm curious about Canonist. Do you REALLY think you need more help in the combo matchup? I certainly haven't seen a need for it.
If you would ever need help meddling mage is far better becasue it pitches to force and because it's useful against control.
With all due respect, TES kind of sucks. ANT is much much worse and actually a difficult match-up. I have played against very experienced ANT players regularly (Team Nijmegen for instance). Against ANT, Cannonist could be a helpful addition. You can't just use a Meddling Mage, because it doesn't actually stop the combo. If you say Ad Nauseum, they can build storm and use EtW. If you say Tendrils, they go off via EtW. If you name EtW, they go off via Tendrils. Meddling Mage just doesn't cut it. Neither does Cannonist alone, but it has to be bounced for them to succeed. Meddling Mage doesn't.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
I'm certainly not going to get into an argument about combo in the merfolk thread, but which combo deck you're playing against is of little relevance. The point I'm making is that you're a blue based aggro deck that runs Force, Stifle, and 8 Dazes, along with Wasteland. I can't believe you'd want to dedicate an additional three sideboard slots to a deck that should be a fairly good matchup already. Or, even more, why they would be as narrow as Canonist. You'd never bring that in against any other decks. I'd still rather have BEB, which is serviceable against combo, and much, much better against aggro loam.
Against TES, yes, but ANT doesn't run any red spells except EtW, and BEB doesn't really help there. You could argue that you're wasting 3 slots, but I don't see it like that. Aggro is definately our worst match-up, and we're already dedicating about 9 slots to that match-up. Putting more effort against these decks is a waste, because you'll never be able to keep the consistancy of the basic Merfolk list: you'll have to drop too much. I must say that I think Tivadar made a mistake by dropping the Jitte's. Absolute Law could be considered and is indeed very good, but you have to consider the match-ups. You also want Absolute Law in almost any match-up where you could also use Threads, Jitte and Swords to Plowshares. So if you want to improve that match-up, one of these will have to give way.
You can argue that Merfolk has enough already to defeat combo, but I don't think that's true. There's quite a bit, yes, but we could use some more. At least, that's my experience with it.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably delicious.
Team ADHD-To resist is to piss in the wind. Anyone who does will end up smelling.
Alright, let's say I'm willing to concede that point. I'm not positive I am, but for the sake of discussion, let's pretend. Is Canonist really the slot you want there? Assuming the White Splash (otherwise you wouldn't be running Canonist), isn't there a better use of that slot? Canonist is both a creature and an artifact, which makes it the most vulnerable permanent type possible. Both ANT and TES have ample ways of dealing with it. Pair that vulnerability with the fact that it's literally useless against any other matchup, and it makes me really wish we had something like Chant instead.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote