So the main argument I agree with against caverns is the one posted a while back:
Caverns doesn't let you play lackey turn 0
Caverns doesn't let you play vial turn 0
This means you're still behind the curve in terms of lackey swinging and vial getting counters. Against a lot of decks, especially combo, this is the biggest deal. Granted, I'm not arguing caverns is bad, but it's *not* like going first, unless they're dumb enough to wasteland you :-P. Control decks will realize you went down a card and just try to counter your threats most of the time.
Originally Posted by tsabo_tavoc
Yeah so practically, when it works you get the land drops of going first, but not the counters on the Vial and your lackey will still have summoning sickness. You do make these cards less sensitive to Daze on the plus side, playing a 2 drop turn 1 seems like walking in a spell snare to me though whereas normally they'll lose tempo not casting anything turn 2 to leave mana open for spell snare. Having the caverns is far less threatening then actually going first because you still can't use your 1 drops (or follow up with a 2 drop already). You didn't get the Tempo that is involved with going first, only when you're lacking a drop it would be comparable.
Anyway, there's upsides and downsides having a turn 1 extra land. Against anything but control oriented decks that win against you not on speed, but on card advantage. Against Aggro, the extra land will probably help, but it might very well not do so either. In that 11% I'm not entirely sure if you actually significantly increase your chances of winning the game to be honest.
What are you trying to achieve with this post? Are you trying to convince us to run Caverns instead of Port with obnoxious behaviour instead of actual arguments? To me that is a sign of weakness rather than strength thus actually solidifying my belief that Port is better than Caverns.
Don't get me wrong, I am open to debate and good arguments are being made in this thread that make me want to test out Caverns more, but this is definately not one of them. The only problem I have with Caverns is the only way to run them seems to be at the expense of Rishadan Port. Cutting Port is a very rough decision as it cuts off a great strategical path; namely the manadenial one. With 8 'landdestruction cards' this path is a great alternative route to victory under the right circumstances. I have actually beaten a wide variety of decks using this route, from Landstill to Merfolk to Tempo Thresh. The importance of Port in stopping decks you have a horrendous matchup against must not be underestimated. Decks such as combo and Enchantress have great means of stopping you, attacking their mana is actually one of the best ways to deal with them.
I must admit that Caverns is great under the right circumstances but there are a lot of requirments to be met before it can work wonders. Your opening 7 needs to contain the right mixture of spells and land to actually take advantage of it as you need to throw a spell away and still have the aggressive hand to take advantage of having 2 mana on your first turn.
If I were to run Caverns (which I'm still not sure about), I would run no more than 1 as I don't think it's powerful enough to justify the risk of getting screwed over with 2 Caverns in your hand.
To conclude my rant I'd like to quote Ectoplasm as he made a very important point and an essential reason for me to play Port:
Just want to let you guys know that the comparison to rishadan port is flawed, as you might have a vial ticking away ensuring you don't lose tempo, lackeys hitting your opponent, warchiefs making your dudes cheaper etc.
Expressing my frustration and confusion as to why people play Port in a metagame dominated by opposing Wastelands. Null and void I guess since Caverns is non basic too but odds are it will provide more use before getting wasted than Port.
I do not understand why people pay mana to use Port instead of paying mana to do what Goblins does best, smash face.
...
Thanks Taco so far I have loved this card.
Taco didn't suggest Caverns in the first place, but thats irrelevant.
It's was never my intention to come off as inflammatory. Rather, I wanted to put you into place for use of violent words, that wasn't appropiate. Anyway I realize that's not my job and I should have left it to the mods.
To answer your question about not understanding the use of Port: I think you play Goblins in a different way than I do. I play Goblins defensively, hence Port fits this plan perfectly. To quote Manuel Bucher: Play around everything. During a game of Magic if I am in the situation where I can play around everything I will try my darnest to do so. You apparently play the deck in a different fashion, I guess you try to kill the opponent before he builds up. This is the reason I have been the one advocating the use of Mogg War Marshal so loudly ever since GreenOne suggested it and this is also the reason I love Rishadan Port. My gameplan varies according to what deck I face; if I face a deck that maximizes the value of each card they play (ie Threshold) and focusses on card selection and quality rather than card advantage I try to outlast them by building up my resources and then bury them under card advantage. Port helps me reach this point. Instead, if you assume the aggressive role you play right into their gameplan and their card selection and superior creatures will get the better of you. That is not to say assuming the control role is the best gameplan all the time but you will have to navigate between deciding which role is best; Port at least gives me the opportunity to do so and allows me to maximize the importance of my experience and playskill with this deck.
Point taken.
Uh. Yes I did. Page 127.
Given that Countertop and Landstill are both DTB right now, I can't see myself cutting Ports ever. Further, without Ports, Wastes alone are insufficient disruption to consistently cut people off colors or keep them off E. Plague/Moat/Whatever-mana. Ports are also very important to beating tons of randomness (e.g. by FAR our best chance vs. Enchantress is to catch their enchanted lands with Wastes & Ports while Vial/Lackey gets paid - we can also lock out various Rock-decks by annihilating their manabase and Aggro Loam/43 Lands are both best stymied to one land, preferably without RR(R) for Aggro Loam, and with Maze of Iths tapped for Lands).
And of course, if we do have a hand without a 2-drop (say, Vial, Warchief, Matron, Ringleader, Mountain, Port, Waste), Port is a great way to cash in on the turn 2 mana anyways while proceeding to the lategame where you rule. Hell, I'd cut Wastes before Ports 'cause Ports are something I can use for mana when it's advantageous to me, and for mana disruption when it is likewise advantageous to me. This feels like a pretty huge advantage in a deck that wants 5-6 mana on board eventually (if the game isn't over yet).
If adding Caverns, I'd definitely do it in addition to, not instead of Ports. Mana denial just feels way too important against all decks with Goblins-hate (not everyone has cut their Plagues and Humilities, especially with Merfolk & Elves being present in the format too) and against three of the five DTBs right now and in random scenarios.
That's probably the best Port argument I've heard yet. Engineered Plague is -everywhere- in my metagame, given that Goblins, Merfolk, and Ichorid are all prevalent, and players are working on Elves.
He didn't even mention this play:
T1: Land, Lacky/Vial
their T1: Land
T2: Rishadan Port (possible lacky w/vial)
their T2: upkeep = tap their land, they play land, can't cast Tarmogoyf
Eldariel hit the nail on the head, exactly what I had in my mind to say but I'm bad at finding the right words to tell what I mean. Guess it has something to do with English being my second language.
My bad, got things mixed up, sorry for that.
Team R&D
I agree that Port is necessary for this deck and is much better than Caverns. The turn one Vial, turn two port strategy is one of the best strategies you can use against Thresh, effectively gaining so much advantage that its crazy. By the time they can drop a goyf, its turn three at the earliest, which by then you already have a lackey off of the vial plus whatever he put into play, plus any two drop you might vial in. The Gemstone Caverns creates for faster, more aggro first couple of turns, which doesn't matter when they have all the mana to play whatever answers they see fit. The Japanese Thresh list runs over players that try to "smash face" easily, especially when so much of the Meta is attempting to do the same thing (Goblins, Merfolk, Elves, even Zoo). Port gives you the opportunity to control your opponent when needed, or, if you have a better turn 2 play, it taps for mana and can control later on.
Also, I haven't played Goblins in about 8 months, so I was wondering: Do any Goblins lists run Mutavault? Maybe the mono-red one? Seems like it'd be ok with the vials, lackeys, and warchiefs to cheat the curve so that you could spend the mana on another goblin beater.
You need Port to win here?
Seriously, though, most of the instances of Port being strong I see are in best case scenarios. Only in the Plague/Himility instance Eldariel mentioned do I see Port actually shining in a bad situation rather than helping you just win more.
A first turn Vial is not the equivalent of a win. You do need ports and wastelands to keep the game locked up.
Another good thing about port is it is great against players who are bad at mulliganing. If they keep a 2-land hand and your hand contains port they can be screwed. And for some decks locking them out of a color can be important such as against goyf, any other green card, blue cards, black cards, white cards, and sometimes red cards.
Most importantly, port allows you to slow the game down and build up card advantage. It can serve as a tempo tool or a mana locker which I believe goblins really thrives on. I agree that it is a little win-more but locking down people's mana has always been a part of my game plan. If port is so bad in the current metagame, then goblins is too (and honestly I haven't been happy with the deck lately).
IMO what makes goblins viable is its ability to change roles from aggro to control while still maintaining the synergy and plumpness of 30+ creatures. Taking away port really takes away from that ability to be the control role obviously, with or without a vial in play.
@FoulQ: Are you saying you're not personally enjoying it, or that it's bad. Because Goblins has always been a top contender in Legacy. The germans agree: http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?e...burg+-+Germany
... 3 of those top 8 decks were goblins.
@Brizentine Empire: All 3 goblin decks in the link I posted above run mutavault. However, only 1 of them runs wasteland and none of them run port. I don't agree with that. I personally don't have room for it, mono or not.
@Tacosnape: You have a point that if you play Lackey on turn 1 and they don't have a turn 1 drop, port is just 'win more'. But there's more to it than that. Listen to what the other people are telling you on this post, because they've obviously seen what ports can do. Last year, I ran the deck without ports and only won about half of my matches. I've been doing better since I added the ports. If a threshold deck manages to drop a mongoose on T1, I'm still in a good position if I have a vial on the table and my port delays the Tarmogoyf. I usually don't have good T2 drops anyway. It's either a piledriver without haste or another 1 drop. It's much more beneficial to slow them down on this turn and then start smashing face on T3. That, and it taps down Mishra's Factory when you're on the draw against a deck like 43 land or landstill so you can get in with the Lackey.
@Everyone who stopped playing Mogg Fanatic: Why? I stopped playing them for a while to make room for more removal in my deck, until I remembered that Mogg Fanatic is great removal too. And it blocks. And it's a goblin. For one mana. Run it.
And has anyone found a good sideboard card for threshold? I hate how mongoose can't be targeted, but if I run mass removal I'm usually helping them.
How about relic of Progenitus?
That brings up another point of discussion. Whether to run Relic, Crypt, or some combination of both. Relic would seem the better choice because it also weakens goyf and gets you a card back. But that's also costing you a mana to activate, and it costs 1 to begin with. Crypt can be dropped for free during the fist couple turns when you really need your mana, and dropping it during the first couple turns can be critical vs decks like ichorid.
I'd say it depends on your build. I play R/b, so Tarmogoyfs and Mongeese don't bother me that much since I run 4 Warren Weirdings. In that case I'd go for Crypt.
Without Weirding I'd probably consider running Relics.
Actually, 2 of them are running Wastelands. One deck is missing 8 cards and is running only 19 lands. Chances are that he's running wastes too.
There also some other weird choices about those decks: SB kiki-jiki, 3-4 Fanatics, 1 Piledriver MD and so on.. I don't know if mutavaults are worth it. When I tested them they became relevant only against standstill and other tribal decks.
The only relevant creatures that get hit by fanatic right now are Dark Confidant, Noble Hierarc, Goblin Lackey.
To be fair, I missed fanatic sometimes, when facing one of those dudes. I'll try to re-test it in place of a couple War Marshall, but it seems like the deck has already a good removal package with 4 incinerators and 2 stingscourgers.
Relic is definetly the way to go if you're not splashing. Otherwise you can play Perish.
Currently Playing: Nourishing Lich.Deck
Current Record: 1-83-2
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
