Yes, please look 10-or-so pages back or use the search function.Originally Posted by Pastorofmuppets
It's not flexible enough (Divert/Misdirection).
Especially Misdirection is a poor choice because of the nature of the Pox matchup. Even if you are able to Misdirect a Hymn, you didn't win the exchange as much as you'd think. Although 3:2 with huge tempo would be game-winning in most matchups, Pox is quite effective without many cards.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great tradeoff, but it isn't game-sealing, and it cost you a board card and only works 1) Against discard black, I can't imagine boarding Misdirection against other colours, 2) when you draw it and 3) when your opponent Hymns you. Misdirecting a Duress or Thoughtseize is not as strong.
I mean, yeah: Misdirection is a great card, but it's not nearly game-swinging enough against Pox to be worth the board card, especially considering how rare it is to see Pox. In the questioned meta, there's like one guy on Pox, right?
If you're going to board one, board Divert. At least Divert can win the game, even given the difficulty to use it. But honestly I wouldn't touch either.
Hmm, about the original Pox matchup. Although it's very possible to metagame Pox hard against weenie decks (you mentioned Pyroclasm, which is very strong), I'm not sure how that'd work out. I'm really only familiar with BG pox, so it might be that BR pox is a wrecking ball.
One thing just about the tone of your post: You sound a little timid. It seems like you might be playing into Pox's game even subconsciously. Pox is definitely the reactive deck, so really you have to look at your hand and make a game plan for how you're going to win the game and try to implement that plan. Pox is very, very good at getting card advantage, but it does so in a "toss some spaghetti against the wall"-type strategy. It'll attack your land, hand, and creatures in play at the same time.
If you try to play a "standard" Magic game against Pox, you'll walk into the trap of having a blend of everything. Like Master of Puppets said, the easiest way to win is to get a Vial on the board. If you don't need to worry about land, fully a third third of their card advantage is effectively neutered.
But even without Vial, you can still overextend and get a good chance at the win. He might have Pyroclasm, he might not. If you overextend, you force him to have it (and if you get two lords out, you'll probably be able to win anyway). If you hold back, he'll be able to win even without seeing a Pyroclasm.
It helps to playtest a little, but I'd try to have a solid image of my game plan against Pox before I play my first land (or, if you don't know what your opponent is playing, have it as soon as you identify your opponent's deck).
So I guess the general consensus was a no?
Also, it's pretty down pat that you shouldn't really be metagaming for Pox.
Zappa I have not played the white splash enough (and especially not against Pox) to know if the benefits of Swords to plowshares outweigh the problems incurred with mana instability. STP is critical if he gets a Tombstalker out, but his Sinkholes and Wastelands are going to wreak havoc on your Tundras.
Beyond that, I really like Misdirection in this matchup. It's good against Sinkhole, Hymn, and Thoughtseize, and Vindicate. I guess it could work on Smother and Diabolic Edict, but I have never used it for either. I HAVE been holding it when Smother killed my guy with no other target. It is notably useless against Duress due to strange wording on Duress.
A while back a lot of people tried out Divert, and I wanted it to be good, but I never liked it. Misdirection is going to piss you off from time to time as it is. You will not like the added requirements placed on you with Divert. And I have like Misdirection against Zoo, combo, and Goyfsligh. It has pretty wide uses. So while I don't think I would metagame for Pox, I commonly have Misdirection in my sb, and it comes in for this one.
"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."
There's also Snapback, which has multiple various uses and is free-ish.
Snapback just seems like it's not worth the card disadvantage, especially when Echoing Truth is competing to fill its role as this deck's bounce spell.
Even Force of Will, the granddaddy of all pitch spells and that which we should compare them all to, is kind of a pain in the ass, because you're essentially 2-for-1-ing yourself (and pinging yourself while you're at it). FoW is good because it's a permanent answer, and it works as a trump card. I'm not saying it's not ungodly good. I'm just saying that when you start applying similar drawbacks to be able to get other effects for no mana cost, you have to take a hard look at what you're gaining by pitching that card from your hand.
Misdirection is sexy, because it lets you do very unexpected things, and there's not really a good way for your opponent to play around it. However, I don't usually include Misdirection in my lists, because I question how often it will swing the game in my favor. In a deck where most of your blue spells are the very same creatures you want to win the game with, you have to be pretty cautious about what you're willing to pitch a blue card from your hand for. However, Misdirection is one thing I should probably test more, I just might like it.
On the other hand... basically, I would argue that Snapback doesn't hit anything besides creatures and there are very few situations where you're going to find its alternate cost worthwhile. In general, what you have is a two-mana bounce spell that hits far less things than Echoing Truth (extra-amazing vs. Dredge) or Wipe Away (awesome-sauce vs. Counterbalance, although I've never liked the UU1 casting cost). I wouldn't use Snapback, because there are just better bounce spells available.
Bless your heart, we must consider Blue/White Tempo's strategy and win percentages in an entirely different deck thread. -4eak
What does the pox list look like at this point? It seems to me that Vial really helps you in this matchup, allowing you to not worry about your lands. That only leaves keeping enough creatures on the board. I'd figure this wouldn't be so hard with the card advantage provided by standstill/silvergill.
Assuming you *don't* have vial, then they'll probably try to keep you off your lands. In that case, (and assuming they're running sinkhole), I'd assume misdirection would shine like the dickens. Misdirecting a sinkhole can really be a game changer early on.
Basically, why are you having trouble against pox? I would have assumed we handled that deck quite well.
EDIT: Ahh, red for burn plus pyroclasm as well... Sounds as if your problem is the red, not the black here. But umm, doesn't this deck just scoop to combo? Start running ANT!
Is Pox a MU we really have to worry about?
So I have a question for experienced merfolk players. I'm pretty new to the deck still, but I've been casually reading the thread and don't think this has really been discussed all that much.
Say I'm running standard 12-lord all 4-of build with 20 lands (this includes stifle). I assume we pretty much always want to go for turn 1 vial, even over stifle/cursecatcher, except in special situations (belcher or something maybe?). So anyways, say we have a hand of cursecatcher + stifle, some lands (including two blue sources), and some other stuff.
Is there certain popular archetypes/decks where we want to play the cursecatcher and not hope for first turn stifle pwnage, or on the other side, decks where we want to just lay the island and pass hoping to pwn some noobs with stifle? (Remember, we do have two blue sources so we could lay our second island and then play cursecatcher turn two still leaving open an island for stifle if we don't use it on the first turn). And what is the first turn play if we have no idea?
More interestingly, if we DON'T have the stifle and if we just play first turn island, (the opponent not knowing we are playing merfolk, but what the hell they pretty much know by that anyways), should we fake the stifle against certain popular archetypes/decks? Or just not do that voodoo bullshit and play the cursecatcher.
If anybody has ideas I think this might help me and some others new to the deck too, because it can be hard to decide when to keep mana open for stifle and when to play your stuff out.
The correct answer to this generally depends on your hand and your matchup and is highly speculative based on the situation. Especially if a Standstill's in your hand. Then you have to factor in the odds of Stifle time-walking into a clear board Standstill, the odds of them playing a non-fetch and a spell where you'd need the Cursecatcher, and the odds of them immediately dropping out a threat against your Cursecatcher where the Standstill is a risky idea (Lackey with potential Gempalm, Lavamancer, and Nacatl come to mind.) And -then- you get to weigh that versus whether you've got a Mutavault in your hand, etc, etc.
Then again, I'd rather just not run Stifle and flat out go for the kill.
In my experience, you *most* of the time want to play vial over saving mana for stifle/cursecatcher. The one exception would be if they've gone, played a fetchland, and not used it. In that case, I'd save the mana for stifle (duh). The only case I can think of where I'd play cursecatcher over vial would be if I was playing against ANT or something similar and feared them going off first turn and had no other answer.
As for stifle vs. cursecatcher, If I didn't know what my opponent was running, I'd probably hold back the cursecatcher first turn for a possible stifle. That's assuming I had another island in my hand and could play cursecatcher second turn and be able to cast stifle. That's also assuming they haven't dropped a land yet...
As Taco says, it's highly situational. But I also agree with him. Stifle was only good when no one expected it. It's too easy to play around when people see it coming. And by the way, if I've got both vial and standstill in my hand, I'm playing vial first turn, standstill second, minus the flying spaghetti god coming down and intervening with the game.
I guess the jury is STILL out on Stifle.
Merfolk is really a tempo-based deck. Sure, you'd say that's a great reason to go for the Stifle, but waiting around doing nothing is not a good course of action for a Merfolk player.
Merfolk has good midgame creatures, but it can't take advantage of dead time the same way other decks can.
Combo decks can draw into more options, exponentially increasing the chances of going off. Against combo, you're better off trying to clock them and drawing into enough answers.
Control decks have endgame bombs like Wrath of God or Moat which trump lower cards (I still use Wrath as an example, but honestly -- it's shitty now, but the example of bombs existing is still relevant), and want nothing but opportunities to get land onto the table. A landed Stifle would hurt them, but until you put something on the board, there's zero pressure for them to crack a fetchland.
Aggro-Control decks can stack their hands with Brainstorm and Ponder and whatever else. Again, you're better putting on the pressure and taking advantage of their slow starts.
Aggro decks are the worst! While you're passing with your Island, they're playing Mountain Vial.
I can't think of any situations where this will pay off.
Long story short: If a player is so land-hungry that the Stifle will win the game (and be worth the gamble), there's no way a good player would crack their land into open Blue when you don't even have pressure on the board.
But basically, they'll just play a non-fetch if they have it and not crack a fetch if that's their only play.
No, it's not. The jury has spoken time and time. Stifle does so much more than 'splode fetchlands...
Regardless, it's a terrible play to stay untapped for it.
FoulO, you want the Cursecatcher most of the time. Forbiddian is right. Here is my gross generalization.
If you play Cursecatcher.
(a) If the opponent has a first turn play that can not be Stifled or Caught (Taiga, Nacatl), you did not waste your turn. (b) If the opponent has a play that can be Caught, but not Stifled (Tundra, Ponder), you made the only right play. (c) If the opponent has a play that either will affect (fetch, Tropical Island, Ponder) you still have an answer. Not as good as Stifle, but gets the job done. (d) If the opponent has a play that only Stifle can stop, (Foothills, Taiga, Nacatl) you did not ruin him, but even then you still have a threat and did not toss away turn 1, especially if turn 2 is Lord of Atlantis.
results
(a) good
(b) good
(c) good
(d) bad
If you wait for Stifle.
If the opponent has a first turn play that can not be Stifled or Caught (Taiga, Nacatl), you wasted your turn. If the opponent has a play that can be Caught, but not Stifled (Tundra, Ponder), you made wrong play no matter what. If the opponent has a play that either will affect (fetch, Tropical Island, Ponder) you still have an answer. If the opponent has a play that only Stifle can stop, (Foothills, Taiga, Nacatl) you made the only right play.
results
(a) bad
(b) bad
(c) good
(d) good
"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."
Finn, my only gripe with that analysis is section 1 part c, are you going to sacrifice cursecatcher to counter ponder? I mean I don't really know but I feel that might be kind of a waste of a cursecatcher. But I haven't really played the deck very long, so is countering cantrips like that really worth it? (Say you have plenty more guys in hand)
My only gripe is that yes, I'd probably sacrifice cursecatcher to stop ponder/brainstorm, however, that's NOWHERE near as good as you stifling the land drop. So yes, the bads and goods are correct, but not the extent of them. I think an argument can be made for both sides, but if I'm on play with cursecatcher, stifle, and 2 islands, I'm going island-go in hopes of wrecking their manabase. If I'm on draw and they've played a land, I'm going island-cursecatcher-go, figuring going another turn back to possibly (but probably not) prevent land 2 isn't worth it.
Here is when stifle the turn 1 land drop works:
A) Your opponent is playing fetchlands (Ok, pretty much a given).
B) Your opponent draws fetchlands.
C) Your opponent has a turn 1 play that must be mainphased. Faced with the choice between cracking a fetchland to play Ponder and holding it to play Brainstorm endstep, I'll hold to Brainstorm if I don't know what my opponent is playing. If I do know he's playing Merfolk, I certainly will try not to crack the fetchland.
D) Your opponent does not draw a hard land in the proper color or your opponent is fairly strongly flooded and would like to reduce the land concentration left in his deck.
A) Hey, Merfolk exists. And MUC. And like that one white deck about Eskimos or something.
B) Yeah, most decks run fetchlands, but they're not always drawn. Given 8 fetchlands, there's about a 1/3 chance that your opponent doesn't even have a fetchland (29%).
C) I can't really give exact probabilities, but most decks have about 8-16 mainphasable one drops. I don't want to calculate exact probabilities, but you're looking somewhere a little less than 0.7*(0.7-0.9) just to get a fetchland + a 1 drop to even make the play viable. Half to 2/3rds of the time.
D) There's also a 54% probability that he has both a fetchland and a hard land, given 18 land, 8 fetches and 10 hard land. That leaves about a 20% chance that he's forced to even play a fetchland (although his one drop could be an off color, I give you that). With an opponent leaving Blue untapped, I'll almost certainly play the hard land first if possible.
Against most decks, this is an inconceivable play. It has less than a 50% chance of even making your opponent think about changing their default behavior in light of your obvious Stifle broadcast.
For this reason 1) You shouldn't stay untapped for Stifle and 2) You certainly shouldn't stay untapped to bluff a Stifle if you have any other option.
And at any rate, it's a better use of Stifle to Stifle a fetchland + Brainstorm attempt, leaving your opponent short land and drawing into crappy cards.
Ya know, what this deck really needs is a one mana merfolk 1/1 that stifles with sacrifice rather than countering. Heck, we don't even need the whole "triggered ability" part. I've always felt the 1 mana slot was the weakest in this deck, and it's never fun choosing between stifle and pressure. That's one way we wouldn't have to. Come on WotC! You gave Goblins lackey on roid rage!
While I'm against playing Stifle at all, if you -are- running it, I don't think you should automatically default to the Cursecatcher. The problem with Finn's logic is it doesn't take into account the probability of A/B/C/D arising, nor does it take into account the power swing involved from each of these things happening, both of which vary entirely on the matchup.
There's way way way too many factors for there to ever be a solid "You should usually do this" between Cursecatcher and Stifle. Obviously the case is different with Vial, who you should usually lead with except in a few specific circumstances, but between Cursey and Stifle? This is always going to vary on the situation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote