Your argument on the storm matchup seems rather optimistic. If you don't draw/tutor the hate your counterspell aren't likely to be enough. I also think you're overestimating your clock, 1/1's barely tickle and the 3/3 only does damage on turn 4(vialed) or turn 5 (cast). The Thorn is a fine piece of hate, but most storm players play Krosan Grip on the side, so don't bank on resolving a Thorn and sitting on it.
I test against Merfolk with storm constantly, a deck that packs much more disrutpion than this (Strifle, Wasteland, Daze, FoW, Cursecatcher) and has a much faster clock, and I win from 40% to 50% depending on the pilot. It's a hard matchup, but it's definetly winnable. And this deck just seems that much weaker game 1, on game 2/3 having a slight advantage because of Thorn + tutor.
Maybe you are misplaying, since last I checked most merfolk players claim at least 60% against TES. Kgrip costs 4 to remove thorn, so wtf? We're more afraid of like, chain of vapor, but then that requires (since they run 1) mystical tutor->chain, which can either eat a counter, another thorn, an aura, or sufficient beats where they can't do anything anymore in the meanwhile. I mean I find it hard to believe that thousands of games of testing won't sway you to believe we win about 70-75% against average players and maybe 65% against players who expect us, and 60% against players who expect us and don't make mistakes. It's definitely not a bad matchup. (The most heavily tested figure is the 65% figure, since Matt is a player who expects me, but might make a few errors with TES, but we tested the 60% figure by playing against a few experienced source players, as well as the 70-75% figure by playing just about anybody, including at the SCG 5K.)Originally Posted by alderon666
Thorn has always been gg, I have never resolved a thorn and then proceeded to lose. Same with aura, the only thing is it's harder to resolve. usually you spend turns 1-2, or 1-3 locking them out, or at least neutralizing the threat of getting combo'd the next turn, so then you get to beat with avengers and grunts anyway, which stops the "threat" (if it even exists) of a dark confidant creating crippling card advantage through beats. In any case, I didn't claim our beats were good enough to force TES to act fast. The claim was in response to the question: How do you handle dark confidant. If they're going to win next turn anyway, dark confidant only replaces itself and wasn't the problem, so we don't care. If DC lives enough turns to do something, then they're also dead, or at the very least we have locked them out and then have them under the AdN range.
But to humor you, let's compare with merfolk. Merfolk has mana denial in the form of stifle and wasteland (Stifle does not disrupt the combo because if they get their engine going, they'll just draw a duress or something, the only meaningful combo stoppers are those that stop the engine). But I'll concede that stifle isn't useless; you can play mana denial. You have cursecatcher, daze, and FOW.
We have the same daze and FOW, with wasteland and wayfarer instead of stifle. You have a faster clock, than we do, and we have spell pierce instead of cursecatcher. You have 4 cursecatcher, we have 2 spell pierce, but spell pierce is a surprise. We can also occasionally match your clock with a grunt, and if we do, we also keep them off threshold. You guys have standstill and we have seers; if the game goes long, both of us are equally likely to win. However (and this actually mattered at the SCG 5K) we have jitte, so unless your bounce of choice is echoing truth, you lose to ETW and we can at least fight it half the time. It looks like I might believe that merfolk does maybe 5% better than us, but most merfolk players claim 60% matches, which is about 55% games, and we do claim about a 50% g1 score.
If we win g1, then it's virtually unwinnable for the AdN player, since from the play with thorns and the draw and tutors to find it, and the ability to mulligan hands lacking hate, we always win. So 50% of the time, the match is essentially over. The other 50% of the time, we still almost always win g2, and the question is can they win g3, which happens maybe 40% of the time with the most skilled players. So we're looking at 50%*~90%+50%*40%=65%.
Merfolk on the other hand gets nothing, so your comparison is a bit silly, but it gets 60%, which isn't bad either.
That you do 40-50% makes me question if you're playing it correctly.
@ pi4meterftw
You replaced the broad term "storm" with what is usually the more specific term "TES". I'm not sure what you mean by the term, but I hope you are talking about more than just Burning Wish based Tendrils (Cook's list). Plain ANT is much more common and DDay-Hybrid lists are extremely flexible (and difficult to find good testing partners for).
Your post indicates that you think alderon666 is playing merfolk. I believe alderon666 is playing Storm, not merfolk. It looks like he is speaking from the perspective of a storm player, explaining that he initially would fear merfolk more than your list. I'm inclined to agree with alderon666; Merfolk does seem a stronger deck in the storm matchup.
No need to "humor" us with your comparison of merfolk and nogoyf. To claim anything close to merfolk's matchup percentages against storm is not an easy task. Also, since the primer suggests that many folk are likely to compare this deck to Merfolk, don't pass off this comparison as "silly".
First off, I think game 1 is the most important game against combo decks. Turning the game 1 which combo decks expect to win into even or better matchups is backbreaking to a combo player. I think Merfolk has the major asset here, and I think we have good reason to be skeptical of your 50% claim.
You have 12 cards which of major concern to the storm player (3x Wasteland, 4x Force, 3x Daze, 2x Spell pierce), the rest are much more neutral. Merfolk have 20-24 cards (Stifle, Wasteland, Daze, FoW, Cursecatcher, Standstill) which are of major concern. I consider this a large difference in game 1; which I think translates into a wider margin in game 1 win percentages than you seem to think.
Stifle is still better than you've given it credit for. Yes, you want to stop the engine, and stifle doesn't commonly hit the storm trigger, but when you have very clutch games (which Merfolk can certainly force against storm decks), every little bit of mana counts. They won't always be able to play around stifle. Stifle also has that invisible hand effect, whereby players will simply assume it is there, and artificially lose tempo because of it. Forcing the storm player to Chant or Duress regarding Stifle is a meaningful barrier. 1x Wasteland and 1x Daze which many Merfolk play that you don't does count for something (you don't have the "same daze"). In addition to all the -1 mana stacking effects like Stifle, remember that Wasteland and Daze have very important synergy with each other which will show itself in this matchup. Merfolk's Dazes count for more than yours because they have higher synergy.
Wayfarer hardly makes up for this either. Wayfarer will buy you more tempo against decks which actually rely upon dropping more than 1 land. Storm decks can play around wayfarer to a greater extent than many decks though; in fact, in many circumstances, storm breaks wayfarer's symmetry better than your deck (to your detriment).
I consider the 4x Cursecatchers to be stronger than 2x Spell pierce by a large margin as well. This "surprise factor" isn't as big a deal as you seem to think (duress reveals nicely). Aether Vial allows Cursecatcher to be a surprise too. Against Orim's Chant (the really dangerous card), I think Cursecatchers are deadlier. Force spike on a stick is pretty sweet, especially when subsequent drops makes him 2/2 or 3/3.
Also, Seer and Standstill aren't so easy to compare. You seem to think these cards should be compared in the mid-late game, where you are likely already winning as the fish deck. I think Standstill is much stronger than Fathom seer in the storm matchup though, especially since it can be used earlier. Standstill's symmetry is almost always broken by the fish player in this matchup, and with Vial and man-lands, the Merfolk player makes "setting up" (for the storm player) exceedingly painful. Standstill is a fine turn 2 or 3 play (depending on what you drop before it); generally catapulting the Standstill player into a much better game position than when they first dropped the Standstill. Seer, on the other hand, requires a lot of resources to play and activate at a vulnerable time in the game. Standstill with creatures/vials/man-lands often functions as a Time Walk, and Seer really doesn't do this.
You obviously don't autolose to combo game 1, but 50% does look a bit like hyperbole for the average player. I'll grant you have a plan for game 2, but surely you can at least see why alderon666 would be skeptical.
As for your testing, I think you need to take that into perspective as well (you show some perspective, but not enough imho). I've seen you play this deck, and I know you are an expert with it. I also think you can boast matchup percentages that are well above average because of it (and I expect nothing less from someone's pet deck). Apples to apples though, where I'm comparing average pilots against average pilots, I think you'll find different results for this matchup. You, as an expert pilot of Nogoyf, might have extraordinary results against average storm pilots. This is unlikely to be the case for most pilots.
Let us also remember how difficult it can be to find comparably expert storm partners (of all the variants) with which to test against -- this might be an issue for your reporting.
Even worse for your matchup percentage claim is that this deck is somewhat rogue (some have known about it for a while, but many have no idea what it is). Remove the 'rogue' mystique, and have people actually learn to play against it, and it seems quite likely that the matchups become at least slightly less favorable than before.
It isn't unreasonable to be skeptical -- if you think it is, then yes, please "humor us". =)
peace,
4eak
It's unreasonable for someone who hasn't played the deck to assert that documented results are fraudulent. If you think we're wrong about something, you could play the deck and actually help the testing, but wild speculation isn't going to convince me or anyone who has played it.
Incidentally, we group all ANT/DDT/TES/SI/whatever combo into the same pile for purposes of discussing the MU. You play differently against them (mainly mulligan differently), but I'm not going to write up like 15 different primers because some people decided to play one Doomsday and some people decided to play 3 Ad Nauseum and some people decided to play Burning Wish and other people decided to run more than one IGG (and some decided not to run any IGGs).
I'd say that Doomsday ANT is the toughest MU and TES is the easiest MU, but the slider is moving around numbers well over 50%.
You can even check your claims with reality/history of ANT even if you believe none of our claims: If you believe that ANT beats us, then obviously ANT should have similar percentages against any blue decks (we might have a worse G1, but probably better G2 and G3 to make up for it). It obviously beats everything non-blue except Belcher. So then it should beat everything except Belcher (a very new addition to the metagame -- I had no idea people were playing it).
We really have not seen that. ANT has been doing well and is a big part of any healthy meta, but it has never been dominating. If Belcher is the only thing that beats ANT, then obviously there should have been a long period of combo summer preceding the rediscovery of belcher decks. We haven't seen that and even in tournament results recently we don't see ANT players beating blue decks running just FoW, Daze, and Counterbalance, let alone everything we run.
A belief that better fits the evidence is:
ANT loses to most decks with Force, as long as the deck has something other than pure countermagic as backup.
ANT beats everything without Force.
ANT loses to faster combo.
My mistake on the 40-50%, I should have said 50-60% was the statistic alderon was claiming from merfolk's perspective.
You bring up a good point about skill level, but it is also inherently built into nogoyf to reward its pilot for skill, meaning that any player with enough practice and aptitude for reasoning and statistics should eventually attain the reported percentages. Also remember that I did not do the bulk of my testing against an average opponent. Matt was my testing opponent for at least 90% of the games, and he knows the deck inside out, and is also a highly intelligent individual, for whom after about 5 games on a relatively easy to play deck he makes no more errors than a pretty good player of that deck would, and sometimes significantly fewer errors since he knows what's coming. It is true that my results are all from Matt or I piloting the deck, and I don't believe in extrapolation, much less extrapolation when there isn't even evidence; I have no idea how the deck would do in the hands of one who has just picked it up.
I agree with some of your merfolk points. I am not an expert of merfolk, so it's no surprise I should easily make mistakes in analyzing (even approximately) what the merfolk matchup should be. However, the fact is that against usual storm players we enjoy 50% g1s. Merfolk players usually claim about 55%. If the cards should account for more than a 5% difference, then the discrepancy probably arises out of the fact that the TES player does not know what we play, and does not pack the appropriate hate for NoGoyf.
When I say TES, I always mean, btw, the collection of the following:
virtually any storm deck with ad nauseam.
I don't try to distinguish too much although we do test different builds because it's typically difficult to identify what kind of build the deck is g1, and then g2-3 it doesn't matter because you have thorns.
Even if we always lost g1, which is far from being the truth, Ad Nauseam still has to pick up one of the back two games, and they're almost certainly not picking up the one where we're on the play.
The rogue factor will be eliminated, and if people are willing to run more vedalken shackles, mass removal, etc. etc. our deck could easily be kept at a normal level. But just like ichorid, if people don't pack serious hate and learn how the deck works, then there's no reason to take into account that the rogue factor will eventually wear off. We posted the list, played it in a major tournament, the ball's now in the court of other magic players to see if they will make the rogue factor wear off by studying our deck.
I'm generally not a big fan of skepticism because I wouldn't lie; I might make mistakes, but certainly not ones that would accidentally miss a large margin, since I approximately understand the way magic works. But I do understand not everybody knows that I follow this, so I can understand why he would be skeptical. I agree your reasoning is sound, and might concede as much as that if people practiced, we could be brought down to a 45% to merfolk's 55%. The main irritating thing is that many speculators haven't thought long enough to deduce real questions about the deck, nor have they at least tested to motivate asking the right questions. But we can leave it at this, I urge you to test the storm matchup for yourself. This might be better at convincing you (meaning anybody who decides to do this) or at least it might provide data where the NG player and the storm player are on equal skill footing.
@ Forbiddian
Whoa whoa, I didn't say (and I wasn't even trying to imply) your results were fraudulent. I've bent over backwards trying not to say that. Accept my compliments for your deckbuilding and playskill; read my criticism with some charity though. Do not hastily assume I'm not familiar with this deck. I have tested your deck. I've played incarnations of it for quite a while (I've even purposely tested Goyf in your deck). I'm also not implying you are unreasonable, even if you aren't returning that favor. I think you are mistaken about the context of your results though, particularly when compared to other decks (Merfolk) and other pilots (who haven't created the deck itself).It's unreasonable for someone who hasn't played the deck to assert that documented results are fraudulent. If you think we're wrong about something, you could play the deck and actually help the testing, but wild speculation isn't going to convince me or anyone who has played it.
My argument wasn't wild speculation either. In addition to my own testing and experience with this deck, I gave counterpoints to what I believe was a flawed merfolk comparison. I also gave you reasons why it is possible that you are finding different results. Please note, even 1,000 game sample sets have huge variance.
Like any good experiment, it needs to be replicable. It is possible that we've had different results. I've not said you have a terrible storm matchup either. I have said I think it is weaker than you've claimed, and I think Merfolk is better in this particular circumstance by a wider margin than you seem to believe.
You do need to consider the implications of playing one deck instead of another. Asking yourself, "why not play merfolk?" is a very good question. I think NoGoyf has some strongpoints which merfolk can't match (several aggro matchups come to mind), but with regards to Storm, I still disagree.
I think storm decks (not just ANT) have a slight advantage, not a huge one. You have 9 direct stack-disruption cards, a relatively slow clock (when compared to combo), and a much larger reliance upon the midgame than alternative aggro-control decks. This is a board control deck; I don't consider NoGoyf's ability to control the stack to be all that impressive. NoGoyf's strategy is somewhat unique; you won't easily find many comparable "blue decks" in this 'board control' regard; likewise, you won't find many top "blue decks" which have as few direct answers to storm as NoGoyf.You can even check your claims with reality/history of ANT even if you believe none of our claims: If you believe that ANT beats us, then obviously ANT should have similar percentages against any blue decks (we might have a worse G1, but probably better G2 and G3 to make up for it). It obviously beats everything non-blue except Belcher. So then it should beat everything except Belcher (a very new addition to the metagame -- I had no idea people were playing it).
Your challenge here is odd; I think you've largely oversimplified the factors which go into storm's presence. I'll still try to briefly take your challenge. Look at the DTB forum. Your deck isn't parallel to the other blue decks. This deck simply isn't as stack-oriented and it doesn't sport a clock to make-up for the lack of disruption in the main. Quickly:
Merfolk has been discussed. Tempo Thresh is the most optimized by consensus over time deck I've ever seen, with raw pressure, a stronger disruption suite, and a good chance to hit the red zone early. Countertop has a widerange, and some are better than others (Countertop built for Zoo can be weaker in this regard), but its lockpiece is exceedingly potent. Landstill also has a range, and generally has more relevant blue spells than NoGoyf, although not as much of a clock. Landstill is one of the least defined decks, and some versions have stronger matches than others (some run Counterbalance for example, and many don't). I think Landstill is the most comparable blue deck to Nogoyf as it is similarly a board control deck, but I also think Landstill isn't as good against storm as something like Merfolk.
Outside of some Landstill builds, these are the decks that keep ANT at bay, not 9-permission, 3-wasteland decks with a slow clock and a decent sideboard plan. I don't grant 50% in game 1, but I'll agree to that percentage overall. If the DTB wasn't filled with blue decks like these, and instead with decks which have limited disruption and a clock more like NoGoyf, then yes, I think ANT would be more prevalent.
@ pi4meterftw
There is good precedent for skepticism -- we need to flee from even the appearance of "best thing since sliced bread" attitudes/arguments (which is why I think you should stay away from some of the language you've used with alderon666). You'll need to bend over backwards (more than we usually expect of others) to appear objective and willing to accept criticism (which I think you've done a good job of doing for the most part).
You are in the unenviable position of discussing a deck as one of its creators. As you have implied, in your position, I think it is better to understate your experience and beliefs about the deck, and let the future results of the deck speak and let other players come to defend the deck.
I know I enjoy the deck. I think it has a better ground game than many people realize, and powerful tempo tools to vault itself into a good mid-game. It has a good deal of synergy, which is odd for a fish deck. For now, I have to ask myself, "why play NoGoyf instead of just modifying Merfolk, Thresh, Survival, and Bant mixtures (which are some of the decks which need to be compared) for a better ground game?" Giving up on Tarmogoyf and other powerful standalone options like Qasali Pridemage and Rhox War Monk still requires some justification in my eyes.
peace,
4eak
Sean, thanks for pointing that one out. Yay, another Top 8 for NoGoyf. Bummer he wasn't able to beat Merfolk. 'Folk decks with Umezawa's Jitte MD aren't the easy matchup that Merfolk without Jitte are, it's closer to a coinflip in that case.
Richard Wayne (the guy piloting NoGoyf) went undefeated on the Swiss to draw into the top 8 without a sweat.
We'll wait to see the breakdown, but potentially there were only two people ever to play NoGoyf in these SCG tournaments, and two top 8 finishes. For anybody demanding our results be replicable....
Incidentally:
Fish: 14
Dredge: 11
Burn: 8
ANT: 7
Zoo: 6
Aggro Loam: 5
Countertop: 5
Enchantress: 5
Survival: 5
Threshhold: 5
38 Land: 4
Goblins: 4
NO Bant: 4
Belcher Combo: 3
Dream Halls: 3
Eva Green: 3
Affinity: 2
Geddon Stax: 2
Imperial Painter: 2
Painted Stone: 2
Oh my god that's a juicy metagame for NoGoyf. Nice to see the guy was able to T8. I hope that he'll post a tournament report or at least a matchup/win/loss breakdown. I'm pretty sure against that metagame, you'd have to play against Dredge and ANT a few times on the Swiss.
Since people in this thread were mainly saying our matchups against those are bad, we can see some data that's not mine, not Jeff's.
Not to mention, he would've been top4 if he didn't punt game 3 of that match really hard.
I might have to put this deck together soon and try it. At the very least, fathom seer shenanigans seem entertaining.
"Maybe a long life does have to be filled with many unpleasant conditions if it's to seem long. But in the event, who wants one?"
"I do," Dunbar told him.
"Why?" Clevinger asked.
"What else is there?"
Didn't watch it, what happened?Not to mention, he would've been top4 if he didn't punt game 3 of that match really hard.
I might have to put this deck together soon and try it. At the very least, fathom seer shenanigans seem entertaining.
Game two he lost a Grunt either because he didn't realize he could split paying its age counters between the two graveyards or possibly because he just forgot to pay the upkeep. Either way he then died to triple Goyf, which must've sucked.
Game three it started when he forgot to Vial in a Mother of Runes, then escalated into him doing pretty much everything wrong for about five turns in a row. Horrific tilt, felt kinda bad for him.
Anyways, he could've won either game if he was a bit more on top of everything.
Ugh. At least he played well for the first 5 rounds to get there, so good for him. And probably that was less of a meltdown than some other people in the Top 8 (from what I hear).
NoGoyf itself ran very well the whole tournament, then.
We are currently working on taking the name of the deck more seriously than like 0. My idea is to name the deck "Phoenix Ignition v0.6." We're glad the corresponding Source Member didn't choose a handle like "I'm an idiot" because that would make for a horrible deck name.
Hopefully Matt will chime in with some ideas, but we are open to suggestions, as long as they're within reason.
Worse Than Goyf? (In the tradition of Worse Than Fish.)
SummenSaugen: well, I use Chaos Orb, Animate Artifact, and Dance of Many to make the table we're playing on my chaos orb token
SummenSaugen: then I flip it over and crush my opponent
I think "Sliced Bread" was a decent name; it would match Forbiddian's rhetoric. It has been hilarious to re-read this thread.
While my replicability argument was about Storm (and to some extent why I prefer playing merfolk in a storm heavy metagame to this deck), I also agree that it applies to the general metagame. In light of that, I also think it takes a bit more than 2 tournament placements (and your personal/local experience) to show replication. Don't hear me doubting that the deck is capable of doing well overall, but it is far from proven in my eyes.
As to actually naming the deck, if NoGoyf isn't going to be used (which I found to be a playful name), I think U/W Fish or Wayfarer Fish would be fine names. Much of the deck is defined by Wayfarer in my opinion, and it is the usual naming convention to highlight the MVP card/strategy.
peace,
4eak
The deck is hard to come up with a name for, I agree. The best thing I can come up with is Postmodern Fish, that is a fun little name, but not as exciting as some of the other options. However it is very to the point. For some reason I think of postmodern and I think of a timeline, and it's at the end, just like how the deck can be wicked strong in the late game. But it still retains a lot of fishy qualities. Just a thought I guess. I feel like phoenix kind of implies red. I actually think that would be a better name for a RB combo deck or something along those lines.
My worries about this deck is people figuring out relatively unknown cards like Fathom Seer and figuring out how to play against a card like weathered wayfarer. I fear the same thing is sort of happening with dream halls right now as well. It's final test is time.
I'd call it Wayfarer's Blues. At least it's not Magic-geeky.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.
Next Level Fish?
The seven cardinal sins of Legacy:
1. Discuss the unbanning ofLand TaxEarthcraft.
2. Argue that banning Force of Will would make the format healthier.
3. Play Brainstorm without Fetchlands.
4. Stifle Standstill.
5. Think that Gaea's Blessing will make you Solidarity-proof.
6. Pass priority after playing Infernal Tutor.
7. Fail to playtest against Nourishing Lich (coZ iT wIlL gEt U!).
Has anyone tried Cosi's Trickster instead of knight of the White Orchid?
I think most "traditional naming conventions" or whatever are stupid. Fruity Pebbles? Worse than fish? These all sound silly.
I don't like the term "fish" in conjunction with this decks name (yes I know what the term means) because even though its a bunch of small creatures only 4 in the deck are blue.
As said earlier, I think Wayfarer Tempo is a good name, because it combines the aspects of what the deck is about with its (or what I think of as) the deck's namesake card. Thing is, one day you could take Wayfarer out, and I wouldn't name the deck after a card that you feel isn't the strongest link.
That said, and this is the only part of my post I hope you follow closely, don't name the deck after some inside-joke. Nobody will get it. It doesn't sound clever. When someone tells me what their deck's name is, I want a good idea what the deck does without looking at any of its cards. A name like "My daughter's diary" tells me jack shit.
Ich bin aueslander und sprechen nicht gut Deutsch
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote