One thing I noticed is that Wasteland-only hands are generally mulligans, and even like Wasteland, Fetchland isn't necessarily more keepable than Fetchland-only. Fourth Wasteland allows a lot more crippling mana denial plays, but it won't dramatically increase the consistency like adding an extra colored source.Originally Posted by 4eak
I loved having four Wastelands, though. Particularly in the Zoo MU, you don't have much time to Wayfarer, but a Wasteland or two drawn can cripple them.
I don't believe in any sort of minimum number of blues required, but simply the fact that a spell is blue is actually a pretty strong selling point. Obviously I'm wary about any cuts to blue cards and always on the lookout for anything playable that's blue, but WL might be strong enough to get over that hump, especially in the right metagame.
I agree. Needs more blue!
Hm, I think the punishment for running an extra goyf is definitely existent, but subtle. Afterall, the reason it's bad is because you run 19 lands instead of 17, and it'll take many games just to get a "feel" for that difference.
Port is a huge drop down from waste. I like that it taps basics; I even own one so I might try it out, but it doesn't:
permit stack tricks with wayfarer and knight
go 1:1; it goes 2:1
get rid of their land; they can still tap in response every time
fill graveyards: grunt. Similarly, it can't be recycled via grunt.
I doubt the deck even has room for one more wasteland, but it definitely doesn't have room for a wasteland and then also a port, so I think how good it is is really an academic exercise cause it won't fit into the list.
Last we spoke, Matt was planning to take this deck to the Duel for Duals in LA. I'm a student in the Pasadena area, so I may go as well. Depends on if my homework starts to rape by then or not. But in any case, it sounds like we'll probably have a representative.
Matt and I had already considered the last daze over spell pierce. (It's a pretty obvious thing to think about.) I think Matt is sold on spell pierce, and I'm kind of unsure which is better. Spell pierce is definitely far better than spell snare, but there are also cards like disrupt, which are almost good enough, and at least wouldn't burn out the way spell pierce does. But disrupt seems to be far inferior to daze. The deck is no longer a budget deck: we're not running the 4th wasteland for other reasons.
Spell pierce is a lot better than it looks. Often times your opponent goes: AHHA! I've played around daze, now my stuff resolves, right?
Obviously, none of the above suggestions enjoy this advantage. The U payment can actually sometimes be turned into legitimately U, instead of what it usually means for a counterspell: U every turn.
Like say we play mother of runes. Guess what they'll be doing next turn?
Or say we have jitte in hand. They'll obviously cast a burn spell/removal. (Or if they're tapped out, gg.)
The only reason I'm looking on spell pierce with a sliver of doubt is because twice in the semifinals, and a few times in testing I've died with a hand full of conditional countermagic. Spell pierce is absolutely abysmal in the topdeck war. But with the recent rise of belcher, the unrelenting existence of other storm decks, and random combo popping up one way or another, I guess the occasional topdeck loss is one I'll have to take. I really can't imagine it happening often, since usually:
By the lategame, you've fetched about 3 times.
You've wayfarered 2-3 times.
You've played grunt and put the spells back into your library
You've cast a KOTWO.
You're typically down to about 35 cards left, 5 of which are land, 2 are vials about, and then about 6 are countermagic, and 3 are wayfarer/knight. It's almost preposterous to go 3 turns without topdecking some gas, and in a topdeck war you typically have that amount of time or so. In short, I'm not too worried about it. At this point all changes Matt and I come up with will be minute. I think a lot of people are trying to enact huge changes because they don't really want to play NoGoyf proper; it's quite possible that you can make a huge change and end up with a good deck also. I mean if you change 20 of our cards, you can probably become fish. If you change 60 of our cards, you can become anything. But we're more or less focusing in on small issues like:
Is 2 thorn better in the sideboard, or is 1 thorn 1 ethersworn superior?
Is 2 spell pierce better, or is 1 daze 1 spell pierce better? (Or something else.)
I was thinking the same thing. Ethersworn + mom seems good.Is 2 thorn better in the sideboard, or is 1 thorn 1 ethersworn superior?
Well I have been playing the deck for quite a bit, I love it, but dislike the name, I prefer to call it 'Denial' since we pretty deny everything almost even their creatures doing combat damage to us. I have a few to many people confusing the name with 'Natural Order Goyf' and they were not my opponents (I would wish, I also happen to play Epic Elves with NO so go figure ><).
What I learned about late game is that the last thing I always want the draw is the last few fetchlands left in the deck. I usually have by then already gotten the plains and islands. And thus not helping. And not always in a position to fetch them with wayfairer either. Other then that late game we do kinda have the advantage. And normally always wins.
From the new set I have seen 0 good cards for this deck, that enchant land is not good my eyes, and usually just a waste of space. We have enough creatures and a walking land that goes back to our hands after it dies is not great either, it only makes it easier for the opponent to get rid of the useless enchantment should he ever want it which I really doubt.
Has anyone considered this guy?
We always have more cards in hand than they do especially mid/late game. Seems like he makes the game un-winnable for some decks.Descendant of Kiyomaro(3)
Creature — Human Soldier (2/3)
As long as you have more cards in hand than each opponent, Descendant of Kiyomaro gets +1/+2 and has "Whenever this creature deals combat damage, you gain 3 life."
Yes, I believe descendent was listed in the old guide and just not mentioned here.
1WW for a 3/5 Lifelink is awesome against the Zoo, Goyf Sligh, and Burn archetype, but against some decks, we don't always have more cards in hand. For instance, Landstill, Combo, Goblins, or we don't care about a 3/5 lifelink for 3 anyway (landstill, combo, ichorid, aggro loam... I mean, there are a ton in both categories, I'm not going to list every one).
It's only going to be good when both 1WW for 3/5 Lifelink is really good, AND we can consistently stay above their hand count in that MU. There really aren't many decks that fall into the union.
It's one of those cards that makes flashy wins, but also sits dead in your hand. NoGoyf is really about card flexibility. You can use for all your cards in any scenario. Also, at least in the near future, the meta seems supersaturated with combo, so there won't be an aggro explosion justifying running something like this.
I think the Descendant could replace a number of Tenders in the sb. Both of them adress similar matchups. The main issue I see with this is the 3cc. You just don't hit 3 mana on turn 3 consistently.
And part of why Tender shines is because he gives you opponent trouble starting turn 1. Maybe I test 1 in the board the next time I go to a tournament.
I think you are right here. It seems backbreaking vs zoo though.
We'd much rather play kitchen finks at the exact same cost.
But then we wouldn't play that.
Oh yeah, Finks is better than that, I forgot about that justification.
But anyway, BFT is used for Ichorid as well (or even primarily). Check the thread that Maveric78f is dominating on sideboard plans.
The card would have to be ridiculously strong against Zoo in order to justify its inclusion over a far more flexible card like BFT. And it's hard for any spell that costs 1WW in such a fast MU to make up that much difference (there are a number of situations where BFT might get cast and Descendant couldn't even see play).
@ Forbiddian
With regards to -2 Spell pierce, +1 Daze, +1 Wasteland:One thing I noticed is that Wasteland-only hands are generally mulligans, and even like Wasteland, Fetchland isn't necessarily more keepable than Fetchland-only. Fourth Wasteland allows a lot more crippling mana denial plays, but it won't dramatically increase the consistency like adding an extra colored source.
To be crystal clear, there is an increase in wasteland-only opening hands, but the increase would have been automatic mulligans regardless (as it would have been Spell pierce and no land in those cases). As I didn't remove any colored land, there would only be improvement.
I agree that colorless land does not improve the mana-base nearly as much as colored mana. Although, the odds of casting Aether Vial, Grunt, Seer, Hardcast Dazes (they will happen), Jitte and equipcosts are all improved.
I look at Wasteland's improvement on the mana-curve as being completely secondary just as you. The uncounterable (excepting Stifle), mana-less LD and tempo it buys is the standalone reason. In this deck though, additional Wastelands are considerably stronger, not just because you want to see those 2-wastes in the first couple turns against Zoo, but because you can chain-them together very effectively with Wayfarer. I'll admit there are diminishing returns to the value of the last wasteland in this Wayfarer chain though. The other important addition is the increase in synergy (value added beyond the sum of the individual parts) with Daze. I look at Wayfarer, Daze, and Wasteland as a trinity in this deck, each card improves the other.
I agree. You need a solid blue-count. Although, in my suggestion, I've only lowered the blue count by 1. If "blue is a strong selling point", then we should reconsider cards running 1-2 of cards like Deft Dualist and Meddling Mage (I see that it has been discussed), simply because they are blue. Perhaps even Ponder could find a home.I don't believe in any sort of minimum number of blues required, but simply the fact that a spell is blue is actually a pretty strong selling point. Obviously I'm wary about any cuts to blue cards and always on the lookout for anything playable that's blue, but WL might be strong enough to get over that hump, especially in the right metagame.
@ pi4meterftw
I think it is substantially more difficult to "feel" the differences between 1 or 2 land cards. Even in the most simple of decks, it isn't very easy to tell.Hm, I think the punishment for running an extra goyf is definitely existent, but subtle. Afterall, the reason it's bad is because you run 19 lands instead of 17, and it'll take many games just to get a "feel" for that difference.
Let's rephrase "punishment" to "cost". And, I agree, there are costs to playing a 3rd color, fairly small costs in a format with duals and fetches, which are further curbed by the use of Wayfarer and Vial; there are also very real benefits. Tempo Thresh, for example, runs 3 colors on 17-18 land, and it doesn't have the benefit of Wayfarer or Vial (we can remedy the cantrip issue in this deck if that is necessary).
We have not identified whether or not playing Goyf in this deck is suboptimal. Personally, I'd be happy to see that doesn't belong (I really don't like Goyf, even if I will admit his supremacy), but I'm very slow (for good reason) to dismiss cards like Goyf, Vial, Brainstorm, etc. in this format. Goyf has proven a worthy splash in many archetypes, and I think it is the first topic that every aggro-control archetype not running Goyf must talk about.
In my experience (which isn't as impressive as yours with this deck), Goyf plays nicely into the gameplan of this Wayfarer deck, which is all about ground control. As this isn't a budget deck anymore, I would appreciate an explanation of why Goyf has no home here.
I've seen the phrase "there's no room" several times. I'm very unconvinced by that argument. So, I'll pre-emptively answer that response. Here is a suggestion (perhaps someone might offer a more optimal substitution):
-1 Tundra
-1 Umezawa's Jitte
-2 Knight of the White Orchid
-2 Jotun Grunt
+4 Goyf
+1 Tropical Island
+1 Savannah
We need to address Goyf's inertia in the format; we need to test him into oblivion before we can safely remove him from a non-budget, non-tribal aggro-control deck (I'm struggling to think of an exception). He isn't a passing suggestion or a quirk; he is the staple. Why not play Goyf?
I agree. I only suggested Port as a singleton for that reason -- multiples suck, unless you have some game winning 4 and 5 mana plays. If Wayfarer wasn't in the deck, then a singleton would be out. I'd only consider port in the case that you stay purely U/W and wished to emphasize the wastelock any further than running the full playset of Wastelands. (CoW was terrible in testing)Port is a huge drop down from waste.
The ability to answers basics is important (answering the answer to your wastelock). Yes, they can tap in response, but as porting is usually done in their upkeep, only instants can be played with that mana. The most dangerous cards against this deck are not instants though, imho. In this light, port does seem to buy tempo against the most dangerous card in many cases. Also, besides forcing the potency of your wastelands, Port is an excellent card at softlocking until the 3rd land.
I'm not saying Port is the correct choice; in fact, in my brief testing, I didn't prefer it. I am open to the possibility (for now) that it could have a place.
Speaking of singletons in a deck with better-than-Crop-rotation-on-a-stick, I know it was briefly discussed, but I was hoping for a fleshed out answer: Why not play a Tabernacle in the side? I can think of several matchups where it would be devastating (making some matchups stronger by a very sizable margin, even if they were already somewhat in your favor).
This is a loaded paragraph. I'm trying my best to be delicate (Sunshine and Ponies polite even).At this point all changes Matt and I come up with will be minute. I think a lot of people are trying to enact huge changes because they don't really want to play NoGoyf proper; it's quite possible that you can make a huge change and end up with a good deck also. I mean if you change 20 of our cards, you can probably become fish. If you change 60 of our cards, you can become anything. But we're more or less focusing in on small issues
I can see what you prefer to think about, and I understand that you wish to to come up with only small changes. I know you've tested this particular deck and like it the way it is. You consider "NoGoyf proper" to be the exact list you have. Take pride in what you've created (it is a good deck which is enjoyable to play). However, it would be a mistake to assume that the deck is above macroevolution.
The deck is still relatively new (even if the ideas aren't new to you), and it hasn't gone under the same sort of scrutiny or testing which we might expect crystallized decks have undergone (Tempo Thresh is a good example of a deck optimized to the point of crystalllization). Claiming optimality within a handful of cards is very difficult to justify; such a claim requires the work of many, many people over an extended period of time to justify. It is certainly possible that the deck has room to evolve in larger shifts than 1 or 2 cards. You could be right in the end; perhaps the deck is pretty much crystallized, but that I don't think you can justify the claim at this point.
By satisfactorily answering questions like "Why not play Goyf?", you bring others that much closer to agreeing with your above language. Beyond fully answering those sorts of questions: testing, time, and a lot of player consensus is the other half of the crystallization equation.
As to "what makes NoGoyf to be NoGoyf", ironically, it isn't the fact that it doesn't play Tarmogoyf (as the creation of the deck seemed based upon budget and "originality" concerns -- which I do appreciate). The lack of Goyf in a fish deck is remarkable, but so far not justified or necessarily optimal. I think Weathered Wayfarer is the central idea of the deck. Wayfarer's contribution is what really sets the deck apart from everything else. No matter how the deck might evolve, it would always include (and revolve around to some extent) Wayfarer. I can't say the same is necessarily true for the other creatures choices.
peace,
4eak
I agree goyf is quite good in here. The first *problems* I see are the triple color base and removing Jotun Grunt Wasteland chaining. I say *problems* because I believe these are both negligible.
The first problem is in my experience (feel free to flame me here creators) is not a problem. Yes, it makes you a bit less mulligan-safe and can be hurt more by opposing land destruction strategies, but overall having the green giant on your team is a plus. They've said before that a goyf in White color would be an easy add in, so the main problem is the green. Since that time we've (see what I did there?
Now the second and actually relevant problem is the loss of Grunt. This guy is good for more than one reason, and is going to be the hardest thing to cut because Aggro-loam/ land strategies going around, as well as the random decks that he is just golden against like Ichorid. Goyf and grunt don't play nice together, and it's pretty necessary to decide which of the two you will play. Also there are some pretty solid cards in this deck that don't get the boot for goyf, so to fit him in it will be necessary to cut ones that have questionable synergy.
So those are the main 2 problems with adding goyf or cutting Grunt, but I don't think this deck should ever lose the 3rd Jitte. At one point it even played 4, just because all of these tiny creatures really do need a God-stick to carry with them in order to lock the game. So if I were to enact the swap in of goyf I would do:
-1 Tundra
-2 Knight
-2 Grunt
-1 Serra (4 is good, but if we're putting in 4 Goyfs and switching to 3 colors I feel the extra colored mana is necessary, so the addition of a land in a creature's place is called for)
So the slops of this configuration are lack of First Strike dude, who is cute with a Jitte but merely okay on his own, lack of maindeck grave hate, which is actually pretty good, and 3 color manabase which in my experience hasn't been a huge problem, since half the games I don't even need to get a green source. The benefits are you get a 4/5 two drop which people are overly fearful of and stop at any and all costs, which gives your other guys the go ahead, and obviously an amazing top deck.
So regardless of others responses I am overall not against the idea of adding in goyf to Nogoyf, even though confusion in the name would be gigantic.
Goyf is smaller in this deck than you'd expect (he's about -1/-1 from what you'd normally see, since we contribute nothing to his size), he doesn't do anything other than being a body (no evasion, no second ability, so he's only good when the opponent has no creatures out, and he doesn't even have that much offensive power, which is completely the opposite of this deck's tempo/card/flexibility package), and he would require an entirely new color.
I know people stick Goyf into everything, but we run 17 land, not 20, we require WW UU not 1W and 1U, and we're not already screwed by non-basic hate.
It's a totally open and shut case. Goyf adds nothing we want and would cost the deck at the very least the Dragon Stompy matchup, and probably a lot more (like Tropical Island = Mana production of current regular Island -- and Regular Island is probably the worst card in the deck).
Firstly, I haven't sleeved this deck, I've just read this thread. With that said:
I think that if a third color was splashed, it should not be green and definitely not for Tarmogoyf. This is not because of the current name of no-goyf, but rather because goyf fills a role that this deck does not appear to need: big dumb beater. Drawing a goyf is drawing one less control element, and this deck (from what I can tell) wins based on the synergy of its combined control elements. Because of all of the overlapping synergies, the more control elements you draw the better your game will go, as your options widen and each one provides its own kind of card advantage.
With that little prelude, I think that people actually testing this deck should test a small black splash for Dark Confidant. He provides REAL card advantage, not just tempo like Mother of Runes or conditional lands like Wayfarer. And I'm not saying this to bash Mom or Wayfarer, they are at the core of a unique angle at generating advantage throughout the game. However, this doesn't mean that there is no place for drawing an extra card every turn, and I think that Bob would fit well in the deck due to its low curve and ability to consistently charge up a jitte.
The life loss with confidant is actually pretty significant. We run a low land count, and we have plenty of 2cc, and FOW. DC would find its way into our list if it were white or blue, but we're not splashing a color unless the card is really good, because splashing a color means going to 19 lands and enjoying much less consistency (We'd need WWUUX, which is impossible in 2 lands, and not trivial with 3 lands.) instead of WWUU which is inconvenient at 2 lands, and trivial with 3. A 3/4 (sometimes 4/5, sometimes 2/3 but almost never deviant from this since we'll always have instant, land, and either we'll have creature or they'll have creature or sorcery, but not usually a creature and a sorcery, and very occasionally an artifact but certainly not 3 of these.) for 1G won't make the cut. It'd have to carry the weight of more than 1.5 cards, since 4 slots demands 2 dual lands. On top of that, it costs consistency, hence "more than."
a 1G for a 6/7 would do this, and maybe a 5/6, but not for even a consistent 4/5, which goyf cannot usually achieve when our deck purposefully has no sorceries and no artifacts with sac abilities.
Goyf on the opposing side usually caps out at 4/5, but that's because the players who play goyf come prepared with sorceries and then cast them to pump their own goyfs.
You also talk about wayfarer as if the fact that it "only gets lands" is a problem, but I remind you that wasteland is good, and also that any removal spell targetting wayfarer does not gain tempo, unlike dark confidant. Wayfarer is a must-remove, and then at best they break even tempo and we gain 1 life. But what would be terrible is if we fetch a crappy underground sea or something, and then proceed to get tempod on top of that.
@4eak:
Cutting grunts is bad. You didn't claim to optimize though, so I trust that you understood this, and simply did not know what to cut. Not knowing what to cut among many choices is not an excuse for not making the cut, but if you read my above post, I'm proving that there are not cuts to choose from. Even the worst card is at least 2/3 as good as goyf, where the numerics are defined to mean whether goyf+2 lands or the 6 worst business would be superior.
Deft dualist and meddling mage (the latter of which we tested for like 2-3 months) are pretty bad. Meddling mage is only the denial effect or (exclusively) the 2/2 body in most cases, and it might even not be a denial effect if you guess wrong, or even worse it might be a 2/2 body that you think you have to protect. With mother it might be a bit better now though, and Matt did advocate running spell pierce specifically because sometimes we lose to bombs like shackles. But then the trouble becomes that MM is just the denial effect (although now guaranteed essentially by mom.) I'm not sure we would pay UW to keep their crap off the table preemptively. We would probably pay UW for that and a 2/2, but we'd almost never get to use the 2/2 body.
If this deck goes and macroevolves, it doesn't have to become a terrible deck, but it will by definition not be nogoyf. It's just a definition, and all I'm saying is we've tested long enough and stabilized long enough that we're pretty confident in what kind of a list we want to assume this label. You may not end up with a horrible list if you change to "goyf nogoyf." Or even dark confidant nogoyf. Goyf would fill a pretty nice roll, a 3/4 could keep us from getting raped while we search wastelands and make it gg. Too bad it isn't on color.
Last edited by pi4meterftw; 01-17-2010 at 05:09 PM.
I retract my Goyf seems good statement. Playtesting shows he isn't. 4 Wastelands are necessary if you don't run Grunt, and to splash for the 3rd color and need 4 Wastelands is putting too many lands in the deck.
Don't get me wrong, goyf is huge, he's awesome at making a goyf blocking wall where the Serras just fly over, and he would be ridiculously good if he was white or blue for this deck, but the mana can't handle it if we take out grunt.
Splashing for bob seems good at first but this deck has a slower clock than most and would kill itself as fast as it kills the opponent.
I can definitely see removing the Knights and Spell Pierce for a set of something good, but I still can't find it.
Well, if Goyf is in mainly as a wall, why not try an actual wall? Wall of Denial is on-color. I'm not saying Wall of Denial is good, I'm just trying to help brainstorm. On the downside, it can never attack; on the upside, it is shroudy and bigger than everything except dreadnought.
No. People call Goyf a wall only because it is a wall early. It stops initial creature rushes. However, later in the game once you stabilized against aggro, you need that win condition. Wall of Denial just stalls, doesn't kill a creature when it blocks, and can't attack.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote