Well, I'm glad that my post in this thread sparked such interesting conversation :-)Originally Posted by The Grim Reaper
Question for the 2 creators - is it standard to run 2x Vial now? Seems like the Vexing Sphinx build runs 2x and I'm wondering how useful it is now. I know it's used for bluffing and finessing creatures through counters, I just wonder how frequently you're even going to see 1 copy for it to be relevant. The way I see it, I would either keep it at 3x or find something to replace it.
Has it ever been considered to put copies 3-4 of Vial in the sideboard? Its value seems dependent on the matchup.
I have been increasingly enjoying this deck, especially Wayfarer is extremely good. This card definately deserves more attention since it's the bees knees against so many strategies. However, I still have my doubts about a few choices. Starting off with Vial, it was never any good in my limited testing. The problem is you aren't going to get the mileage out of it that Goblins or Merfolk do. You can easily pay for all of your creatures. Your goal isn't to put multiple creatures into play each turn like Goblins does or put surprise lords into play the way Merfolk does (or Standstill for that matter). I love Aether Vial, but I don't think Vial is a match made in heaven for this particular archetype. Aren't there just better slots available, such as Ponder, additional lands or more Dazes/Pierces?
I also think the name of the deck is a tad misleading, while you have some tempo elements I found myself to be playing the control role the majority of the time. Tempo is the name of the game in Legacy, so every deck but the most hardcore linear decks such as ANT and Ichorid is a tempo deck. You have a ton of inevetiability with Wayfarer, Fathom Seer and SFM/Jitte, that it pays to try and go for the long game so you can actually get advantage out of your engines, that means assuming the control role. However, the deck is also quite well equipped to switch between roles and in that sense isn't a classical control deck like Landstill or MUC. But perhaps I'm just arguing over semantics right now, I'm fine either way really.
I really don't like this sideboard, Curfew, Thorn and Cannonist seem way too narrow. Instead, why don't you just play 4 Top and 4 Counterbalance? That way you fix the combo matchup, you have tools to beat reanimator, between STP, FoW, Daze, Spell Pierce, Relic and the CB Top combo you should have at least a 50/50 matchup. In other matchups, where you previously didn't sideboard, you have some more options now because Top is always a decent card but I do not have enough experience with the deck to really comment on what boarding plans I would change. In any case, the idea is untested but I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.
I hope you guys take my criticism the right way, by no means I am trying to attack your ideas or philosophies, just trying to help improve the deck and spark some potentially interesting debate.
EDIT: If Inkwell is really a big problem you could play a singleton Runed Halo, it doesn't target and can be fetched with Enlightened Tutor. It's also decent against ANT, Belcher, Canadian Threshold and a nice out to Progenitus.
Last edited by Mantis; 03-28-2010 at 09:06 AM.
Team R&D
Hi,
Just got back from a rather large tourney (144 persons, it was the side event at GP Brussels) and ofcourse, I went with this deck (the exact same build as Pi4meter stated above, including 2 vexing sphinx (which I had to buy at the tourney) and the curfew on side ...
First: the vexing sphinx were golden, I only got them/played them in 3-4 games, but every time they were very good. If only you get them for one turn, you get a blocker, get to beat for 4, get rid of 1 crap card and get to draw 2 extra cards (which is fun if they kill it, you have vial @ 2 and you draw an avenger off the sphinx ...
Anyway, I really like them, about the curfews: did not see a reanimator so did not get the chance to test it ...
btw, I used the exact same deck, sideboard and sideboarding as suggested by Pi4
Now, the report ... I must say, I'm a bit dissapointed, I went 2 - 4 and then dropped (to go home) ...
match 1: gobo's
I fend off early critters (lackey and instigator) and force a warchief. I get 2 critters in play (one of which an avenger) and a jitte (not equiped).
He then goes nuts with kiki jiki, sharpshooter ... just kills everything on the table, including me.
G2: I stabelize, and it's a rather long game, ending in him having 1 token on which he can equip a jitte ... so I finally realize how shit it is to loose from a 1/1 with a jitte ...
I don't think I made any play mistakes this match, just a bit unlucky (G1 he had an awesome hand)
match 2: stax (white)
G1: he gets a ghostly prison down, next turn another one and then another one !!! GG
G2: don't remember much, I just beat him
G3: dito
1 - 1
match 3: fearies (I know the guy and his deck really well, we test basically every week. We both know this is in my advantage)
G1: I think I made an incorrect fetch (tundra instead of basic) and after a struggle, loose to tombstalker
G2: in the beginning I thought I was gonna loose, but then got back and finally went crazy with fathom seers ftw
G3: I kept a one land hand (incl Vial, wayfarer) and I was on the play, so I kept. He got rid of both the vial and the wayfarer, I had to wait to long for decent mana and eventually die of a tombstalker.
I think I should have won this game if I made the correct plays (I remeber 2 incorrect fetches at least)
1-2
match4: recurring survival
G1: I didn't see it coming, did not have an answer to recurring nightmare (didn't see a single useful counter (he had +6 lands, so daze was not so good). anyway, he goes rather crazy ... GG (which took a looooong time)
G2: I get control and we run into time. I calculated that I would win on turn 5 in time, his only out was to topdeck a birds (to block my avenger) which he did ... I did not get a swords so could not finish it ...
I think we have the better hand in this matchup, but it is a timeconsuming match ...
1-3
match5: eva green
G1: don't remember that much, in the end he got a tombstalker and I a createrd (dont remember what) with a jitte on it, I am at 3 life when he is sub zero
G2: more or less the same, I am at 2 when he is at exactly 0 (and already in second turn of time)
2-3
match 6: zoo
G1: just too much, a library and even more then ... GG
G2: I beat him with an avenger
G3: I keep a one land hand with a wayfarer and brainstorm, the wayfarer gets blown away and the brainstorm reveals: no land ... GG
despite the 2-4 loss, I really like this deck and think it can achieve a good result. Especially the fearies game i could/should have won, the recuring match would have been a draw if we had 2 more turns and the zoo matchup ... I don't know, in my opinion it is a bad matchup, the just blow our early creatures and overrun us (again, in my opinion). and the goblins game ... well, shit happens, goblins will always be like that: out of nowhere they can suddenly be back and kill you ...
so now i'll enjoy the rest of my sunday ;-)
Hi, thank you for your input. CB top has been tested multiple times before, with me always being the advocate and Matt always being the devil's advocate. All the times it was pretty crappy. We want our sideboard to be polarized, not just to be a 15 card extension of our maindeck. This is for the obvious reason that we will choose the play that benefits us the most, so we want more widely varying options available, even if that means the worst option gets worse, we wouldn't choose that anyway. Translation into this specific case: I'd rather have a card that is very good in some matchups and very horrible in others because against the "others" I simply wouldn't board it in, and then compared to the case where I have a 15 card extension of the main, I get a positive difference of those matchups where I did board my polarized cards in.
Concerning the name: we didn't start UW Tempo. My performance at the SCG 5K LA did. We adopted the name because it was better than NoGoyf, which is just as confusing if you read into it technically.
Concerning vials: I definitely think 3 vials is too good. When you look at a card, you're looking at the last copy you added. At 2 vials, the probability to draw both during the course of the game is about 10%. At 3 vials, it's not even surprising if you draw 2 vials. Thus, by putting 2 vials in the deck, but not a 3rd, what I'm asserting is that it'd have to be the case that vial is good enough that I'll play it at the cost of drawing doubles (which is dead) 10% of the time, but not much more than that. I could see going to 1 vial and 18 lands, but I miscounted the number of vialables yesterday. It's 8 1cc, and 8 2cc. It's decent in this deck, so it earns itself 2 slots.
Concerning the tournament report: did you resign to 3 ghostly prisons? I thought I put a video up explaining how to beat bad hands like that. To all players: I recommend copy pasting my sideboard plans into a word document and printing it out. Of course this requires playing my sideboard.
I tested curfew against reanimator yesterday. The results are: 1-6 when I didn't have curfew, 6-1 when I did (games). 0-3 matches when I didn't, 3-0 when I did.
It changes the game, because you go from only having reactive answers, and thus needing to stay open, and even more open to avoid daze, to not having to stay open at all, and only having to play around daze the turn you curfew. That is, you turn reanimator into a crappy control deck the 50-60% of the time you draw a curfew.
Hi!
Played this deck at a small tournament (35) and ended up 3rd.
Countertop 2-0
Zoo 2-1 He played Kird Ape and Burrenton + Jite is pretty brutal against it
Demon Stompy 2 - 0 Landed Chalice turn 1 both games but I managed to beat him with Avenger
Draw the last 2 games
Top 8
Goblins 2 - 1 I made a terrible mistake at game 1 and he got the perfect hand. Destroyed him game 2 & 3
Zoo 1 - 2 He won game 1 and I managed to win game 2 after a mulligan to 5. Game 3, got a very good hand (with brainstorm and vial) but with only one land. I keep but fail to see a 2nd colored land (got a wasteland). He goes like nacatl - nacatl, kird ape- tarmo - tarmo and I can't stop him in time. I feel that I could have won this one with just another Tundra, I had 3 swords effects, jitte, grunt, burrenton etc.
Still, im very happy with the deck. I played with 3rd Spell Pierce/Vial instead of the Sphinx since I don't own any.
Can someone recomend a sideboard for a Zoo heavy metagame? I just hate losing to them
Played another tournament today
Reanimator 2-0, MonoG NO Survival, 2-0, Merfolk 2-1, ID, ID, T8: Reanimator 2-0, split in top4.
Didn't get a Curfew yet, so I played with one Meekstone in the S/B. It worked. What I'm still struggling to find, is some sideboard choice against Zoo.
Last edited by Tinefol; 03-29-2010 at 11:16 AM.
apparently everyone is better than me with this deck :(
regarding the resigning to 3 ghostly prisons:
yes, he had double wasteland in play + double the artefact which let you play lands from your graveyard (dont remember the name and to lazy to look it up) and it was the first match, I had no answers to either of the artefacts or enchantements.
i already had my 3 basics and would never reach more than 3 mana (unless you tell me otherwise)
I did use your sideboarding strategy, thanks for that ;-)
@ People discussing skill:
It's just like anything else, you have to practice. You don't pick up a Trumpet for the first time, break out a middle C and go, "Damn, this instrument sounds like shit." The difference is that UW Tempo has been putting up pretty amazing results for everyone, even people who are just dusting the deck off for the first time. The last time I did a compilation, new players averaged over a 70% match win ratio, and almost everyone reported making a number of play mistakes that they noticed that they wouldn't have made with more practice that would have allowed them to have an even higher percentage.
Basically: If you're good, you're going to win 75%+ of your matches. Even if you're bad, you're still going to win 60-70% of your matches. I don't know how that's "mixed results" the learning curve for UW Tempo seems to be about the same as other decks in terms of how well people are performing.
with the sphinx, can you please elaborate or confim how to stack the age counters.
Can you stack it like with smokestack?
Example, my sphinx lives for 3 turns.
my first upkeep:
2 triggers go on the stack for sphinx: age (A) and discard (D)
If i stack the A then D, then D resolves and I discard 0 cards and then A resolves amping A to 1
2. upkeep.
If i stack the A then D, then D resolves and I discard 1 card and then A resolves amping A to 2 Correct?
3. upkeep.
I then in reverse order, D then A. A resolves and =3 and then i choose not to discard and sack Sphinx=i draw 3? or is there a better way of exploiting the sphinx?
Thanks
@ above: Read the updated rules on the keyword Cumulative Upkeep.
You're not stacking anything, when the cumulative upkeep trigger resolves, you HAVE to add the counter, then (immediately) you may pay the upkeep cost. You'll always draw one more card than the last paid cumulative upkeep if you let it die.
Certainly A happens before D, but I'm not sure if it's two separate items on the stack. I would imagine it's one item on the stack so that that way the smokestack interaction doesn't work such that you can sac the creature to smokestack AND draw an extra card.
Wooooooooooow!!!!!!! I thought you guys were supposed to be really smart!
Please understand what selection bias is. Do you know the number of people who are taking this deck out and losing with it? Not nearly well enough because people who do poorly won't come back with a tournament report. Go look at the tournament reports section, almost every report (probably around 95%) is of someone who at the very least top 8ed. If you just went off of the "people who report here" statistic then every established deck and deck to beat would have a well over 50% win ratio. Probably even over 50% win ratio in top 8's.
I have personally seen this deck get piloted to failure (not top 8 or even breaking even) at least 4 times in local tournaments, and 2 top 8's, one of them being me. Of which I have seen no reports on this thread of the failures.
This is just ludicrous and I really am astonished you didn't know it.
Well, I, for one, reported all my results with the deck, including both failures and wins.
But the difference is, you actively care about the deck. Whereas there are many more people who just read the source threads and don't post anything. I can't tell you how many times i've asked someone if they are on the source and they say "yeah, but I mostly just read the threads. I posted in so and so thread and was disgusted with the responses, so I don't really ever post anymore." Judging from the history of this thread I can definitely see where this would be the scenario for many people even considering the archetype.
I wholeheartedly agree with Pheonix in the sense that i've also seen the deck just fall round after round due to a combination of play mistakes and the simple fact that the deck isn't exactly the redundant machine that other decks in the format are. I think another problem the deck has is it's weakness to ill timed EE or wasteland. In my testing with various decks against various different models of UW Tempo (Land hax is my fav. name.) I have been able to crush it with well timed ee at 1 in combination or not with wasteland.
Well first of all I didn't say this so you should get back to Matt on that, but just reading this exchange, it seems as if Matt used the data to fend against the claim "You're getting mixed results."
It might be that the deck has mixed results, but we're certainly not getting them because almost all the results in this thread are rock solid. Now if Matt were defending against the accusation "This deck is not good" I agree using this might have been skeptical. But the claim was that people have been reporting mixed results. So now, why can't we use the data people have been reporting to establish some facts?
For the quote, look here:
Anyway, you're the one who thought we had a time machine or w/e so you keep coming up with ridiculous ideas as to why this deck isn't destroying the format. The fact is that when Matt, I, or a few others play it, we seem to do pretty well with it. And we report every statistic. I've played, ever since the creation of this deck, in 3 small tournaments and one big one. You saw how I did in the big one, and in the small ones I went 2-2, 2-0-1 (ID) and then 3-0.
I don't see how you don't think YOUR statistic isn't misrepresentation of data. You mention only the negatives that you've seen, without providing information such as who the players are, whereas our thread lets you easily access who the players are. You could have been speaking of the most terrible players in existence. You haven't said anything about if they were big tournaments, where one of your supposed horror stories would be more statistically significant than at a local tournament.
I don't see how you could possibly doubt that we have our shit straight. Granted, not everybody gets to be someone who knows how to do math and science, but we sort of assumed that even from the sidelines, you could identify us as among those who can. You're probably good at something else, and it might even be something else useful. But what that means is you probably shouldn't be discussing numbers/data where everybody can see you.
Because the facts you are getting are things that require all of the data, not just the cherry picked version of it. Saying something with the data you've "acquired" off of this page is worse than using no data at all. Data like
is just completely bullshit. The statement may be true (that his compilation got a 70% win ratio) but the facts used to find it are absolutely wrong since they are only ones posted in this thread. The last compilation I ran on Zur, your guys' favorite deck, it NEVER MISSED GETTING TOP 8!!!! That is by far the best deck in the format then, isn't it?The last time I did a compilation, new players averaged over a 70% match win ratio
Do you read things that you post? I don't want to begin commenting on character flaws etc. but this garbage is really not going to get you anywhere in life.
Wait Joe, you were supposed to let me answer your question for you as to make this switch hitter game so much better!
I don't like fathom seer. I think it's a terrible card. I've tested it and I still think It's terrible. Any suggestions on running a card that is of better quality in terms of a stand alone threat?
I've talked with Forbidden talk about the deck not running green, but I wasnt fully able to finish the discussion.
If you read the second quote I posted, it shows that the person who brought up "mixed" results actually said "We see so many mixed results."
Questions about what we see mean that we use the data we can see. If he would have said "That's why the deck is mediocre" then we would not have been able to use the data here to refute his claim. (Or yours.)
But he didn't say that, so I don't see what you're still saying. Furthermore, if you think about it, you could have deduced that what you said weren't a legitimate concern, or else somebody else would have came up with it first.
Last edited by pi4meterftw; 03-30-2010 at 09:30 PM.
Every tournament match I've played with the deck I've reported. I have a feeling that the majority of players have done the same.
But the emperor is naked. Also this is awful logic... and grammar.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote