[Deck] Canadian Thresh (a.k.a. RUG Tempo, Tempo Thresh)

[jin]

If you think people can play around Stifle and therefor board it out, it's a complete waste to run it in the MD in the first place.

My point is, if you feel that is true, then the same should hold true for Daze.

[Sigar]

My point is, if you feel that is true, then the same should hold true for Daze.

Yes, that is true for Daze as well. If I thought people could beneficially play around Stifle (or Daze for that matter) I wouldn't be playing those cards in the first place.

Please stop making an argument that's not even there.

[Pherion]

I think we can sum up this argument with the concept of Virtual Card Advantage. With regards to RUG I define it as an indirect advantage related to the play-ability of cards in the opponents hand. For instance, the following situations cause the opponent to virtually have fewer cards in hand followed by the cards that generate this kind of advantage:

The inability to play a spell because of lack of resources (wasteland, stifle)
The inability to play a spell for fear of it being countered (daze, spell pierce, spell snare)
The inability to play a spell for fear of losing a land (stifle)

These are the "playaround" concepts. Just because you aren't playing the card, doesn't mean you aren't generating tempo. Watching an opponent wait until they have 7 mana to play a Jace (to play around pierce and daze) is just fine by me! That's an extra three turns my delver hits him, and it's likely I'll have another threat down then too. At that point in the game, it's likely Jace doesn't matter any more. That just one example of how your opponent being afraid of these cards works.

Now, if they don't see them in game 1 or game 2 - a smart player will not play around them in game 3. So if you actually don't have them, you'll lose all of this implied advantage. If you do have them however, and show them off game 1 and 2, then you get all the implied advantage game 3!

Cheers,
Frank

[jin]

Yes, that is true for Daze as well. If I thought people could beneficially play around Stifle (or Daze for that matter) I wouldn't be playing those cards in the first place.

Please stop making an argument that's not even there.

I just wanted to make clear where your priorities are. I'm not making an argument.

I think we can sum up this argument with the concept of Virtual Card Advantage. With regards to RUG I define it as an indirect advantage related to the play-ability of cards in the opponents hand. For instance, the following situations cause the opponent to virtually have fewer cards in hand followed by the cards that generate this kind of advantage:

The inability to play a spell because of lack of resources (wasteland, stifle)
The inability to play a spell for fear of it being countered (daze, spell pierce, spell snare)
The inability to play a spell for fear of losing a land (stifle)

These are the "playaround" concepts. Just because you aren't playing the card, doesn't mean you aren't generating tempo. Watching an opponent wait until they have 7 mana to play a Jace (to play around pierce and daze) is just fine by me! That's an extra three turns my delver hits him, and it's likely I'll have another threat down then too. At that point in the game, it's likely Jace doesn't matter any more. That just one example of how your opponent being afraid of these cards works.

Now, if they don't see them in game 1 or game 2 - a smart player will not play around them in game 3. So if you actually don't have them, you'll lose all of this implied advantage. If you do have them however, and show them off game 1 and 2, then you get all the implied advantage game 3!

Cheers,
Frank

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

[catmint]

The staments are true, but virtual card advantage means a different thing to me. What you describe is more "virtual tempo advantage".

Virtual card advantage in RUG means we get by with only 2-3 lands due to our curve beeing super low (including 8 free spells) whereas a lot of other decks need 4+ lands to cast all their spells and/or play more spells in 1 turn.

So you can see it in a way that the UW opponent needing 2+ more lands to function properly they have to draw 2+ more spells which he can trade to equal our spells.

[Blaze22]

Virtual card advantage is generated when your opponent can not cast some of the cards in his hand, making them virtually dead for a long period of time as if he actually had less cards in hand than you.

I want to present here an interesting situation that happened to me last night in a local tourney:

I know my opponent is on BUG delver, I'm on the play and I open with a fetch into volcanic island. The rest of my hand is "stifle, daze, brainstorm, fetch, waste, pierce". my opponent draws, plays underground sea into delver.

question: do you daze that guy?

[pavlaugh]

I think we can sum up this argument with the concept of Virtual Card Advantage. With regards to RUG I define it as an indirect advantage related to the play-ability of cards in the opponents hand. For instance, the following situations cause the opponent to virtually have fewer cards in hand followed by the cards that generate this kind of advantage:

The inability to play a spell because of lack of resources (wasteland, stifle)
The inability to play a spell for fear of it being countered (daze, spell pierce, spell snare)
The inability to play a spell for fear of losing a land (stifle)

These are the "playaround" concepts. Just because you aren't playing the card, doesn't mean you aren't generating tempo. Watching an opponent wait until they have 7 mana to play a Jace (to play around pierce and daze) is just fine by me! That's an extra three turns my delver hits him, and it's likely I'll have another threat down then too. At that point in the game, it's likely Jace doesn't matter any more. That just one example of how your opponent being afraid of these cards works.

Now, if they don't see them in game 1 or game 2 - a smart player will not play around them in game 3. So if you actually don't have them, you'll lose all of this implied advantage. If you do have them however, and show them off game 1 and 2, then you get all the implied advantage game 3!

Cheers,
Frank

Virtual card advantage diminishes the more aggressive you are (as in your example, a Delver + another threat). A competent player will realize the point at which they need to pull the trigger on their spells and stop playing around possibilities. Perhaps that's one of the reasons RUG is so good, though. Bad play really gets punished (as in your example, with a game loss). And even if you do have threats, VCA will likely allow you to connect with some extra damage.

VCA works very well when you have no threats because your opponent has no immediate need to run into your daze/spell pierce. The problem, of course, is that if your opponent keeps drawing lands and actually hits 7 mana without you dealing most of your damage, you're probably going to lose. I think VCA is ideal when (1) you have little threats; and (2) your opponent has not enough lands to play around daze/pierce/stifle.

[wcm8]

A useful interaction that's frequently been relevant for me lately is the one between Thought Scour and unflipped Delvers. Delver lets you peek at the next draw, and you can then determine if you want to filter it away with Scour. I've always loved Predict, but the extra mana is the problem.

[rancOr_]

Well there are better cards to play then thought scour and fethlands also do that kinda^ I just don't get the need to play scour in this deck. If you play it good it's not needed at all and as said u have way better slots.

[Zorander]

Well there are better cards to play then thought scour and fethlands also do that kinda^ I just don't get the need to play scour in this deck. If you play it good it's not needed at all and as said u have way better slots.

Well i guess this has been discussed over and over but personnaly I love thought scour (still I only play 1). If you have a Mongoose in your starting hand, thought scour will often mean "U instant : target player loses 4 life, draw a card". It also help with submerge, it does some kind of shuffle effect, it can mess with top, it can creates surprising dmg or blocks.( with only fetch moogoose in play and 3 card in the graveyard, your opponend will nearly never predict the upcoming threshold).
And don't forget that it does all of this while only being a 1 blue cantrip.

[Pherion]

Thought Scour is better when the field is full of Combo. If your opponent is threatening to go off on turn 2-3, then a 1/1 Mongoose feels really bad. Thought Scour makes him a 3/3 quick enough to race a combo match. A few months ago when Show and Tell was the deck to play, I ran three Thought Scours, and they destroyed the combo players because I could land a mongoose and have him hit for 3 on turn 2.

When the field is diverse or even leaning towards fair decks as it has been (though Storm is coming up) then Thought Scour is not as good. You don't need to force out that 3/3 mongoose quite as quickly. Still, I'd play one.

[Goddik]

Virtual card advantage is generated when your opponent can not cast some of the cards in his hand, making them virtually dead for a long period of time as if he actually had less cards in hand than you.

I want to present here an interesting situation that happened to me last night in a local tourney:

I know my opponent is on BUG delver, I'm on the play and I open with a fetch into volcanic island. The rest of my hand is "stifle, daze, brainstorm, fetch, waste, pierce". my opponent draws, plays underground sea into delver.

question: do you daze that guy?

First point, i would not have fetched volcanic in the dark because you don't need to and it can put you in awkward spots if you need to brainstorm into bolt. Given that he is BUG delver he most likely doesn't have stifle and will tap out on turns 1-2 anyways so i would have just left the fetch uncracked.

Our hand is really good. Patience is key here. His delver isn't going to kill you anytime soon and there are plenty of answers in the deck for it, but tarmogoyf might get you far behind if you let it resolve => your daze is better left for more important battles. I would say ok to delver.

Plan with that hand is to deny his mana which is pretty fragile if he doesnt have DRS (which I might have dazed). waste him and say go with the plan to brainstorm in t3 looking for wastelands, stifles, threaths and dazes.
If we manage to resolve both stifle and wasteland he is very likely out of lands given that he plays around 20 and most of his good cards cost 2 mana. We have plenty of time to draw lightning bolt or our own delver to match his. The delver wont help him if he has no lands.

[catmint]

Agree on not dazing - trying to win the game "by screw" has huge potential. Even if not winning by total screw being behind on the board and life total can at least be equalized by waste/stifle/daze. If he then goes land non-creature spell I would pierce (especially ponder) so I can have 2 lands next turn and my daze for a creature. The worst case would be land-deathrite which we would need to daze. In that case I would fire the brainstorm to look for a lightning bolt so I have stifle, pierce open with the option of bolt eot.

Interesting that virtual card advantage does not mean what I thought. It apparently focuses more on the opponent having dead cards in hand or him need to play around a lot of stuff. Is there a word for what I described: having more spells to trade because the curve being much lower than the average opponents curve allowing lower land count and filtering lands away with cantrips?

[Goddik]

Agree on not dazing - trying to win the game "by screw" has huge potential. Even if not winning by total screw being behind on the board and life total can at least be equalized by waste/stifle/daze. If he then goes land non-creature spell I would pierce (especially ponder) so I can have 2 lands next turn and my daze for a creature. The worst case would be land-deathrite which we would need to daze. In that case I would fire the brainstorm to look for a lightning bolt so I have stifle, pierce open with the option of bolt eot.

Interesting that virtual card advantage does not mean what I thought. It apparently focuses more on the opponent having dead cards in hand or him need to play around a lot of stuff. Is there a word for what I described: having more spells to trade because the curve being much lower than the average opponents curve allowing lower land count and filtering lands away with cantrips?

Card efficiency perhaps?

[wcm8]

An idea taken from Joe Losset's UW Miracles list: main-decking Misdirection.

Why?
-Still wins a counter-war
-Can lead to blow-outs if you misdirect removal or discard spells
-The current metagame certainly seems to warrant it

Why not?
-Doesn't actually counter things that might need countered
-Can be essentially useless against some decks -- a high-risk, high-reward type of card
-This approach might be more applicable for a control deck. Tempo might not really need/want the effect as much as it needs FoW.

He runs 2/2 FoW/Misdirection, with an additional copy of each in the sideboard. This inclusion goes a long way towards making matchups like Jund and BUG Control lot easier. I find myself siding out FoW a lot of the time against matchups where Misdirection would be golden. I think the justification for this would highly depend on your local meta. I'm definitely planning on giving it a whirl at the next local tourney.

[pavlaugh]

I think the justification for this would highly depend on your local meta. I'm definitely planning on giving it a whirl at the next local tourney.

For sure. It's not good against combo, but it's great against fair decks, especially Jund. Regardless, in RUG I like Divert better than Misdirection.

[Blaze22]

First point, i would not have fetched volcanic in the dark because you don't need to and it can put you in awkward spots if you need to brainstorm into bolt. Given that he is BUG delver he most likely doesn't have stifle and will tap out on turns 1-2 anyways so i would have just left the fetch uncracked.

Our hand is really good. Patience is key here. His delver isn't going to kill you anytime soon and there are plenty of answers in the deck for it, but tarmogoyf might get you far behind if you let it resolve => your daze is better left for more important battles. I would say ok to delver.

Plan with that hand is to deny his mana which is pretty fragile if he doesnt have DRS (which I might have dazed). waste him and say go with the plan to brainstorm in t3 looking for wastelands, stifles, threaths and dazes.
If we manage to resolve both stifle and wasteland he is very likely out of lands given that he plays around 20 and most of his good cards cost 2 mana. We have plenty of time to draw lightning bolt or our own delver to match his. The delver wont help him if he has no lands.

Thanks for your answers, at this point I think I lost that game because i actually dazed that delver... well, I have another question about that matchup, because it seems to become more and more common right now: how do you sideboard against the bug delver? and is it worth to put 2/3 copies of misdirection or divert in the sideboard?

[Goddik]

The matchup primarily revolves around their manabase which is incredibly fragile. DRS needs to die and wasteland is king

With my list i would board

OTP
-2 Force
-1 Pierce
+3 Submerge

OTD
-2 Daze
-1 Pierce
+3 Submerge

They will probably board out their forces and/or hymns to bring in removal. It is better for us if they shave the forces then the hymns as they generally shouldn't have the time to muck around with hymn and force can help them force through key plays that keep their lands/goyfs on the table.

I would not bother with misdirection or divert. If they take out their hymns they become substansially worse and they are already narrow as is. I might be wrong on that one though.

[Blaze22]

I would not bother with misdirection or divert. If they take out their hymns they become substansially worse and they are already narrow as is. I might be wrong on that one though.

I play 3 pierces main and they're pretty bad in this matchup. most of the times I never want to see them at all, whereas a divert or misdirection would be a blowout against them. tarmogoyf is a problem. decay is a problem. misdirection solves them both with a single move if we play smart ;)

what about the 1x life from the loam? should I bring it in after sb?

[Goddik]

Certainly, if you have it in your board then i expect it to be exactly for this type of matchup.

I have personally been slightly dissappointed with loam in canadian as i feel it is too slow/cumbersome to actually make an impact, but it might be its time to shine again. I expect it might also be pretty good against the jund lists.

What is your experiences with loam in the current meta?