Hey everyone, my name is Greg Schafer and I got 12th place at the SCG Open this past weekend in Indy. I wanted to post a reflection on the weekend, as this forum has definitely helped me improve significantly as a Death and Taxes pilot since picking up the deck about 15 months ago.
For the decklist, I knew that I needed to change significantly from what I was playing pre-ban. I didn't want Spirit of the Lab or Brimaz, and I did want Mirran Crusader and Wilt-Leaf Liege. I actually wound up using Bahra's from last weekend (listed in his recent tournament report), though I decided against the 4 Flagstones in favor of more basic Plains. It's hard for me to say if I think more flagstones would be better since I never played against Miracles, and only sided in Cataclysm once (winning before casting it). The range of decks I played against was drastically different than what was running around pre-ban, and I think this decklist was very well situated for how things have changed. The list can be found here: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=79362
On the weekend I played against these matchups:
3-0 vs RUG Delver (including Jadine Klomparens, whom I found to be skilled and a generally cool person to meet)
Just like things were before cruise, this matchup is super favorable. That said, I had a very close call in a game 3 on day 2 against an opponent who stuck a sulfuric vortex on t3 and started launching burn at my face, but fortunately he didn't find the Stifle he needed to stop Mangara. The other highlight I have from this matchup was getting to ratchet bomb away 2 flipped delvers against Jadine. That one felt pretty great. I liked the boarding configuration here well enough:
-4 revoker
+2 rest in peace
+1 council's judgment
+1 ratchet bomb
1-1 vs BUG Delver (beat Noah Cohen, lost to Kent Ketter)
I feel favored in this matchup, but find it important to win game 1 since they are generally bringing in a lot of hate games 2 and 3. Mirran Crusader is obviously big boss, but I find Liliana can still dominate some percentage of games, unfortunately. Toxic Deluge gives them outs to crusader post-board as well, so not overcommitting is very important. Sadly, Kent drew a lot of sideboard removal in game 3 to supplement his early Lily, and I couldn't get out from under it. Perhaps I should have kept in 1-2 revokers here to stop Lily, but that just opens you up further to golgari charm and the like. If I had drawn a Wilt-Leaf at any point, I think I could've still gotten out of it.
-4 revoker
+2 rest in peace
+2 wilt-leaf liege
1-0 vs Shardless Bug
Mirran Crusader and Wilt-Leaf Liege dominated this match, and the mana denial is more relevant here than against BUG Delver since their curve is higher. I don't think this matchup is super in our favor, but its not bad, and I happened to draw well here.
-4 revoker
+2 rest in peace
+2 wilt-leaf liege
1-0 vs Junk Maverick
This match was against Tom Herzog in round 15. I knew he is well-known for playing maverick, a matchup I think is overall quite close (better for DnT game 1 before they get sideboard cards like Zealous Persecution). A friend of mine plays this deck locally, so I've had a lot of good practice in the matchup (shoutout to Greg Pino). Fortunately for me, my draws here were just more explosive than his, thanks to Vial. Flickerwisps did some filthy things in this matchup, mostly involving allowing me to get the first hit in with equipment in both games. For boarding, Thalia is bad and I think getting more threat dense is important, so:
-4 thalia
+2 council's judgment
+2 wilt-leaf liege (can help protect against ZP)
2-0 vs Sneak and Show
Would've loved to have played against this matchup more than I did, but what can you do. I don't think this matchup is as overwhelmingly favorable as people often say it is, but its obviously quite favorable nevertheless. Getting SoFai as the first equipment to protect Revoker/Thalia/Containment from Pyroclasm is important. Not sure if 0-2 CJudgment is best here after board, but I thought 1 would be nice to pick off a resolved Sneak Attack.
-4 Swords to Plowshares
-1 Jitte
+1 Pithing Needle
+1 Containment Priest
+1 Council's Judgment
+2 Ethersworn Canonist
1-0 vs Junk Nic Fit
This was a weird match early in day 1 where my opponent didn't get to play much magic due to seemingly awkward draws. Mirran Crusader ended things very quickly. I didn't see much game 1 except that he was GB, and had Decay. This led me to board in Cataclysm, but I don't remember exactly what else I brought in or took out, since I didn't have much info to go on.
0-1 vs Infect (Zachary Koch, who went on to make top 8)
I actually won game 1 here, thanks to sticking both Serra Avengers along with a two Mother of Runes and multiple Swords to Plowshares. Game 2 he killed me turn 3 with blighted agent. Game 3 was super close and interesting. I stuck Jitte and ate most of his board, but I couldn't get to his Inkmoth in time due to Pendelhaven. He then stuck a pithing needle on Jitte, so I felt in trouble. All this time I was stuck on 2 lands with no Vial, so sequencing was everything for me. He had only 1 card left in hand, and his Inkmoth + Pendelhaven clock, but I had Port + Plains (with Swords in hand). I didn't have much clock, only 4 per turn with him at 9 life. I attack him down to 5, with the plan of either porting or swords'ing his inkmoth and trying to race. I decided to Port after he activated, and perhaps this was a punt, since he had Teferi's Response, killing my Port and drawing him 2 cards. Next turn I swing back and put him to 1 life, still with Swords in hand for the inkmoth. He has found Dispel and Daze though, off his Response, so I die. If I had gotten my Swords countered by Teferi's Response, I would've still had the Port which he couldn't interact with, and presumably won the game. I think this game might've exposed my relative inexperience in this matchup, sadly. Hopefully I do better next time. If you guys have any tips for playing against Infect, I'd love to hear them.
-1 batterskull
-1 mangara
+1 pithing needle
+1 ratchet bomb
2-2 vs Elves (lost to Phil Silberman and eventual top 8'er Christopher Hall; beat top 8'er Matt Hoey)
Sadly, I played against Elves 4 times in this event, including 3 times on day 1. Mirran Crusader was a godsend here, however. In game 3 against Hoey, putting Jitte on Crusader let me easily race his Progenitus. I really enjoy playing against Hoey because we always have good banter and I consider him a great competitor, making this win all the more satisfying.
Unfortunately, Elves was the deck I played against more than any other. Obviously the matchup is bad, but Mirran Crusader being back in the deck really does help a ton. As does the 4th Revoker in fact, since pinning down any number of their creatures can be super relevant given different board states. I had an unfortunate situation against Phil Silberman where I didn't draw a 3rd land for about the first ten turns of the game. If it had come sooner, I could've Needle and Revoker'ed Symbiote in the same turn, preventing him from ravaging my artifact heavy draw with his Rec Sage. Unfortunately my 3rd land was too slow coming, and I couldn't put up sufficient pressure.
I am not sure how much I like E Tutor in this matchup, and didn't even wind up drawing it at all. This is how I boarded, though:
+2 E Tutor
+1 containment priest
+1 ratchet bomb
+2 canonist
+1 needle
-4 thalia
-2 mangara
-1 avenger
I wound up boarding in tutor against only Elves on the weekend, but I think that is merely a function of simply not playing against Storm or Dredge ever. That said, I've never really LOVED tutor, and could certainly see trimming down to 1 copy in favor of another containment priest, or perhaps grafdigger's cage. Turn 1 mom, into turn 2 canonist or priest can really do a number on them.
Take-away:
Death and Taxes is in a great spot at the moment, illustrated by 9 copies making day 2 at this tournament (second only to Elves' 11 copies). Elves being so popular isn't ideal for us, but the matchup is more winnable than most people think, especially with another Containment Priest in the board I'm thinking.
Elves doing so well should lead to an increase in golgari charm and toxic deluge type effects, so things might get a bit tougher for us in the weeks ahead. Legacy has a nice way of balancing itself out though, and Death and Taxes is surprisingly capable of molding itself to changing metagames.
Long Live Thraben.
In reference to the green splash, I personally never understood the appeal of running maindeck Gaddock Teeg. Card is too narrow to have a big effect, especially now that TC is banned. Green is useful at most for cards like Choke, or Qasali Pridemage which is a creature I liked a lot when Revoker didn't have as much value and the main targets were equipment you would rather destroy anyways. But I find it hard to justify running green post bannings.
I think that card choices are too skewed towards hypotethicals when it comes to chhosing for this deck, because we have no card selection. You can't add one of this or two of that "for this matchup or this situation". The odds are skewed against you. Cards need to have broad applications and be useful and resilient against a wide array of opponent lines of play to disrupt you. Neither of which Teeg is of any use. Teeg is good against very specific cards that the opponent most likely isn't even playing in his deck at any given moment.
I personally think the best cards green provides are all mainly sideboard cards: Choke (singleton), Sylvan Library (singleton) and Qasali Pridemage (can be maindecked if you face a lot of stoneblade, otherwise sideboard). Teeg is actually the card I liked the least, because he does so damn little and doesn't advance the board in any manner.
The green splash manabase isn't terrible, but could certainly be better, and it's certainly more vulnerable than pure white. You're sacrificing a lot in order to maindeck a sideboard card.
While I do agree with you that splashing green is a relevant cost for a card that's very matchup specific, literally every loss I picked up last weekend in indy was to a deck where teeg is good. I lost twice to storm (net 2-2 on the weekend; it was everywhere), once to omni, and once to 2 quick NOs from elves. I beat the other 8 decks I played (2 uwr delver, 1 bug delver, 1 ur delver, 1 burn, 1 mav, 1 mirror, 1 reanimator), and r15 was an obvious ID. There wasn't much miracles in the room, but teeg is one of the best cards you can possibly have against them. I don't know if it's actually worth it (I haven't really tested it), but as long as there aren't many stifles or moons running around, the cost to the mana base isn't actually that big. You can still play all the value lands and the same number of white sources, and it's not like we were playing around wasteland by running exclusively on basics anyways.Originally Posted by frenadol
In response to the problem Elves MU this is our conversation.
Strawman argument:Assumptions:The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition.
-There is a problem with Elves
-People were splashing for Teeg
-Teeg is no longer necessary
Conclusion:
-Use the splashed lands to deal with Elves instead
Your argument:
"Those cards aren't even good against storm." <- we're not actually talking about storm. Storm was a side "hey, it has application elsewhere" argument, unrelated to whether or not the splash would work against Elves.
QED.
There's no point in arguing about it. You were not only wrong twice but my comments were directed towards those who were splashing anyway. If they were splashing green, they could swap the green 1-for-1 and the answers 1-for-1 for relevant answers to a different problem deck. I really couldn't give an ass about what you have to say on a topic directed towards other players. You want to criticize the splash; criticize *them.* I'm just telling them the obvious "you were splashing anyway, just change the splash."
Grats on the finish Greg!
2-2 vs. Elves is quite good. Although elves players are way worse in paper than they are on modo, my record against irl elves opponents is also way better than online (where you face guys like Julian Knab and Magnus Lantto all the time)
I wouldn't board in enlightened tutor vs. elves because they're either gonna try to grind through you with a flurry of decays (where the two for 1 is a big deal) or they're gonna combo you quickly where the tutor is just too slow.
I'm also warming up to the idea of maybe cutting 1 of the tutors, but I think I definitely want at least 1. So I guess the 15th card should be another Containment Priest, depends on the expected meta though. But with the resurgence of elves we definitely could use more tools for the match up.
Doesn't that seem sort of insane? E-tutor essentially makes most of your sboard and toolbox cards at least a 3 of after sideboard. If I'm playing burn the fact that I essentially have 4 cards which will net me a win is huge (2x tutor 1x copr 1x absolute law) and if I'm playing a deck like painter servant it means I have 7 chances to lock down his grindstone (4x revoker 2x tutor 1x pithing needle).
It seems to me that if you're only going to play one tutor you might as well play none at all, because the match ups where you want a tutor you absolutely need the tutor. Especially in the new era of BUG the benefit tutoring for RiP or Revoker to blank goyf/Lily cannot be overstated. I can understand cutting tutor if you're playing a more traditional armageddon/catacylsm sideboard, but I don't think that sideboard method is capable of addressing the wide variety of archetypes that the legacy meta has shifted towards since the T.C ban.
Also, as an aside. I wrote about my 5-0 tournament on the last page playing D&T. I ran Order of Whiteclay although I never found it in the 12 games I played. However in testing this card proved to be absolute bomb. capable of blocking a ton of creatures safely, with psuedo conditional vigilance, and the threat of infinite recursion against BUG decks, I could see this card gaining traction with the deck. Without STP all our creatures can be returned repeatedly. At the very least it forces out an abrupt, normally it replaces itself with either mom/thalia/flicker, best case it gets a jitte attached and swings freely and recurs all your creatures creating an unwinnable board state for the other fair decks.
I read your list 4 times and I missed Order of Whiteclay every single time. PBCAK indeed.
My list has to (HAS TO) include 1 Fiend Hunter. If I can find a spot for this thing, I will at least give it a shot, see what sort of impact it has.
So there's no point in arguing but you can't leave it alone anyways? You misunderstand the term "strawman" no matter how nicely you quote wikipedia and how nicely you misquote me.There's no point in arguing about it. You were not only wrong twice but my comments were directed towards those who were splashing anyway. If they were splashing green, they could swap the green 1-for-1 and the answers 1-for-1 for relevant answers to a different problem deck. I really couldn't give an ass about what you have to say on a topic directed towards other players. You want to criticize the splash; criticize *them.* I'm just telling them the obvious "you were splashing anyway, just change the splash."
The green splash is far more powerful and versatile so your suggestions and claims stay inane.
Don't you think "insane" is a little bit strong use of language?
Please explain how this makes any sense. When I moved from playing a board full of powerful one ofs, like Absolute Law, Circle of Protection: Red, Pithing Needle etc. To only playing a few of those cards, the tutor lost a lot of value and it might be better to play a card instead, that doesn't require a turn, 1 extra mana and an extra card to set up. There's many downsides to playing Enlightened Tutor so it has to really be worth it, and that requires a specific meta as well as powerful, game winning sideboard cards to tutor for.It seems to me that if you're only going to play one tutor you might as well play none at all
It also seems that you are misevaluating your cards for the BUG match up, as Enlightened Tutor is in no way an acceptable sideboard card vs. BUG and Phyrexian Revoker is NOT something you want in your deck after board.
You write in a very dramatic and overzealous way considering your seemingly lacking experience with the deck. No offense intended.
I think about this every time I side 4x out. But it is so amazing in so many match ups still, and in game 1s it is almost always good, against BUG and Jund it is powerful in game 1 but a huge liability in post board games.
I don't think I ever side out a few of them, I either have 4 or 0 after board. If they have hate that makes my Revokers a liability (like Golgari Charm and Ancient Grudge that I can't fight with Wilt-Leaf Liege) then I will side them all out.
If you're playing storm, or elves, or another combo deck. You generally have at best 3 turns to set up a board that stalls them. Without playing counters or hand disruption, you expect playing one of's in a sideboard with little ability to tutor for is going to get you somewhere?
On Phyrexian Revoker in post sideboard against BUG, I prefer him in certain BUG MU's. I keep him bug control because even preventing lily or DRS from a couple turns of activating can be the difference in a game. Especially if you're on the play. a turn two thalia with a turn three revoker chokes out BUG unless the wipe is already in hand. My list that I won with plays three mirran crusaders. I feel comfortable keeping in x/1's because I know each and every mirran crusader must be met with a board wipe unless they pull their 1 of TNN. As for tutor, in BUG control the main threat I face is the inevitable 6/7 tarmogoyf 15 or so turns into the game when we devolve to top decking. being able to tutor for an early RiP is so incredibly strong against tarmogoyf/DTT/DRS I can't really imagine not playing tutor+RiP for the sideboard match.
Sorry for hyperbolic speech, I have a tendency to fall into a sort of grandiose rheotoric when I strongly believe something. I've been playing deck for about a year know, never played in a main event legacy tournament, but I've won a few side legacy tournaments at major events.
I never liked running more than one Tutor in the sideboard because you never want to see more than one in your hand. There's a lot of overlap already in the cards you side in, regardless of being all different singletons, so there will be some you draw naturally and another you might want to tutor up with ET. But drawing two ET is such a card disadvantage that even in an ANT matchup it will be felt, not to mention the fact that the second copy is taking up space in the sideboard that would otherwise be dedicated to an actual sideboard card.
See, you're playing for example against BUG Delver. How many cards will you side in? Will you side in 2 E Tutors if you had them? I wouldn't, that's suicide. You already have 2 RiPs and 2 WLL, those are perfectly serviceable cards that can take the place of your Revokers. Making more space in the maindeck for another Tutor is poor sideboarding unless you're playing against a really fast combo meta, which won't happen outside MODO. Second Tutor is only useful against combo decks and maybe Burn, and even in those cases it's questionable.
Sideboard singletons won't win you any game by themselves. It will always come down to tight play and not expose yourself to a sweeper. Death and Taxes isn't a deck of "I will bank on drawing this sideboard card to win". E Tutor and the sideboard stuff are little pluses, the maindeck will always be the main force, and those cards will always be way more useful in any matchup, even in very unintuitive ones like Dredge. Even against combo you should prioritize having a good curve and opening rather than banking on having silver bullets in your starting hand.
Revoker is a perfect example of a game 1 card. In game 1 it's very useful, because the opponent won't have as much removal to get rid of it because holy damn, this little bugger IS vulnerable. It dies to practically everything the opponent might want to sideboard against us. Even if it's still useful against cards like Liliana and DRS, against black decks I usually just get rid of them because they're not gonna stick and also have zero offensive pressure if they do.
Last edited by frenadol; 02-03-2015 at 09:04 PM.
I totally understand that mentality for Tutor. I have drawn both after sideboard and it can often be annoying and feel like unnecessary card dsadvantage. However, those times seem to be few and far apart, I happily take that chance knowing I have a much higher chance of drawing exactly what I need. I agree that the main deck of D&T is strong in almost every matchup with SB cards being only a bonus. However if I can raise my chances of finding a specific card by 20-30% then I think its well worth the essentially 13 card sideboard.
I mean yes obviously the revokers come out against BUG delver. more counter magic means if they don't want it to resolve they don't have to and if I rely on it I can get burned for it. so -4 revoker -1 SOTL -1 Plains +2 RiP +2 WLL +2 EL. I don't think its even remotely questionable to want two tutors for fast combo. You need pithing needle against show and tell, you need pithing needle against painter, you need pithing needle against elves. We talk about having trouble against elves and tutor is our answer, having a more consistent EC/Needle draw is paramount to our success in the match up.
As another aside, has anyone tested black splash for ZP? One or Two scrublands with a couple fetches seems strong in not only both fighting elves and delver, but also protecting from sideboard g-charms.
Something like:
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/03-02...xes-copy-copy/
a few random points in no particular order:
Major props to Gregory for the result! Nice report by the way...
Phyrexian Revokers: to whomever suggested tutoring for them against BUG, this is just a terrible idea. Revokers are vulnerable to every removal/sweeper spell they run, and tutoring for one is just begging to get 2-for-1'd, or worse, in a grindy matchup that often verges on card advantage. Not to mention the tempo loss.
As for the 4-of, discussion, Bahra's answer actually kind of reinforces my theory of only wanting 3 in the main (and none in the board). I am currently trying the Restoration Angel list (1 extra land - Dust Bowl, 4 Flagstones, and 2 Restos instead of Avengers), so I needed to cut a creature anyway, and Revoker seemed like the most logical choice. Even if I went back to the 26 creature version, I'd sooner add a singleton SoTL than the 4th Revoker, I think.
The green splash and other splashes: the point of the green splash was that Gaddock Teeg was actually blanking 7+ cards (often the most powerful ones) in 90% of the top tier decks during the Treasure Cruise days, to the point where it became an extremely powerful maindeck card. Also, Stifle and Wasteland were at an all-time low, minimizing the risk to the manabase. With Treasure Cruise gone, Gaddock Teeg went back to being a sideboard card, stifle and wasteland experienced a resurgence, and people mostly decided that the splash was not worth it anymore.
Splashing for another color for sideboard answers to just 1 or 2 problematic decks is very different from adding a maindeck card that hits 90% of the field hard. That's why you can't compare the TC-era green splash to splashing black for ZP against Elves.
Delver decks being overwhelmingly favorable MUs: I would be a little more cautious here. Favorable: yes, for the most part. But not a cakewalk by any means. I've often seen people claiming that UR Delver (without TC) is the most favorable of them all. My experience suggests otherwise. DnT and UR are the only legacy decks I own, and I've tested the matchup quite a bit, playing both sides. Much like against BUG Delver, winning game 1 (in which we should be favored) is critical, as we can usually win only 1 postboard game. Sulfuric Vortex, Smash to Smithereens, Pithing Needle, and plenty of burn spells mean that there is no safe route to victory, and that we'll often get down to single digits very quickly and will be forced to make a risky play and just hope they don't have it/rip it.
Shaving a tutor: the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of going down to only 1 ET in favor of the second Containment Priest. I am also willing to concede that 2 Mirran Crusaders are probably a better choice than a 1/1 split with Brimaz in the current meta, especially since I'm already running Resto. Brimaz tokens just end up bouncing against a DRS, SFM or Swiftspear more often than not, and they obviously almost never survive when he blocks. Brimaz is better against Jund, but there doesn't seem to be too much of that, and Mirran just crushes BUG.
Anyways, I'm going to a pretty large tournament (200+ players) on Sunday, and I really appreciate all the feedback and info I get from you guys, especially since I don't get the chance to test a lot. Will let you know how it goes!
Would you bring in Zealous Persecution against BUG Delver and Jund? I sure wouldn't, especially not when you're playing Thalia and basically tapping out every turn. Fighting Golgari Charm with a do 2 mana do nothing instant does not seem like a good idea. And splashing to improve 1 match up slightly, while making every other match up worse, seems pretty bad.
I think you're right. I did a large amount of testing with ZP yesterday and it is good when its good, but so often it feels detrimental. There just has to be a better way to deal with elves, even something as silly as a plateau for tremor or something sideboard.
If you REALLY want a -1/-1 effect that doesn't affect you (well, just the Revokers), Holy Light is the most sensible choice. But again, I don't think there's a need for such an effect in the 75.
I don't have the experience people have with DnT, but every time I tried splashing a color, the manabase went straight to hell. I already mulligan more than any other deck because of the 8 non-color making lands.
Anyway, do you people(z) find that you mulligan with this deck more than with most other decks? Even just the straight white version? I should have kept track, but I definitely went to 5 cards more times with DnT than any non-dredge deck.
Meh, maybe it's just a small sample size (several hundred games, instead of the thousands most people have) and a bad streak.
I do mulligan a lot, but the deck is more than capable of winning with 5 cards (or even 4 or 3 in some matchups). If your splash decreases your white mana count, you're doing something wrong. A splash should just replace some basics with fetches/duals, which will make you softer to mana disruption, but shouldn't significantly impact your mulligans unless you're terrified of stifle. 8 colorless lands aren't free, or else everyone would do it.
I do mulligan a lot with this deck, to the point where I consider myself quite lucky if I don't lose at least one round in a tournament due to starting with a severely handicapped hand. That, and drawing plains after plains when you desperately need action, are probably the two main weaknesses of the deck, in my opinion...
I guess that's just the nature of not playing blue. With a good hand, you'll have an advantage over blue decks due to the fact that you won't waste time durdling around with cantrips, but you'll just expose yourself to the risk of your deck not cooperating that much more. One of the most frustrating experiences in my magic career was missing top 16 in the largest tournament I have ever been to due to not drawing the second land that would have let me equip my Thalia with Jitte and kill my opponent's DRS (he was also left landless after a wasteland exchange) for 6 straight turns. He eventually drew a land and a ponder, cantripped out of it, and won. Bleargh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
