Mad Zur, I'm a little confused. You mentioned boarding out a basic forest, and yet I don't see that forest in your decklist. Also, I counted 16 lands in your build. 16?? I wonder how that works for you, even with all those cantrips.
Turns out my list is very similar to yours in other respects, except I replace pithing needle maindeck (I have it in the side) for meddling mage (2 of them). You seem to bash the power level of that card a lot, at least in the current metagame, but I think that's undeserved. Mage is certainly not ideal in many match-ups, like goblins, but never terrible. Mage makes your solidarity match-ups better too, so you don't need to worry about siding in such sub-par stuff as loaming shaman.
You also run 4 tundras compared to 3 trops in your manbase. But you actually have far more green spells than white spells. Why these numbers then? If you're counting on werebear to live to keep you with green mana, you should think again.
His list is 59 cards, he obviously forgot to put the forest in that list, he should edit it if he sees this. Also it would be great if bardo could update his origional post with a link to this list.
Originally Posted by Parcher
I can explain that. Basic Plains arent needed, so it was replaced with Tundra rather quickly. Also, since this deck only runs 3 Windswet Heaths, it was better off fetching a Basic Forest rather than a Plains.
As for Green Mana, it has the basic Forest. I think it may have been a typo, since he runs 17 Lands, with 3 being green fetches.
ICBE - We're totally the coolest Anti-Thesis ever.
"The Citrus-God just had a Citrus-Supernova... in your mouth."
That just happened to be the configuration that was easily available. I rarely name fetches with Needle so it's mostly irrelevant. There's no clear best setup; running all Strands lets you name Delta (against Iggy Pop, the black mirror, black decks), and running all Deltas lets you name Strand (white mirror, certain Solidarity players), but both make you more vulnerable to is opposing Needles (Strand particularly so because some people would expect you to be playing Plains). A combination lessens the chance of getting hurt by opposing Needles but can get in the way if you want to play one naming either. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter.
Like I said, the mirror plan is untested. Monestary might still be optimal, but we were worried about it because of graveyard hate from the mirror (the other matchups where Monestary is awesome seem to have disappeared). In essence, we didn't want our sideboard to lose to the opponent's sideboard. If it's working well for you, though, go ahead and run Monestary. It's a good option and we might go back to it in the future. I don't like the idea of boarding in more removal because all the options are situational. I'd much rather board in extra threats and plan to trade them off than removal that might sit in my hand against a Mongoose.So may I have more information to why Nantuko Monastery had to get cut. It was so good in my metagame. It helps me with all my bad match ups, like EBA. Even if Grunt is around, more removal can easily be sided in to take care of him. Monastery was also my MVP for awhile.
I haven't played against it with this board yet, but the plan is:What do you side in versus mirror?
-3 Pithing Needle
-1 Counterspell
-1 Forest
-1 Portent (Could be something else, like another Counterspell or a Daze)
+3 Jotun Grunt
+2 Loaming Shaman
+1 Mystic Enforcer (Would have been another Loaming Shaman)
I think you are confusing 'terrible' with 'dead'. Mage is never dead because it's a 2/2 for two. Mage is, however, sometimes terrible because a 2/2 for two is just that. I wouldn't run Mage over Needle for two main reasons: Decks hurt by Needle are far more common than decks hurt by Mage, and decks hurt by Mage are already your best matchups while decks hurt by Needle are close or unfavorable.Loaming Shaman isn't for Solidarity.Mage makes your solidarity match-ups better too, so you don't need to worry about siding in such sub-par stuff as loaming shaman.The Forest is the fourth permanent green source. This is actually the same manabase we ran with Crusade; I could see cutting a Tundra at this point for another fetchland or Island but this configuration has been working well.You also run 4 tundras compared to 3 trops in your manbase. But you actually have far more green spells than white spells. Why these numbers then? If you're counting on werebear to live to keep you with green mana, you should think again.
The power of Meddling Mage is low in Legacy. Against every creature-based deck he's nothing more than a 2/2 bear. Against combo his power is undeniable, but if you can't reliably beat combo with Threshold than you are doing something wrong.
You can't afford to clog your deck with 2/2 bears against other creature decks like Goblins, Faerie Stompy, Red Death, Angel Stompy, and others. Meddling Mage in these matchups is basically a minor inconvenience for the opposing decks because he definitely isn't a threat.
Actually, mage is a threat, he's just not always a good one. Nit-picking aside, I can certainly see the argument against mage and for needle main, but I've actually had decent success with mage against random decks. Even against goblins he names warchief or ringleader and eats an incinerator that would overwise kill a bear. That's certainly not terrible.
And thanks for clearing up the forest issue.
I'm not sure you can call Mage a threat at all. The fact that Goblins might use an Incinerator on him is hardly enough of a reason to say that he's not always a good threat. He's actually very bad. Let's examine a few decks -
Goblins - Mage dies to basically everything and basically can't do anything about Incinerator.
Gro - Other Gro decks not running Mage are at an advantage because they might be running a real threat like Mystic Enforcer.
Red Death - Looks like every creature in this deck beats Mage every day of the week.
Faerie Stompy - Sea Drake, Serendib Efreet, hell even Trinket Mage trades with Meddling Mage (I would also offer that Trinket Mage is only a threat in this deck because he can be equipped)
Angel Stompy - Mage can't even beat Silver Knight in a fair fight. Or any other creature in this deck for that matter.
Shall I go on? I think its important to realize that when people think White Thresh loses to aggro its probably largely related to the fact that people are playing Meddling Mage in the main. You are welcome to play him if you think he's good, but just make sure you don't think of him as a threat against other decks playing creatures because he isn't.
How in the hell would naming Warchief or Ringleader stop Goblins? You do realize they have AEther Vial and you can still Vial in those guys, right? Cycling Gempalm Incinerator can not only kill Meddling Mage, but also draws the Goblin player a card. Most of the time, I think Goblins would just run over your Meddling Mage, not even bothering to activate Gempalm to get rid of it. Goblins laughs in the face of Meddling Mage. Your 2/2 guy is as good as a Grizzly Bear and Grizzly Bear is awful.
AnwarA101's Are You Playing a Threat?
Can't you all just agree with the fact that Meddling Mage is a metagame choice?
Meddling Mage sucks in some (agro) meta's, but in combo/mixed meta's he's just nuts.
I agree completely. I don't think the mage-discussion is very helpful for the development of the deck, I guess we all know by now against which decks it's useful and against which decks not. People shouldn't evaluate their deck in a vacuüm, but take their meta and their own playskills into account. I think it's impossible to reach a consensus here, unless you're playing in a similar meta.
Maybe it's just better to separate threads even more, like Ugw Threshold for the aggro-defined meta, for the combo-defined meta, for the scrubby player or the drunk, for example.
Meddling Mage is a threat, just not the strongest one. The thing that you are forgetting, Anwar, is that Mage prevents people from playing spells. Against Red Death, that means no more Bolts or Hymns. Against Angel Stompy, that means no more SoFI or Jittes. This makes him a threat to the opponent's strategy, even if he's not the greatest attacker. If you back him early on with StP's, he can swing some damage through before your Werebears and Mongooses start attacking. Simply saying that Meddling Mage cannot be a threat because removal will kill him doesn't really seem relevant to me since Lightning Bolt will kill Rotting Giant and Incinerator will kill Sea Drakes... does that make those creatures less relevant?
I agree with you though, when you say he's not the greatest piece of aggro against opposing aggro strategies. However, this may be true in UGw Threshold, but not everywhere. My next statement doesn't apply to Threshold, but rather to my deck. Meddling Mage becomes a threat when he's complimented/supported by other creatures/spells. I already referenced how he can be a threat when coupled with StP. However, my deck also utilizes Umezawa's Jitte and Mother of Runes to make him more of a threat. Of course, on his own, Meddling Mage isn't much of an aggro threat (aside from keeping the opponent from playing a specific spell), but Meddling Mage can be a threat when supported correctly.
As far as Meddling Mage goes in UGw Threshold, I think it's still relevant. It names important spells that cannot be played. The argument to this was AEther Vial prevents Mage from being effective against Goblins. However, the same argument can be made about Pithing Needle making AEther Vial ineffective. It still doesn't change the fact that Meddling Mage prevents the opponent from playing a spell. That whole concept, in itself, makes Meddling Mage a valuable asset to the deck, even if it's unable to go on the assault. If anything, Meddling Mage can be boarded out against certain decks. I still feel as though Meddling Mage does alot for the deck.
Threshold, Gro, Birdshit, whatever you call it, is - and always has been - an aggro/control deck. As such, it relies on a tempo-based strategy, rather than a dominating control or agressive strategy, to sieze the small victories and make way for its undercosted guys to swing through. Each time you disrupt your opponent just a little, be it a Daze on their creature, StPing their mana critter, Laying a Needle on their fetchland, or whatever, you advance your strategy just a little bit. Meddling Mage is a Time Walk on a 2/2 body, and even vs. aggro, that's worth running in a tempo deck. Game 1 vs. Goblins with Mage in the MD is a picture perfect example of this. Turn 1 I play Mongoose, or I cantrip, or whatever. If I play Mage turn 2 and name Warchief, the Goblin player can no longer come out of the gates like a bat out of hell, and smash me before I can stablize. Lets say he uses Incinerator on my Mage. Does the incinerator replace itself? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Mage has done his job. He has been a speed bump for the Goblin player, possibly let you get a swing in with Goose, and maybe even held off his Lackey for a turn. He has also managed to clear a removal spell from the Goblin hand, which would otherwise be directed at your Werebears. To me, game 1, that is enough for an otherwise dead card to do. Consider the alternative. You play Pithing Needle in that slot. It's amazing vs. Goblins. It's great against Survival, and some other decks like Salvagers. It's DEAD against Solidarity. It's DEAD against IGG (there's no Mage to kill, so who cares about Cabal Pit?). It's DEAD in the mirror. You play more cantrips in that slot. They get you to other threats faster. They don't stop Warchief from blowing your head in. They don't stop Solidarity from saying "In response, High Tide." They don't draw fire away from your other, better threats.
Meddling Mage is a metagame card. He is good in the SB. He is no kind of real threat vs. Aggro. He's the first thing to get sided out against Goblins. All these statements are true. None of them take into consideration the actual gameplan of Threshold, nor do they recognize that he isn't there to be a beatstick. People are confused because they see Goose and Bear as bigger threats than comparable decks in the format contain. They get the "Beat down" strategy ingrained in their mind, and think if Mage isn't locking a Solidarity player out of the game, he's useless. This just simply is not true.
I agree completely with Mr. Nightmare.
So, you're going to keep Mage in the board, right?
Mr. Nightmare didn't say he keeps Mage in the board, he said "He is good in the SB" in the context of rephrasing what Anwar said. Mage is good in the board. However, it seemed to me from reading what Mr. Nightmare said, Mage is even better in the maindeck. It seemed like he said that he boards them out against Goblins when he said "He's the first thing to get sided out against Goblins."
Regardless, I don't play UGw Thresh. If I did, I would maindeck 4 Mage. I run a deck that runs 4 maindeck Mage though, and that's where they are staying.
I agree with Mr. Nightmare. Needle and Mage both have different functions. One for a creature metagame, and another for a combo metagame. Putting them in the maindeck all depends on the metagame.
ICBE - We're totally the coolest Anti-Thesis ever.
"The Citrus-God just had a Citrus-Supernova... in your mouth."
I didn't get that opinion at all from Mr. Nightmare's post. I don't think he's advocating putting in the maindeck, but you might depending on your metagame. What do you think is so awesome about maindeck Mage vs.
Did you even read what Anwar said? Maindeck Mage is terrible when you're not expecting a lot of combo. Even if you are expecting combo, then you don't even need Meddling Mage as explained by Mad Zur in his tournament report.
Of course I read what Anwar wrote. Did you bother to read what I wrote originally?
Maybe Meddling Mage isn't a threat as far as aggro goes. I understand that a 2cc 2/2 isn't the scariest thing to be attacked with. Meddling Mage isn't just a beatstick and naming a card that the opponent cannot play is not just good against combo.
To quote Mr. Nightmare:
You can read Mr. Nightmare's entire post, you can read my entire post, but either way, I don't think I need to repeat what has already been said.Threshold, Gro, Birdshit, whatever you call it, is - and always has been - an aggro/control deck. As such, it relies on a tempo-based strategy, rather than a dominating control or agressive strategy, to sieze the small victories and make way for its undercosted guys to swing through. Each time you disrupt your opponent just a little, be it a Daze on their creature, StPing their mana critter, Laying a Needle on their fetchland, or whatever, you advance your strategy just a little bit. Meddling Mage is a Time Walk on a 2/2 body, and even vs. aggro, that's worth running in a tempo deck. Game 1 vs. Goblins with Mage in the MD is a picture perfect example of this. Turn 1 I play Mongoose, or I cantrip, or whatever. If I play Mage turn 2 and name Warchief, the Goblin player can no longer come out of the gates like a bat out of hell, and smash me before I can stablize. Lets say he uses Incinerator on my Mage. Does the incinerator replace itself? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Mage has done his job. He has been a speed bump for the Goblin player, possibly let you get a swing in with Goose, and maybe even held off his Lackey for a turn. He has also managed to clear a removal spell from the Goblin hand, which would otherwise be directed at your Werebears.
I'd like to point out for those who say the choice is based on metagame that I'm talking about a typical Legacy metagame, like that you could expect to see at a large Legacy tournament. If I'm ever talking about one specific atypical metagame, I'll say so. If you want to discuss one, please be clear.
It is misleading to assert that an aggro-control deck is necessarily based on tempo cards. Tempo is an important part of any deck, but really, an aggro-control deck has to balance tempo with other means of victory to be successful. If you want an archetype that is primarily concerned with tempo, look at a dedicated aggro deck. Tempo is important to Gro, but it's only one aspect of the deck. When you say the deck is tempo-based, you risk doing exactly what you're warning against - viewing the deck as far more aggressive than it is.
Meddling Mage's ability isn't a Time Walk. At best (i.e. they have the card and the Mage stays as long as you'd need it) it's a Duress. But again, Gro isn't solely a tempo deck, and certainly not to the point of running weak cards. It doesn't actually cost the opponent any mana, so it doesn't generate tempo. In the best-case scenario, it generates card advantage.Meddling Mage is a Time Walk on a 2/2 body, and even vs. aggro, that's worth running in a tempo deck.
In terms of tempo, it would be better to actually answer the Warchief because it forces the opponent to actually play the card, thus losing mana.Game 1 vs. Goblins with Mage in the MD is a picture perfect example of this. Turn 1 I play Mongoose, or I cantrip, or whatever. If I play Mage turn 2 and name Warchief, the Goblin player can no longer come out of the gates like a bat out of hell, and smash me before I can stablize.
You seem to think getting a swing in with Goose is important and yet you later sayLets say he uses Incinerator on my Mage. Does the incinerator replace itself? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Mage has done his job. He has been a speed bump for the Goblin player, possibly let you get a swing in with Goose,
I think if you're suggesting that a single early swing with Mongoose comes close to the value of a card, you have emphasized beatdown (and tempo) far too much.None of them take into consideration the actual gameplan of Threshold, nor do they recognize that he isn't there to be a beatstick. People are confused because they see Goose and Bear as bigger threats than comparable decks in the format contain. They get the "Beat down" strategy ingrained in their mind,
Absolutely.Consider the alternative. You play Pithing Needle in that slot. It's amazing vs. Goblins. It's great against Survival, and some other decks like Salvagers.
It is okay, from time to time, to play a card that's dead against the bye.It's DEAD against Solidarity. It's DEAD against IGG (there's no Mage to kill, so who cares about Cabal Pit?).
Yes, Needle is slightly worse than Mage in the mirror. I would argue, however, that Mage is still bad enough in the mirror that if you see so much of the mirror that you can't play Needle over Mage because of it, you shouldn't be playing Mage either.It's DEAD in the mirror.
They find you removal.You play more cantrips in that slot. They get you to other threats faster. They don't stop Warchief from blowing your head in.
They find you counters.They don't stop Solidarity from saying "In response, High Tide."
They find you replacements for those threats.They don't draw fire away from your other, better threats.
It seems to me that there are two main mistakes people make when they argue for Meddling Mage:
1. They glorify what is, in essence, a combo hate card. Yes, you can say that it disrupts the opponent by preventing him from playing a spell. You can point out that it can do this against any deck. You can even claim that the fact that it is a 2/2 makes it a good card all by itself. But if I ask you to show me specific matchups where Mage is better than, say, the next best draw spell you're not running, the only answers are combo decks. It draws removal against Goblins. It disrupts Red Death. It's a speedbump against Angel Stompy. And yet you'd board it out in all those matchups before you even knew what you'd bring in. For all it's little advantages, it's still primarily combo hate. You're trying to run maindeck combo hate in a deck with no better matchup than combo. It has never been acceptable to maindeck hate for your best matchup. Deadguy Ale played maindeck Engineered Plague because Goblins was one of its worst matchups otherwise. Rabid Wombat had Gilded Light for a time because it really couldn't beat combo without it (it couldn't really beat it with it anyway, but that's irrelevant). But Train Wreck didn't maindeck Perish for Gro, and we shouldn't maindeck Mage for our best matchup.
2. They believe there is a great difference between a card that is dead and a card that is simply bad. There is not, particularly not in this deck. When you play a turn one Serum Visions and see a dead card, you'll put it on the bottom. When you play that same Serum Visions and see a bad but not completely dead card, you'll put it on the bottom just as quickly. Mage isn't dead in the mirror and Needle is, but it doesn't matter which one you see with a Brainstorm; if you have a fetchland, that card is going away. Seeing a dead card and seeing a bad card both limit your options when playing draw - generally, you'll want to shuffle either back, Predict either to the yard, or scry either to the bottom. In any of these cases, you'll be seeing another card in their place. As long as the card you sent away is worse than the worst card you draw as a result, it does exactly the same damage - forcing you to draw that card. Suppose you're resolving a Brainstorm with a fetchland in play against Solidarity and the three worst cards in your hand are Portent and two cards that are either Werebear and Swords to Plowshares. Assume Portent is better than Werebear in this stage of the game. Now, it doesn't actually matter whether the two cards are the dead Swords or the not dead but still bad Bear. Their effect is exactly the same: you have to take the Portent. In this case a dead card is no worse than a bad one. But this is all unique to Gro; other decks provide countless examples of how a bad card is only better than a dead one in those rare situations in which it affects the game - not many, because, after all, bad cards are called that precisely because they are unlikely to help you.
Mage in Gro reminds my very much of Pyroclasm in Rifter. It was in a lot of lists for a while, but it fell out of favor when people realized it was just maindeck Goblin hate in a deck that already crushed Goblins. It wasn't dead against everything else the same way Mage isn't dead against aggro today. Against Gro, it could kill Mages, kill unthreshed creatures, and double up or pair with a Slice and Dice to kill threshed ones. But it was still quite bad in what proved to be not only a popular matchup but a very close one. Pyroclasm got cut for things that were a little more versatile, like Abeyance (you can call Abeyance a hate card too, but at least it was there for your tough matchups, not your easy ones). The deck still crushed Goblins, if slightly less so, but it had improved matchups all around. We have the same scenario here; you can keep running Mage, crush combo, and have a difficult time against Goblins, or you can cut it, beat both, and realize why a good Gro list really is the best deck in the format.
Last edited by Mad Zur; 10-11-2006 at 08:20 PM. Reason: typo
No, really Hanni, what's so awesome about maindeck Mage vs. Goblins, Red Death, Angel Stompy, Gro, and Faerie Stompy? You get to name a card? Hanni, don't you realize that doesn't matter in these matchups? You name Goblin Warhchief, you still have to deal with Ringleader, Piledriver, Incinerator, Pyromancer, Goblin King, Siege-Gang Commander, and AEther Vial. You want to name Lightning Bolt when you're paired against Red Death? You still have to deal with Phyrexian Negator, Sinkhole, Hymn to Tourach, Duress, Wasteland, Rotting Giant, Nantuko Shade, and Hypnotic Specter.
Hanni, you make the comparison that Meddling Mage, Sea Drake, and Rotting Giant can all be killed by Lightning Bolt. While they may be equal right in that respect, it's unfair to compare them like that. Sea Drake and Rotting Giant are legitmate threats that perform well in combat and deal significant damage to the other player on their own. Grizzly Bear didn't do it when it was printed and Meddling Mage won't do that for you now. If you compare their strengths vs. combo decks then you have a clear favorite in Meddling Mage. Combo decks will need to deal with Meddling Mage in order to combo off. A 2/2 Meddling Mage doesn't just sit there like Rule of Law or Arcane Laboratory, it can actually attack and, with help, kill your opponent. I say with help because a lone Meddling Mage would take about 10 turns to kill the other player and that may be giving the combo player too much time.
Hanni, keeping 4 Meddling Mage in the maindeck in a mixed Legacy metagame is a poor call. Don't let your success on Day 2 go to your head.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
