[OLD] UGw Threshold

[Hanni]

I'm not letting my success on Day 2 go to my head. Meddling Mage is a good creature. It may not be as good in Thresh as it is in Fish do to the lack of synergy and support that the Thresh has for it... but if your going to drop Mage to give the deck a better game 1 against aggro, why not just run UGr Thresh? It seems like the only reason to run white is for StP and Mage. I mean, the red splash can still board in Stifle to hit the Solidarity players lands so they don't combo off in time and the Stifle can be a last resort against a resolves Brainfreeze.

Meddling Mage is still a crutch for any opponent to deal with. It's card advantage in most cases. Like I said, it may not be that good in Thresh, but Anwar seems to think that small creatures suck in this format and I don't believe that to be true in the slightest. I mean, yeah, if your just putting a deck together with a bunch of 1/1's and 2/2's, your not going to have a good deck. If you toss in Jitte and Mother of Runes, those 2/1's and 2/2's become significantly more powerful.

At any rate, if people are gonna start running UGw Thresh with StP as the only reason white is included, I'd go UGr for Bolt, Fire/Ice, Magma Jet, Pyroclasm, etc. I still think Meddling Mage is a great card, regardless if everyone else thinks it sucks.

[AnwarA101]

Meddling Mage is still a crutch for any opponent to deal with. It's card advantage in most cases. Like I said, it may not be that good in Thresh, but Anwar seems to think that small creatures suck in this format and I don't believe that to be true in the slightest. I mean, yeah, if your just putting a deck together with a bunch of 1/1's and 2/2's, your not going to have a good deck. If you toss in Jitte and Mother of Runes, those 2/1's and 2/2's become significantly more powerful.

At any rate, if people are gonna start running UGw Thresh with StP as the only reason white is included, I'd go UGr for Bolt, Fire/Ice, Magma Jet, Pyroclasm, etc. I still think Meddling Mage is a great card, regardless if everyone else thinks it sucks.

You are oversimplifying my position. I don't actually believe that all small creatures suck in this format. You just mentioned a creature that I don't think sucks in Legacy - Mother of Runes. She is dangerous to any creature based decks because she makes every creature including herself a wall that can destroy opposing creatures. But if you play small creatures that basically do nothing to change the board state then yes I think they are bad against other decks playing creatures. They essentially aren't threats because your opponent is playing bigger creatures and so they do nothing to improve your situation.

Your point about Jitte only points out that Jitte with any creature is a threat which makes Jitte the bigger threat not the creature that is attached to it. The better the creature that is attached to the equipment the better chance of it surviving long enough to swing with the Jitte.

[Nightmare]

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.

I had this discussion with you in Connecticut. It was a general meta, and I had MD Mage. We saw how that went.

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.

This is not a contradiction, but it is redundant. These "other means of victory" are part of the tempo, ie: getting out good sized guys faster than you opponent can. It isn't a misnomer to call Gro a tempo deck. It runs Daze. I really don't see any way you could deny it being a tempo deck, other than to straw man me.

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.

Give me a single other aspect of the deck and you win this argument. The entire deck is based on dropping a threat and Time Walking your opponent to victory.

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.

Tempo is important because there is a direct relationship between winning and maintaining your tempo advantage (or successfully negating it). However, Tempo is interesting because it manifests itself in so many different ways. It isn't limited to decks with creatures that attack or virtual card advantage. If you are utilizing Tempo effectively, you are keeping your opponent off balance and dictating the terms of the game.

Tempo IS Interesting
by Steve Menendian

Everything is a Time Walk
by Scott Keller

It seems to me that there are two main mistakes people make when they argue for Meddling Mage:

First of all, calling it a mistake is arrogant and uncalled for. By no means is your opinion on the matter the final word on the issue, nor will I concede the matter based on you calling my opinion a "mistake."

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.

The last time I played the deck (Conn.) I admitted I didn't plan to see much Goblins, which was an accurate prediction. I lost to them in the Finals, but of my own play errors, not the deck's. I have never, in all the tournaments I have played in, played against Red Death, a deck that is almost uniquely confined to the Virginia metagame. It is not high on my list of decks to metagame for. Angel Stompy is rapidly declining in popularity.

And yet you'd board it out in all those matchups before you even knew what you'd bring in.

Vs. Goblins: -4 Mage, -1 Enforcer, +4 Hydroblast, +1 Pithing Needle. Vs. RD: -2 Mage, -1 Portent, -1 Mental Note, -1 Engineered Explosives, +3 Hydroblast, +1 Enforcer, +1 Pithing Needle. Vs. AS: -4 Mage, +1 Pithing Needle, +1 Enforcer, +2 Naturalize.

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.

In my eyes, he's part of the reason the matchup is so good. Without him, you might as well be playing CounterSliver.

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.

All of this basically says to me "Mage gets shuffled/scryed away, so don't run him." Well, I often Scrye Land away. And Swords. And Werebear. Maybe we shouldn't run those either.

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.

Or you can run it, smash Combo, smash Control, have a close game 1 vs. Goblins and smash them games 2 and 3. I pick that option.

[URABAHN]

I had this discussion with you in Connecticut. It was a general meta, and I had MD Mage. We saw how that went.

I remember you earning your Imperial Seal and not really trying vs. Goblins. Your point? Mad Zur didn't run MD Mage at the Star City Games Duel for Duals and we saw how that went. Are you trying to claim your build is the best build and because you won the CT tourney that means MD Mage is correct?

This is not a contradiction, but it is redundant. These "other means of victory" are part of the tempo, ie: getting out good sized guys faster than you opponent can. It isn't a misnomer to call Gro a tempo deck. It runs Daze. I really don't see any way you could deny it being a tempo deck, other than to straw man me.

So, any deck that runs Daze is a tempo deck? You give the example, "getting out good sized guys faster than your opponent can." Maybe your playstyle is different, but I don't think that's how Gro wins. I always feel like I'm losing with Gro until BAM Goose, Goose, Werebear.

Give me a single other aspect of the deck and you win this argument. The entire deck is based on dropping a threat and Time Walking your opponent to victory.

I'd like to call for an immediate tar and feathering of anyone who uses this tired cliche. Insert Card Here is like a Time Walk vs. Insert Deck Here. No, it's not. Time Walk costs 1U, doesn't let your opponent draw a card or play a land. Time Walk doesn't let your opponent have an upkeep, draw step, main phase, or end step. Again, maybe your playstyle is different, in which case all this discussion about MD Mage would be moot, but as you said, Gro is an aggro control deck. I don't think it Time Walks every turn, I think it controls the board and lays down threats like Mongoose and Werebear.

First of all, calling it a mistake is arrogant and uncalled for. By no means is your opinion on the matter the final word on the issue, nor will I concede the matter based on you calling my opinion a "mistake." The last time I played the deck (Conn.) I admitted I didn't plan to see much Goblins, which was an accurate prediction. I lost to them in the Finals, but of my own play errors, not the deck's. I have never, in all the tournaments I have played in, played against Red Death, a deck that is almost uniquely confined to the Virginia metagame. It is not high on my list of decks to metagame for. Angel Stompy is rapidly declining in popularity.

Vs. Goblins: -4 Mage, -1 Enforcer, +4 Hydroblast, +1 Pithing Needle. Vs. RD: -2 Mage, -1 Portent, -1 Mental Note, -1 Engineered Explosives, +3 Hydroblast, +1 Enforcer, +1 Pithing Needle. Vs. AS: -4 Mage, +1 Pithing Needle, +1 Enforcer, +2 Naturalize.

In my eyes, he's part of the reason the matchup is so good. Without him, you might as well be playing CounterSliver.

Why is he part of the reason what matchup is so good? I'm not sure if you're talking about Goblins, Red Death, or Angel Stompy. Is it because you can side him out vs. Goblins, Red Death, and Angel Stompy? You said you weren't expecting many Goblins decks, is that why you played Meddling Mage in the maindeck?

All of this basically says to me "Mage gets shuffled/scryed away, so don't run him." Well, I often Scrye Land away. And Swords. And Werebear. Maybe we shouldn't run those either.
Or you can run it, smash Combo, smash Control, have a close game 1 vs. Goblins and smash them games 2 and 3. I pick that option.

Renewed Faith cycles, would you run that? You can just cycle it and draw a different card. What about Akroma's Blessing, which cycles for 1 less mana? Abeyance essentially cycles, so does Bandage. Would you run those in Gro? The point I'm trying to make is there's something to be said about good card quality. If I'm going to put Mage on the bottom on the deck most of the time because I'd rather have a Counterspell, StP, Mongoose, Werebear, or cantrip, I think I wouldn't play Mage at all.

In a more extreme case, card quality is why Rifter does so well against Goblins and Gro and that same card quality will earn you a tick in the loss column vs. combo. I'll lose Game 1 vs. combo, then side out 3x Humility, 3x Wrath, 4x StP, Disenchant, Akroma's Vengeance, Starstorm, Slice and Dice, and a fist full of creature removal. In Game 2 and 3, I'm totally set with the cards I sided in, right?

Speaking of Rifter and control decks in general, you say that Meddling Mage helps you vs. control. How? Do you name Force of Will? Do you name Swords to Plowshares, Wrath of God?

[Volt]

So, any deck that runs Daze is a tempo deck?

Oh, oh! Can I answer that one? Yes, any deck that runs Daze is a tempo deck.

Personally, I can see running Meddling Mage in the maindeck or in the sideboard. I can't see not running it at all.

[Nightmare]

I remember you earning your Imperial Seal and not really trying vs. Goblins. Your point? Mad Zur didn't run MD Mage at the Star City Games Duel for Duals and we saw how that went. Are you trying to claim your build is the best build and because you won the CT tourney that means MD Mage is correct?

No, I'm just saying it isn't a flat out wrong decision, which is what you, Anwar, and Zur are saying.

So, any deck that runs Daze is a tempo deck? You give the example, "getting out good sized guys faster than your opponent can." Maybe your playstyle is different, but I don't think that's how Gro wins. I always feel like I'm losing with Gro until BAM Goose, Goose, Werebear.

Generally, unless your deck contains 20 Islands and Morphling, or a bunch of draw spells and Psychatog, if you run Daze, you are a tempo deck. It's a signature spell of the deck type. Perhaps you're right though, and we play the deck very differently.

I'd like to call for an immediate tar and feathering of anyone who uses this tired cliche. Insert Card Here is like a Time Walk vs. Insert Deck Here. No, it's not. Time Walk costs 1U, doesn't let your opponent draw a card or play a land. Time Walk doesn't let your opponent have an upkeep, draw step, main phase, or end step. Again, maybe your playstyle is different, in which case all this discussion about MD Mage would be moot, but as you said, Gro is an aggro control deck. I don't think it Time Walks every turn, I think it controls the board and lays down threats like Mongoose and Werebear.

Read the article, and then proceed with the tar and feathering. I will continue to use the terminology, as the analogy remains true. Every time I can set my opponent back a turn, I effectively cast Time Walk on myself. Maybe my opponent used a draw step, but maybe he used a card in his hand ineffectively, maybe he got his draw for the turn stuck dead in his hand, maybe he commited to a spell and I countered it. Any of those ways, I get to take a virtual extra turn that he used doing nothing productive.

Why is he part of the reason what matchup is so good? I'm not sure if you're talking about Goblins, Red Death, or Angel Stompy.... You said you weren't expecting many Goblins decks, is that why you played Meddling Mage in the maindeck?

I was referring to the combo matchup, and yes, the low presence of Goblins was the reason I ran him MD.

Renewed Faith cycles, would you run that? You can just cycle it and draw a different card. What about Akroma's Blessing, which cycles for 1 less mana? Abeyance essentially cycles, so does Bandage. Would you run those in Gro? The point I'm trying to make is there's something to be said about good card quality. If I'm going to put Mage on the bottom on the deck most of the time because I'd rather have a Counterspell, StP, Mongoose, Werebear, or cantrip, I think I wouldn't play Mage at all.

You are saying exactly the same thing as I said, just in a different way. The fact that I occasionally see a card I don't want and cycle it away is not a reason to play it, nor is it a reason to cut it.

Speaking of Rifter and control decks in general, you say that Meddling Mage helps you vs. control. How? Do you name Force of Will? Do you name Swords to Plowshares, Wrath of God?

I name removal spells, particularly Swords, since it makes them commit to board sweepers, forcing them to spend more mana which makes them easier to counter. Again, if I play turn 2/3 Mage on STP, they now have to Wrath my Werebear, and if I Daze it on Turn 4, I Time Walk them.

[AnwarA101]

I'm only saying that Mage is a poor threat in the matchups where creatures determine the outcome of the game. This isn't true usually for your matchups against combo and control where Mage maybe the better choice. But control isn't exactly popular and Thresh is already really good against combo. Goblins and other aggro decks seem to be more popular especially outside of NY.

[Mad Zur]

Give me a single other aspect of the deck and you win this argument.

The deck is based on maintaining superior card quality, with terms like card advantage and velocity being relevant as well. The deck does run Daze, but it also runs a bunch of cards that do nothing but draw more cards. Predict is not tempo unless you define tempo to include every possible strategy. Then every deck is a tempo deck and calling it such is essentially meaningless. Similarly, Mage is not a Time Walk unless you claim everything that gets you any kind of advantage is a Time Walk. Then, calling it a Time Walk is no more meaningful than calling it a Magic card.

First of all, calling it a mistake is arrogant and uncalled for. By no means is your opinion on the matter the final word on the issue, nor will I concede the matter based on you calling my opinion a "mistake."

If I didn't think it was a mistake to run Mage or you didn't think it was a mistake not to run Mage (at least sometimes), we wouldn't be having this argument. You don't need to be offended just because we disagree. I'm not telling you to concede, I'm stating my opinion. And if you want to talk about arrogance:

I had this discussion with you in Connecticut. It was a general meta, and I had MD Mage. We saw how that went.

The last time I played the deck (Conn.) I admitted I didn't plan to see much Goblins, which was an accurate prediction. I lost to them in the Finals, but of my own play errors, not the deck's. I have never, in all the tournaments I have played in, played against Red Death, a deck that is almost uniquely confined to the Virginia metagame. It is not high on my list of decks to metagame for. Angel Stompy is rapidly declining in popularity.

Vs. Goblins: -4 Mage, -1 Enforcer, +4 Hydroblast, +1 Pithing Needle. Vs. RD: -2 Mage, -1 Portent, -1 Mental Note, -1 Engineered Explosives, +3 Hydroblast, +1 Enforcer, +1 Pithing Needle. Vs. AS: -4 Mage, +1 Pithing Needle, +1 Enforcer, +2 Naturalize.

Those were examples. All I was saying is that for all the reasons people like to point out Mage isn't dead against non-combo decks, it's still terrible and usually the first card to be boarded out. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure I'd take out all the Mages against Red Death before taking out any draw.)

In my eyes, he's part of the reason the matchup is so good. Without him, you might as well be playing CounterSliver.

How much have you tested against combo without Mage? How did it go?

All of this basically says to me "Mage gets shuffled/scryed away, so don't run him." Well, I often Scrye Land away. And Swords. And Werebear. Maybe we shouldn't run those either.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, "Sure Mage is bad in some matchups, but at least it's not dead" is a weak argument.

Or you can run it, smash Combo, smash Control, have a close game 1 vs. Goblins and smash them games 2 and 3. I pick that option.

How is cutting Mage going to affect this in any way other than letting you beat Goblins?

[Bardo]

Just to throw a different spin on the whole Meddling Mage argument, let's see how many Mages Top8 decks have been run in the "Legacy Big Events."

1st Place BA2: 4 Maindeck Magi
1st Place GP Lille: 4 Maindeck Magi
1st Place Kadilaks DLD I: 0 Maindeck Magi | 3 in the Sideboard
1st Place SCG DFD III, Day 1: 4 Maindeck Magi
2nd Place TML 2006: 4 Maindeck Magi
2nd Place GP Lille: 2 Maindeck Magi | 2 in the Sideboard
4th Place Kadilak's DLD II: 4 Maindeck Magi
5th Place GP Barcelona: 3 Maindeck Magi
7th Place GP Philly: 4 Maindeck Magi
7th Place Kadilak's DLD II: 0 Maindeck Magi
8th Place GP Philly: 3 Maindeck Magi | 1 in the Sideboard
8th Place Legacy Worlds 2006: 4 Maindeck Magi

I don't think I've missed anything, other than the most recent SCG DFD, but I don't have the lists--even though I know at least one Hatfield T8'd (i.e. no Magi).

But from this data...
The number of T8 Threshold decks running maindeck Mage: 10 (36 total MD Magi, 6 total SB Magi)
The number of T8 Threshold decks not running maindeck Mage: 2

Despite all manner of randomness, maindeck Meddling Mages have paid off for many people. That Ob Freely and Mad Zur can do well and not run them doesn't mean they're bad.

As for the "metagame argument," is the metagame significantly different now than it was a year ago? Goblins isn't exactly some brand new break-out deck that's taken the format by storm. However, combo is clearly on the rise. Do you need Mage to beat combo? Obviously no, but he really helps.

Also to be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on the topic (i.e. the deck is proven to do well with or without them), but the data tells an interesting story. Whether you run them or not is up to you and you'll probably do fine either way you go.

And for the record, I couldn't agree more with Geeba:

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.

w3rd.

[Nightmare]

The deck is based on maintaining superior card quality, with terms like card advantage and velocity being relevant as well. The deck does run Daze, but it also runs a bunch of cards that do nothing but draw more cards. Predict is not tempo unless you define tempo to include every possible strategy. Then every deck is a tempo deck and calling it such is essentially meaningless. Similarly, Mage is not a Time Walk unless you claim everything that gets you any kind of advantage is a Time Walk. Then, calling it a Time Walk is no more meaningful than calling it a Magic card.

Card advantage is something almost every deck (combo and extremely dedicated aggro being the exceptions) strives to achieve, be it actual (Predict) or virtual (Meddling Mage). Velocity is a term I can honestly say I've never heard used to describe a deck, unless you're referring to Speed, which is definately not something this deck shoots for unless it's forced to. I do not run Predict anymore, but it isn't so much a tempo card as a control card, which happens to fit well into the overall deck synergy and plan. Please, I linked you to the article "Everything is a Time Walk." Go read it.

If I didn't think it was a mistake to run Mage or you didn't think it was a mistake not to run Mage (at least sometimes), we wouldn't be having this argument. You don't need to be offended just because we disagree.

I definately don't think it's a mistake to not run Mage. I've removed him from the deck at times, too. What I disagree with is the idea that playing him is a mistake, and how adamant you seem to be about the issue.

How much have you tested against combo without Mage? How did it go?

Solidarity is a bit more difficult, because you don't have Mage on High Tide to slow them way down. Your counters need to be extremely well placed, and you end up striving for a solid threat on the board much more. IGG is a difficult match if they lead with Leyline and you don't have Force in hand. Even if you do, you need a solid counterspell hand to back up Force if they have multiple threats in hand. Without Leyline, it's significantly easier, as you can pretty much recur Force or Daze for the win.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, "Sure Mage is bad in some matchups, but at least it's not dead" is a weak argument.
How is cutting Mage going to affect this in any way other than letting you beat Goblins?

What I fail to understand is how Mage is going to be significantly detrimental to your Goblins matchup to begin with.

[Bardo]

What I fail to understand is how Mage is going to be significantly detrimental to your Goblins matchup to begin with.

He's obviously not a star and I always side mine out for Blue Blasts and such, but being a 2/2 and trading with or trumping literally every one of their dudes (sans Piledriver) isn't exactly bad--he's just "not great." But this isn't the same as being "detrimental." 'Far from it.

And if he slows a Warchief from being cast for a few turns* (before he's Incinderated), he's still done his job.


* i.e. Vial has been pithed, is countered or hasn't been drawn.

[AnwarA101]

What I fail to understand is how Mage is going to be significantly detrimental to your Goblins matchup to begin with.

Because Mage isn't something better. He's a 2/2 that can't block Piledriver, can't do anything about Vial (unlike Pithing Needle), and he can't draw you a better card (all your cantrips).

He's like Lightning Bolt in the UGR vs. UGW mirror, Lightning Bolt isn't dead but its so bad that you wished it was something else.

[My Name Is Scott]

Just to throw a different spin on the whole Meddling Mage argument, let's see how many Mages Top8 decks have been run in the "Legacy Big Events."
...
Despite all manner of randomness, maindeck Meddling Mages have paid off for many people. That Ob Freely and Mad Zur can do well and not run them doesn't mean they're bad.

That means nothing until you figure out how many people entered with or without maindeck mages in those events.

[Mad Zur]

Card advantage is something almost every deck (combo and extremely dedicated aggro being the exceptions) strives to achieve, be it actual (Predict) or virtual (Meddling Mage). Velocity is a term I can honestly say I've never heard used to describe a deck, unless you're referring to Speed, which is definately not something this deck shoots for unless it's forced to. I do not run Predict anymore, but it isn't so much a tempo card as a control card, which happens to fit well into the overall deck synergy and plan. Please, I linked you to the article "Everything is a Time Walk." Go read it.

A. The link is broken. Here is a working one.
B. I have read it, and if you accept it, your initial statement, "Mage is a Time Walk", has no relevance. If everything is a Time Walk, calling Meddling Mage a Time Walk does not make it worth running. The point of the article is that every resource can be measured in turns, not that we can call anything a Time Walk to make it sound like a better card.
C. You seem to agree that the draw engine is not tempo-based.
D. You now classify Mage as card advantage, which I agree is much more accurate than your initial claim that it is tempo (though it still assumes your best case scenario).

Solidarity is a bit more difficult, because you don't have Mage on High Tide to slow them way down. Your counters need to be extremely well placed,

So you have to play correctly?

and you end up striving for a solid threat on the board much more.

Werebear and Nimble Mongoose are quite solid.

IGG is a difficult match if they lead with Leyline and you don't have Force in hand. Even if you do, you need a solid counterspell hand to back up Force if they have multiple threats in hand. Without Leyline, it's significantly easier, as you can pretty much recur Force or Daze for the win.

True, Mage helps you out against Iggy-Pop's best draws. But in every situation where they don't lead with Leyline, they either can't win or don't give you time to play Mage anyway. Mage will win you a small percentage of games here that you would have otherwise lost, but it's mostly irrelevant because even if you lose game one, you board answers to their hate and have a near autowin.

What I fail to understand is how Mage is going to be significantly detrimental to your Goblins matchup to begin with.

To cut it, it only has to be detrimental enough that it makes running Mage even slightly worse against the field than running something else. It doesn't have to be the worst card in the world.

Just to throw a different spin on the whole Meddling Mage argument, let's see how many Mages Top8 decks have been run in the "Legacy Big Events."

This is irrelevant. If you could show me tournaments where Gro with Mage is no more popular than Gro without Mage but still manages to take more top 8 slots, we might have something.

[quicksilver]

Man this is like a war, reminds me of the lava dart argument. My personal opinion on mage is I think it is best in the board. Of course depending on meta you may want it in main or not at all. I personally think that the mage is weak against most decks and I would only run it in the main in combo heavy metas (like 50% of your matches). The deck already has a good game against combo, there is no denying that so it may be better to reserve those spots to help in weaker matches. From a personal point of view with survival I love seeing my opponent play mage, sure sometimes it randomly wins, but more often than not it is the card advantage I need to win the game, often by FTKing it. I personally think the mage is weak against decks running removal and decks where it cannot reliably swing in every turn, which is a good number of the decks out there. However I am not saying that running mage is wrong, but I personally would feel thresh stronger without it, but if you find it works for you then go for it.

[Bardo]

That means nothing until you figure out how many people entered with or without maindeck mages in those events.

This is a good point, but for most of these events, we've never had all of the decklists to do the kind of analysis required here.

If you could show me tournaments where Gro with Mage is no more popular than Gro without Mage but still manages to take more top 8 slots, we might have something.

Here's an easy one since I started this anyalysis for my last article.

I'll just add another column:

Place | Colors | Land Count | Mental Note | Portent | Predict | Meddling Mage MD (SB)

1 | U/G/w | 17 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 4 - Bardo Version
10 | U/G/r/w | 18 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3
26 | U/G/w | 17 | 0 | 4 | 4 | (0) (3)
41 | U/G/b | 19 | 0 | 4 | 4 | N/A
49 | U/G/r/w | 18 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4
55 | U/G/r/w | 17 | 3 | 0 | 0 (but 4 AK) | 4
62 | U/G/w | 18 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 (1)
64 | U/G/w | 17 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 - Mad Zur
71 | U/G/w | 17 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 (4)

Placement of decking running maindeck Magi:
1
10
49
55
62
(avg 35.40th place)

Placement of decks not running maindeck Magi:
26 (3 in the board)
64
71
(53.66th place)

Takes this for what it's worth. And yeah, we need a lot more data.

[Amon Amarth]

I prefer Meddling mage MD because he is so good vs Control/Combo. Yes, Chris Pikula is sucky vs Goblins, but I figure any deck with only 4 or so removal spells is going to have a hard time. I will try and outplay my opponents and have a super sweet Blast+Crusade Sideboard ready to go.

[URABAHN]

Read the article, and then proceed with the tar and feathering. I will continue to use the terminology, as the analogy remains true. Every time I can set my opponent back a turn, I effectively cast Time Walk on myself. Maybe my opponent used a draw step, but maybe he used a card in his hand ineffectively, maybe he got his draw for the turn stuck dead in his hand, maybe he commited to a spell and I countered it. Any of those ways, I get to take a virtual extra turn that he used doing nothing productive.

That article sucked. It's old and I don't think it applies anymore and I don't think anything he describes is anything like the power that is Time Walk. If what say is true, then your opponent never gets to do anything because they haven't done anything meaningful over the course of several turns and/or you've stopped them. Then why doesn't Gro automatically win every single time? You Daze, you Counterspell, you Force of Will, you Pithing Needle, you Meddling Mage, then BLAAARRRR *flails hands wildly* drop some beaters and win. Man, that's so much like you cast Time Walk, you cast Time Walk, you cast Time Walk, you cast Time Walk, you cast Time Walk, then BLAAARRRR *flails hands wildly* drop some beaters and win! You win all the time, right? Sadly, you don't win all the time, because your opponent gets to have their entire turn. Your opponent gets to play land and draw cards and attack. They're furthering their goal by developing resources, finding answers, and lowering your life total.

You are saying exactly the same thing as I said, just in a different way. The fact that I occasionally see a card I don't want and cycle it away is not a reason to play it, nor is it a reason to cut it.

If I play Bandage in Gro, I'll occasionally see that card that I don't want and cycle it away, but that's not a reason to play it, nor is it a reason to cut it. Or maybe I could play something better?

I name removal spells, particularly Swords, since it makes them commit to board sweepers, forcing them to spend more mana which makes them easier to counter. Again, if I play turn 2/3 Mage on STP, they now have to Wrath my Werebear, and if I Daze it on Turn 4, I Time Walk them.

For all the boys and girls watching at home, this is what exactly what Gro is not supposed to do. I've played enough Landstill and Rifter to know that if you name StP with Mage, you're in trouble. You're going to play another creature after that, because Mage would otherwise take 10 turns to kill your opponent--too damn long. That's when you get hit with Akroma's Vengeance, Wrath of God, Humility, Nevinyrral's Disk, Pyroclasm, Starstorm, Slice and Dice, or whatever the hell kind of removal control is packing. You can't deny every single removal spell, you'll try to Counter and Force away the removal, but you're going to run out of counters and you're going to lose, who got Time Walked now?

[Nightmare]

For all the boys and girls watching at home, this is what exactly what Gro is not supposed to do. I've played enough Landstill and Rifter to know that if you name StP with Mage, you're in trouble. You're going to play another creature after that, because Mage would otherwise take 10 turns to kill your opponent--too damn long. That's when you get hit with Akroma's Vengeance, Wrath of God, Humility, Nevinyrral's Disk, Pyroclasm, Starstorm, Slice and Dice, or whatever the hell kind of removal control is packing. You can't deny every single removal spell, you'll try to Counter and Force away the removal, but you're going to run out of counters and you're going to lose, who got Time Walked now?

I've played against Landstill and Rifter and Wombat a ton, too, and naming removal spells *is* the right call.
Vs Landstill Naming Swords buys you at least a few turns to swing, since their manabase is a pile, and they're lucky to find WW anyway. If they do, good job. They still have to spend 2-3 mana per turn or more to swing, and have to spend 4-6 mana to wipe the board anyway, spending 2 more cards or 2 more mana to back it up. Your threats are more potent than theirs, and their draw engine is terrible. You should not be losing to Landstill.
Wombat scoops to Counterspell on their board sweepers, which all cost 4 or more. By the time they hit 4 mana, you should have them at like 12 at the most, and probably with a decent supply of counters in hand. Factor in even a single Needle on Decree or an Explosives for 0 and its a non-issue. I'm not saying its cake, but it's not an auto-loss.
Rifter is a bit harder, since they have cycling removal. Mage is Ass vs. them.

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this one, Control is usually a pretty decent matchup for Gro.

I'll say it again, I'm not arguing that Meddling Mage is the be-all, end-all, must-have-maindecked card. I'm saying that it isn't a terrible decision to maindeck him, and that he's strong in some matchups, weak in others. Much like many other cards in the deck. He fluctuates between the main and side in my personal builds, and I suppose in some metagames (Virginia, I guess) he can be cut altogether. In my eyes, though, two things factor in to make me keep him.

1) To me, he has a positive overal net effect. This means he does more good than harm. Ther are more times when he's been extremely helpful to me than when he's been shit, and the times he's shit are mitigated by scrying, shuffling, chumping, being pitched to FoW. Call them cop-outs, or excuses for bad cards if you will, but I disagree with you, again, due to the net effect.
2) 2/3 of your games are played with your sideboard in play. I would rather have access to a versatile card which can be amazing for you in all three games, or work around it (or have it be marginal) game one and then utilize my board to find a more specific solution games 2 and 3. Note that in the past, the two cards have been Pithing Needle and Mage, in the opposite configuration.

[quicksilver]

I was under the impression that Landstill was a poor match for thresh, which is why the rise of solidarity made thresh so good, not only because it was a good match but because solidarity made landstill go away and landstill was a very unfavorable match for thresh.