Hazoret is definitely strong, just not sure the land count of most lists could support it. It's kind of a midrange-y card imo, would probably play better in deck with efficient answers and threats where all the cards are independently strong, rather than a synergy based strategy.
@Mr.Cojonudo - I don't think it is wise to rely on being smarter than your opponent. And as I said before, it is not useful to say "Don't allow the opponent to fill their board, it means you played bad until that point". It's not only not useful because it doesn't suggest anything specific, other than "Kill the lifegain creatures", it's also insulting. When your specific plan is "hope they don't see the on-board Mogg Fanatic blow-out", well, I don't know even really know how to address that other than reiterating that hoping your opponent has the IQ of a rock is signing up to lose a lot of matches before even sitting down to play a game, with any deck.
Btw, I think your soul Sisters match would probably be much better with X/1 damage effects, almost all of their creatures would die to an Electrickery.
Goblins absolutely is the beatdown deck, always. Except after turn 4-5 in the GW match. We just can't so anything from that point. Their board is almost as wide as ours, but their creatures are much bigger. It's not useful to just shrug it off and say 'you played bad to get to that point'. And waiting around turn after turn for goblin grenades to show up isn't useful either due to the life gain creatures.
Savage Alliance is just one way to approach the situation, there has to be others. You never use the trample mode on alliance, you use 1 damage to all and 2 damage to one (which is actually 3 damage because it also gets hit by the 1 damage to all). Combine that with instant speed and first strike and you can take out thier biggest threat, and anything with 2 or less toughness that has already blocked. I don't have enough games under my belt to say if I'm sold on this plan yet, but it certainly sounds good in theory, and had worked a few times. It also has cross match application, like against dredge, or elves, or any deck that gums up the board.
My other thought was maybe something like Sword of Feast and Famine. All of thier creatures are green, and the untap clause would allow us the mana to both attack and block effectively by moving the sword around post combat. This one I haven't tested at all, but it sounds like a good plan for game 2. Might not be so good for g3 because they would likely bring in Reclamation Sage or Qasali Pridemage. I'll probably test this one, but I don't have high hopes.
@hellakevin - thanks for the response. I have to agree, control has felt virtually unloseable, im like 8-0 in games vs UW. I imagine Jeskai to be harder, but I haven't come across it yet. Combo has seemingly been about the same, I feel way faster then them.
It is also my experience so far that the GWx decks, Coco, or just GW value are the hardest. Sounds like you've come to a similar conclusion as I have; we aren't effective at being the beatdown there. I've been trying to figure out a way to give up the role entirely, but I think it's important to keep up the facade. I find I'll punch through around 10 damage, then the board stalls and they slowly gain life and don't bother to attack and I feel dead from about turn 4 on, but in reality the game goes on until like turn 10, and I usually end up on about 4 or 5 lands with a real wide board. Often Magmatic chasm isn't good enough in these scenarios because they've gained too much life, or thier birds or whatever other random fliers aren't affected. This is why I was looking into Savage Alliance. They don't expect us to run sweepers, so they don't pace threats. There isn't a red wrath of God, but I think of there was it would be good enough for this matchup because we can empty our hand so quickly and probably kill in 2-3 turns after sweeping. I don't hate MrCojonudo's suggestion of banners raised here, but I think it's similar to electrickery, except electrickery type effects are going to be more effective at one sided sweeping without needing to be combined with first strike from something like legion loyalist.
If you're in the market to stop lifegain, I think the best card might be Rain of Gore. It requires you to play black, which is a very real cost, but it looks like the best of that type of effect to my eye. It doesn't stop pro-red, but aside from affinity and Etched Champion, there aren't a whole lot of pro-red creatures running around. Even if there were Kor Firewalker running around, Rain of Gore basically turns it into a mini/half Eidolon for us.
But in mono-red, I think Skull Crack is the right call.
I think what it comes down to is that I need more experience with the format and specifically our bad matchups. When it comes to our bad matchups, why are they bad? Why do we lose? What cards can be sideboarded to improve that problem? I like your example, should you side in grave hate vs. dredge, or side in Piledrivers and go for maximum speed? Hopefully someone will be able to chime in with some advice!
I'm in the exact same boat, just lack of experience. I will keep reporting my experience, and I hope you will do the same!
@Midn8Walker - Despite me not wanting to discuss it, he talked over me a little about sideboarding theory in a very wide and general sense; if that is of use to you then you can scour through the conversation for it. The rest of conversation did not prove fruitful, at least not from my view point. It started off as a conversation about sideboarding but we got bogged down with worrying about whether having experience playing with a card mattered before deciding it was unplayable or justifiable for a sideboard or if theory was enough. His position was dismissive of needing actual play time with cards, mine was that theory was not enough.
@acman54321
About the sideboard, since I don't have much experience with today's metagame this is mostly based on what I've seen posted here. One thing I don't like is how many non goblins are in the SB. I feel like boarding in too many spells for goblins will throw off the balance.
- 1 Genesis Chamber. Is this really the best answer for the control matchup?
- 1 Grim Lavamancer, 2 Forked Bolt. I wanted more creatures in the SB so I swapped the 3rd Forked Bolt for a Lavamancer.
- 2 Molten Rain, 0 Blood Moon. Against control and Tron I think this deck only needs 1-2 extra turns to punch in the last bit of damage. Molten Rain seems to do this better than Blood Moon by dealing 2 damage, and putting them behind on mana, not just on colors.
- 1 Goblin Piledriver. What matchups is Piledriver best in? When should I be siding him in?
These are the types of conversations I have been looking forward to having. My thoughts are similar to yours, I think; Every card in the maindeck is damage output,(read; redundant) so deciding what to take out to bring in non-redundant cards like Tormod's Crypt or Blood Moon seems very difficult, and I was never able to get a clear answer on what to take out for those cards and what matchups they should be even coming in for.
For example, I've played and won against dredge a few times now, had 3 copies of Tormod's Crypt in my sideboard and chose not to bring them in. My sideboarding strategy was -4 Foundry street denizen when on the draw and bring in 4 Blazing Volley effects. I was messing around with different variations of the effect and I can't remember exactly which ones I brought in. But they definitely include Blazing Volley and Savage Alliance in the earlier dredge matches, and Electrickery in later. When I was on the play I put the Denizens back in and took out the 3 Mogg Fanatics for the Volley effects. Savage Alliance was particularly strong when I was able to kick it on their end step, killing all of their creatures, including 1 Prized Amalgam. Going forward Volley won't be in my board, but some number of that effect will be in there. I think forked bolt is particularly good because it can go to the face, so i'll probably have something like 2 Forked bolt, 1 alliance, 1 electrickery. This is also a match where I think Piledriver is probably just a significantly better sideboard card than something like Tormod's since the only blockers they could possibly muster are blue.
I also agree with your thinking along the blood moon lines, I think it's possible that Molten Rain is just better since it also adds the redundancy of whatever you are taking out.
Glad to see you are willing to test out Ramunap Ruins as well! It has definitely proven it's worth, in my experience. I do think that you should play the full set though, even if just for testing purposes, you will see that it rarely (if ever, in my case it hasn't, yet) puts you behind in a racing situation, and it has won me a number of games and there was a number of games where topdecking it (or a bolt/grenade) would have won me the game.
You're stuck on the Ramunap ruins thing, I've stated like 5 times now that I don't want to discuss it, and given reasons why I don't want to discuss it. Instead of dropping the issue, you continue to rationalize a position on it. Same with firebrand, not a topic i'm interested in on theoretical grounds, which is why I asked TreachTV if it was based in theory or testing. Reading my comment to TreachTV, it does come off as a little dismissive. That was not my intention, I genuinely think it was a good article and it followed my thought pattern almost exactly. I read it again, and they do in fact state that they hadn't yet played with it, and that they intended to do so. My mistake for missing that sentence the first read.
I've tried to be humble, I have mentioned multiple times that I have no idea what I'm doing with the deck, and that I have no idea how to sideboard. I have given full credit to where I got my starting list, and I mentioned my win percentage not as a brag about my playskill, but about the power level of the deck in the current meta. If I had tested the deck and gotten a 35% win rate I would have decided the deck wasn't worth it and moved on. Instead, despite knowing full well that I have no clue how to play the archetype, I did well. This speaks to the power of the deck, not to my skill. I also conceded that cards like Savage alliance seem subpar in the face of cards like electrickery, which I learned through conversation in this very thread ;this should prove to you that o am willing to have my mind changed, and willing to look critically at information presented. I really don't know how to be more humble.
I'm willing to ask one more time about specific sideboard strategies, meaning which cards out, which cards in and in which matches. But I will still stand firm with regard to not wanting to discuss hypotheticals. It's just not worth the effort. In fact I've expended more energy than I wanted on the topic just by having to repeatedly mention that I don't want to speak about hypotheticals, so I just won't respond to those comments again.
@mrcojonudo - you claim I made a cheap fallacy, and yet during your explanation of such you employ both a false equivalency and a strawman. I did not state that your opinion wasn't valid because of lack of experience, I said it wasn't valid because it was misinformed. Your notion of Ramunap being bad is based in an assumption that it deals you a ton of damage, which it does not, based on a fairly large sample of games, from my experience. It has won me 3 games now over 25 matches that I would have lost if it were a mountain that has contributed to my high win rate with the deck. It also seems to be a bit of a personal attack to keep calling me an 80% win rate pro. As I said, that wasn't meant as a brag, it was meant to showcase that the deck has legs. That win % is in my testing of goblins only, not my overall win rate, which I do not keep track of. I do think it is a good win rate, but I have no idea why the deck is performing so well, which is why I came to look for advice.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I did learn some things. We unfortunately just got too hung up on whether or not the specifics matter,
@franx13 - thanks for the responses. I do not have trouble with control, I'm 3-0 and 6-0 in games against them in my testing, admittedly they were all only UW. I imagine UWR to be much harder due to Electrolyze and Helix. I've faced storm twice, and only lost 1 game where they were on the play and had a Baral, I had a slow hand with no lightning bolt to get through the blocker, but yea I always fear they will kill me if haven't killed them yet. I can also see how Mardu would be tough, again in large part due to lightning helix, but also the ability to dump a bunch of x/1 creatures on the board.
The way I view it, at least for now, is that GWx company decks and decks that can spew out 1/1s seem to be the tougher matches, and I'm glad to hear it is similar in other players minds. For this reason, I will continue to test the 1 damage to all opponents creatures type spells.
franx - I get the boarding is pretty redundant due to lack of draw power, my real question isn't what to board in, as that seems pretty self evident, it's what to board out. All of our main deck stuff is pretty redundant as well, so it seems to me that whenever I'm boarding into a card like Tormods crypt or blood moon in essentially relegating myself to a slower start by definition simply by having less damage output sources. This is where my confusion is.
I sincerely don't understand why you are asking for advice and then ignoring it, like with the Ramunap Ruins. So as I said before, play how you wish and enjoy your time.
I already stated that I had no interest in talking about Ruins anymore - I asked why no one played it, no one had a good answer (meaning they only spoke hypothetically, rather than empirically), so I tested it myself and moved on with other things that I wanted to discuss. If you don't want to discuss the ideas I'm putting forward, that is fine, conversations require negotiation between more than 1 party.
I'm not ignoring the advice, I'm trying to learn the reasoning behind the advice. You say you gave 'detailed information' but you didn't, you gave vague reasoning for adherence to a tenet of hopelessness after turn 4 and suggested that because it has always been that way we shouldn't try to change it. I don't accept that, and frankly neither should you. If this deck was tearing up tournaments everywhere, then I would probably agree that we shouldn't try to change anything. But here's the matter of fact, I have an 80% win record on MTGO, which is a fairly competitive platform. I'm not announcing that as gospel and that everyone should adopt my strategy, and the reason for that is because I honestly have no clue what I'm doing, right or wrong and I do something different every time. I'm experimenting and looking for discussion about specific alternative strategies. I want to learn the status quo for the deck, because I think, like in life, in order to progress anything you have to understand it's past.
You also make it seem like I'm advocating for 4X firebrand or something, I'm not. I'm really just looking to discuss specific sideboard strategies. I have now asked multiple times what our worst matchup is, and how people sideboard for that match, but I haven't gotten anything other than vague general play advice that could be applied to any deck ever. Here's a direct quote:
What to exchange for graveyard and land hate? Well, it depends on the deck you are facing. I usually remove a land if I am putting graveyard hate, which is pretty cheap. Then, I look at the cards which are not very useful, and remove them. If I am not sure, I take out one or two cost 3 cards because the deck works best if it is cheap. Regarding land hate, more or less the same.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions, but don't ask why I'm not following advice when I ask for specifics and get responses like the one above. It's just not specific enough to be helpful in my case. As I said, I'm not interested in generalities, and I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If you haven't played with a card (like ruins) it's of no use for you to tell me about it. If you don't want to have the discussions I want, that is fine as well.
So again, I'll offer up the question to everyone here. What is our worst matchup(s) and how do you board, both on the play and on the draw?
Thanks for the responses, and for the sideboard advice, I will think on it.
The last thing I want to talk about is this quote below.
Imagine a situation in which your opponent is at 3 life, has board superiority, will kill you next turn, and you draw Elektrickery. Most useless draw ever. If it were a bolt, he would have been dead.
I will never remove a bolt or a grenade for an electrickery (or something similar).If I expect to lose board superiority, and I want to bring in something like Electrickery I will remove a Foundry Street Denizen because in the scenario you describe in this quote, Foundry Street Denizen is actually the "most useless draw ever" as you put it. Much worse than Electrickery, or Savage Alliance because at least those cards allow my opponent to make a mistake during blocks or attacks. Even something like magmatic chasm is much better there, as it should allow me to punch through. Of course, these assumptions also include the fact that the opponent isn't running sweepers of his own, then those "Blocker Intereference" cards become no good.
Your 'beating' phase of the game is pretty intuitive to me, I experience it much the same way. And the 'burning' portion is also very much my experience in a lot of game 1's. However, I think where we have some differences of opinion are in the 'burning' phase of games 2 and 3. I feel like we can go from a Burning Phase to a "Burn and Sweep Phase". This is made possible by cards like you mentioned such as banners raised but also by sideboard cards that I call Blocker Interference. And here is where I will introduce the list of potential sideboard cards that I've come up with:
If I missed any, anyone can please feel free to make suggestions and I will add them to my list as I go.
Anyways, many of the blocker interference cards can be used in conjunction with first strike to clear the opponents boards, which can be granted by loyalist or by something like rally the forces. If it can be reliably granted by Loyalist, then the best option is probably Electrickery. I have had instances where Savage alliance is nice too though, on thier EOT you can kill 1 creature with 3 toughness, and all of the 0/1s.
So far the only card that I have come up against and felt absolutely hopeless is Wurmcoil Engine which is why I think my sideboard will probably use some number of Shattering Blow as my artifact hate - Instant Speed, gets around Chalice on 1, and is pretty much only hope against Wurmcoil. I do really like Kari Zev's Expertise, but I think 3 mana cards are unreliable when you have to have it on that exact turn or die. Unlike with Savage Alliance, which sometimes you can cast for 4 because it wont be until like turn 8.
I really want to talk about the grave hate and land hate specifically though. I came up against dredge more than once, and I didn't feel like I wanted to remove threats from my deck in order to combat their strategy, mostly because they don't have the option to block on a lot of creatures (amalgam enters tapped, bloodghast cant block etc) so I'd rather just pedal to the metal. What other graveyard decks might it be worth it to take out threats for grave hate?
Land hate on the other hand could be useful, it could help solve the problem of wurmcoil on turn 3 for example, but a lot has to go right for a 3 mana card on turn 3. If were on the draw, they might already have wurmcoil in play before we even get to 3 mana. What decks is it worth it to pull out threats for land hate?
I would love to talk about sideboards for a week! I hope you're into it lol
I agree that colorless lands are pretty bad for the deck, it's why I dropped the 2 contested warzone fairly quickly after adopting this deck. It was just too awkward in a lot of situations. However, I really don't think 1 Cavern of Souls in the main is an issue. If we get stuck casting one spell per turn (ie, we only have 1 land) then we lose anyways, that isn't hard to tell even from the limited play that I have had. That said, we need to draw a minimum of 2 lands to win a game, it's just a truism. As long as both of those lands can produce red mana for creatures, and at least 1 of them can produce 1 mana for Grenade or Bolt, then we should always be able to play our hand exactly as we need to, at least that has been my experience. 1 Cavern can only hurt us in games where we only draw 1 land, and we are going to lose that game anyways. In all of the games I have played, not a single time have I needed to cast Grenade or Bolt off of Cavern. So 1 cavern main is fine. In the side, it's probably bad, and I'm happy to get rid of it, it was there because I have no idea how to construct the sideboard and I couldn't think of better cards, now I have better options, I probably will never have a land in my board again. And I hope to get to discussing the sideboard some more.
On that note, I won't concede on Ramunap Ruins, and I'm not interested in defending it anymore because we are at an impasse there, and in my estimation that impasse is likely caused by the fact that you have never played with the card in goblins (As indicated by your emphasis on how much life it costs, because it's never cost me more than 2 in a game). If you wish to expend more energy talking about ruins, you can, but unless you tell me you've played at least 2 dozen matches with it as a 4-of, I'm not interested in speaking on it anymore.
So, if we can move past the maindeck manabase, as I would like, which matchups do you think are our worst? And what do you side out? In my experience so far, half of my losses have come from GWx decks, so in my small sample size, that is the worst matchup. Is it a bad match in your experience? What I have done in the past is board out Foundry Street Denizen on the draw, and brought in Blazing Volley or Savage Alliance, which is a similar approach that I take to the Taxes match. I will be replacing Volley/Savage alliance with Electrickery, now that I'm aware that it exists lol, or possibly forked bolt. My basic approach, on the draw, was to take the control route (which sounds weird, but has actually been working) they don't play mass removal and can't keep up with the goblin production. So I wait until a turn where I could cast an escalated Alliance after blocks are declared or play a whack plus a volley effect and wipe their whole board or kill them in one swing. Again, sample size is small, so maybe this is a bad approach, but it's been working.
I do like your approach of looking at which cards are "Essential" and which cards are "situational" and I agree with your list for the most part, except maybe Foundry Street Denizen as necessary (I just outlined where I think it is situational) and both War Marshall and Legion Loyalist (both of which i feel like I would probably never cut). Could you explain your thinking there, I'm almost certainly overlooking something.
I hope you do not find me too confrontational about the lands, I am quite enjoying our conversations so far, and I am learning a lot from you and hope to continue to do so!
Cheers!
Great post, very helpful, thanks! I know my sideboarded is horrible, that's why I'm here!
I haven't had time to absorb it all yet, but yes, I discovered electrickery last night after I decided to read back about 10 pages in this forum lol. I didn't find it when looking for damage to all opponents creatures on gatherer, probably due to the weird wording on overload, but yea, it seems much better most of the time.
While scrolling back through this forum I compiled a list of about 25ish cards that all seem like reasonable choices for sideboard, and I want to discuss a lot of them. I actually reached out to the guy that was featured in the CFB article to talk about his SB choices, because I assumed that was a reasonable place to start, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet. I really don't know the matchups for goblins very well, these past 20 matches are pretty much the extent of my experience. It's interesting to me that you say that Dragons claw doesn't seem great because the burn match is generally good for us, if that is true I will probably cut them all. The reason I had them in the first place is because the 5-0 guy obviously thought they were important enough to play the full playset, and I started with his exact list.
There's a lot in his SB that I don't understand, well pretty much the whole thing except the smash to smithereens. Lol I posted his SB a few posts ago when I first post my list, I think it's here on page 208.
And after all these matches, there is just no talking me out of Ramunap Ruins, it's won me multiple games now, and never costs me more than 2 life in a game. I like teetering peaks, but coming in tapped is a much bigger downside than losing a couple life, in my estimation.
My list was posted a few posts ago, but I've made a couple changes since then, so I'll post it here in it's current form. I'll also post my last 20ish matches, I went through the records to to keep track of how many games went past turn 4, but I got tired after doing 4 of them, so I just started keeping track of it going forward. If you're genuinely interested in how many games out of the matches ill post that I won past turn 4, I can do so, or you can just select which matches you're interested in and I can check the records for them (It's a time consuming process where I have to re-watch the whole playback of each game).
2-1 Storm
2-0 GB Rock
1-2 GW value (skipped through attack step that would have forced bad blocks, might have won?)
2-0 8 rack
0-2 Madcap Moon
2-1 mono white eldrazi taxes
0-2 tron
2-0 Goblin Mirror (W3, W4)
2-0 UW Control (W5, W8)
2-0 W Eldrazi Taxes ( W8, W9)
The letters W/L correspond to Win or Loss, and the numbers respresent which turn the game ended. the > only follows a loss and means that I lost at turn 4 or later. Each game is recorded chronologically and independently within the parenthesis seperated by comas. So for example, 2-1 Burn (L>4, w5, w4), means that I beat burn 2-1, Lost game 1 in more than 4 turns, won game 2 on turn 5, and won game 3 on turn 4.
A lot of that information may not be useful to you, or to this conversation really, because what I'm hoping to discuss is sideboard strategies.
Btw, I think your soul Sisters match would probably be much better with X/1 damage effects, almost all of their creatures would die to an Electrickery.
Savage Alliance is just one way to approach the situation, there has to be others. You never use the trample mode on alliance, you use 1 damage to all and 2 damage to one (which is actually 3 damage because it also gets hit by the 1 damage to all). Combine that with instant speed and first strike and you can take out thier biggest threat, and anything with 2 or less toughness that has already blocked. I don't have enough games under my belt to say if I'm sold on this plan yet, but it certainly sounds good in theory, and had worked a few times. It also has cross match application, like against dredge, or elves, or any deck that gums up the board.
My other thought was maybe something like Sword of Feast and Famine. All of thier creatures are green, and the untap clause would allow us the mana to both attack and block effectively by moving the sword around post combat. This one I haven't tested at all, but it sounds like a good plan for game 2. Might not be so good for g3 because they would likely bring in Reclamation Sage or Qasali Pridemage. I'll probably test this one, but I don't have high hopes.
It is also my experience so far that the GWx decks, Coco, or just GW value are the hardest. Sounds like you've come to a similar conclusion as I have; we aren't effective at being the beatdown there. I've been trying to figure out a way to give up the role entirely, but I think it's important to keep up the facade. I find I'll punch through around 10 damage, then the board stalls and they slowly gain life and don't bother to attack and I feel dead from about turn 4 on, but in reality the game goes on until like turn 10, and I usually end up on about 4 or 5 lands with a real wide board. Often Magmatic chasm isn't good enough in these scenarios because they've gained too much life, or thier birds or whatever other random fliers aren't affected. This is why I was looking into Savage Alliance. They don't expect us to run sweepers, so they don't pace threats. There isn't a red wrath of God, but I think of there was it would be good enough for this matchup because we can empty our hand so quickly and probably kill in 2-3 turns after sweeping. I don't hate MrCojonudo's suggestion of banners raised here, but I think it's similar to electrickery, except electrickery type effects are going to be more effective at one sided sweeping without needing to be combined with first strike from something like legion loyalist.
But in mono-red, I think Skull Crack is the right call.
I'm in the exact same boat, just lack of experience. I will keep reporting my experience, and I hope you will do the same!
@acman54321
These are the types of conversations I have been looking forward to having. My thoughts are similar to yours, I think; Every card in the maindeck is damage output,(read; redundant) so deciding what to take out to bring in non-redundant cards like Tormod's Crypt or Blood Moon seems very difficult, and I was never able to get a clear answer on what to take out for those cards and what matchups they should be even coming in for.
For example, I've played and won against dredge a few times now, had 3 copies of Tormod's Crypt in my sideboard and chose not to bring them in. My sideboarding strategy was -4 Foundry street denizen when on the draw and bring in 4 Blazing Volley effects. I was messing around with different variations of the effect and I can't remember exactly which ones I brought in. But they definitely include Blazing Volley and Savage Alliance in the earlier dredge matches, and Electrickery in later. When I was on the play I put the Denizens back in and took out the 3 Mogg Fanatics for the Volley effects. Savage Alliance was particularly strong when I was able to kick it on their end step, killing all of their creatures, including 1 Prized Amalgam. Going forward Volley won't be in my board, but some number of that effect will be in there. I think forked bolt is particularly good because it can go to the face, so i'll probably have something like 2 Forked bolt, 1 alliance, 1 electrickery. This is also a match where I think Piledriver is probably just a significantly better sideboard card than something like Tormod's since the only blockers they could possibly muster are blue.
I also agree with your thinking along the blood moon lines, I think it's possible that Molten Rain is just better since it also adds the redundancy of whatever you are taking out.
Glad to see you are willing to test out Ramunap Ruins as well! It has definitely proven it's worth, in my experience. I do think that you should play the full set though, even if just for testing purposes, you will see that it rarely (if ever, in my case it hasn't, yet) puts you behind in a racing situation, and it has won me a number of games and there was a number of games where topdecking it (or a bolt/grenade) would have won me the game.
I've tried to be humble, I have mentioned multiple times that I have no idea what I'm doing with the deck, and that I have no idea how to sideboard. I have given full credit to where I got my starting list, and I mentioned my win percentage not as a brag about my playskill, but about the power level of the deck in the current meta. If I had tested the deck and gotten a 35% win rate I would have decided the deck wasn't worth it and moved on. Instead, despite knowing full well that I have no clue how to play the archetype, I did well. This speaks to the power of the deck, not to my skill. I also conceded that cards like Savage alliance seem subpar in the face of cards like electrickery, which I learned through conversation in this very thread ;this should prove to you that o am willing to have my mind changed, and willing to look critically at information presented. I really don't know how to be more humble.
I'm willing to ask one more time about specific sideboard strategies, meaning which cards out, which cards in and in which matches. But I will still stand firm with regard to not wanting to discuss hypotheticals. It's just not worth the effort. In fact I've expended more energy than I wanted on the topic just by having to repeatedly mention that I don't want to speak about hypotheticals, so I just won't respond to those comments again.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I did learn some things. We unfortunately just got too hung up on whether or not the specifics matter,
@franx13 - thanks for the responses. I do not have trouble with control, I'm 3-0 and 6-0 in games against them in my testing, admittedly they were all only UW. I imagine UWR to be much harder due to Electrolyze and Helix. I've faced storm twice, and only lost 1 game where they were on the play and had a Baral, I had a slow hand with no lightning bolt to get through the blocker, but yea I always fear they will kill me if haven't killed them yet. I can also see how Mardu would be tough, again in large part due to lightning helix, but also the ability to dump a bunch of x/1 creatures on the board.
The way I view it, at least for now, is that GWx company decks and decks that can spew out 1/1s seem to be the tougher matches, and I'm glad to hear it is similar in other players minds. For this reason, I will continue to test the 1 damage to all opponents creatures type spells.
franx - I get the boarding is pretty redundant due to lack of draw power, my real question isn't what to board in, as that seems pretty self evident, it's what to board out. All of our main deck stuff is pretty redundant as well, so it seems to me that whenever I'm boarding into a card like Tormods crypt or blood moon in essentially relegating myself to a slower start by definition simply by having less damage output sources. This is where my confusion is.
I already stated that I had no interest in talking about Ruins anymore - I asked why no one played it, no one had a good answer (meaning they only spoke hypothetically, rather than empirically), so I tested it myself and moved on with other things that I wanted to discuss. If you don't want to discuss the ideas I'm putting forward, that is fine, conversations require negotiation between more than 1 party.
I'm not ignoring the advice, I'm trying to learn the reasoning behind the advice. You say you gave 'detailed information' but you didn't, you gave vague reasoning for adherence to a tenet of hopelessness after turn 4 and suggested that because it has always been that way we shouldn't try to change it. I don't accept that, and frankly neither should you. If this deck was tearing up tournaments everywhere, then I would probably agree that we shouldn't try to change anything. But here's the matter of fact, I have an 80% win record on MTGO, which is a fairly competitive platform. I'm not announcing that as gospel and that everyone should adopt my strategy, and the reason for that is because I honestly have no clue what I'm doing, right or wrong and I do something different every time. I'm experimenting and looking for discussion about specific alternative strategies. I want to learn the status quo for the deck, because I think, like in life, in order to progress anything you have to understand it's past.
You also make it seem like I'm advocating for 4X firebrand or something, I'm not. I'm really just looking to discuss specific sideboard strategies. I have now asked multiple times what our worst matchup is, and how people sideboard for that match, but I haven't gotten anything other than vague general play advice that could be applied to any deck ever. Here's a direct quote:
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions, but don't ask why I'm not following advice when I ask for specifics and get responses like the one above. It's just not specific enough to be helpful in my case. As I said, I'm not interested in generalities, and I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If you haven't played with a card (like ruins) it's of no use for you to tell me about it. If you don't want to have the discussions I want, that is fine as well.
So again, I'll offer up the question to everyone here. What is our worst matchup(s) and how do you board, both on the play and on the draw?
The last thing I want to talk about is this quote below.
I will never remove a bolt or a grenade for an electrickery (or something similar).If I expect to lose board superiority, and I want to bring in something like Electrickery I will remove a Foundry Street Denizen because in the scenario you describe in this quote, Foundry Street Denizen is actually the "most useless draw ever" as you put it. Much worse than Electrickery, or Savage Alliance because at least those cards allow my opponent to make a mistake during blocks or attacks. Even something like magmatic chasm is much better there, as it should allow me to punch through. Of course, these assumptions also include the fact that the opponent isn't running sweepers of his own, then those "Blocker Intereference" cards become no good.
Anyways, thanks for the advice!
Cheers.
Blocker Interference
- Goblin Heelcutter
- Kari Zev's Expertise
- Magmatic Chasm
- Rally the Forces
- Savage Alliance
- Dual Shot
- Electrickery
- Forked Bolt
- Searing Blood
- Mogg Fanatic
- Dismember
- Sudden Shock
Narrow Hosers- Goblin Piledriver
- Harsh Mentor
- Ash Zealot
- Dragon's Claw
Control Hosers- Guttural Response
- Genesis Chamber
- Goblin Rabblemaster
- Eidolon of the Great Revel
Artifact Hate- Smash to Smithereens
- Shattering Spree
- Shattering Blow
Grave Hate- Tormod's Crypt
- Relic of Progenitus
- Surgical Extraction
Board Superiority- Goblin King
- Goblin Chieftain
- Hall of Triumph
Stop Life Gain- Skullcrack
- Leyline of Punishment
- Everlasting Torment
Mana Denial- Blood Moon
- Magus of the Moon
Protection HoserIf I missed any, anyone can please feel free to make suggestions and I will add them to my list as I go.
Anyways, many of the blocker interference cards can be used in conjunction with first strike to clear the opponents boards, which can be granted by loyalist or by something like rally the forces. If it can be reliably granted by Loyalist, then the best option is probably Electrickery. I have had instances where Savage alliance is nice too though, on thier EOT you can kill 1 creature with 3 toughness, and all of the 0/1s.
So far the only card that I have come up against and felt absolutely hopeless is Wurmcoil Engine which is why I think my sideboard will probably use some number of Shattering Blow as my artifact hate - Instant Speed, gets around Chalice on 1, and is pretty much only hope against Wurmcoil. I do really like Kari Zev's Expertise, but I think 3 mana cards are unreliable when you have to have it on that exact turn or die. Unlike with Savage Alliance, which sometimes you can cast for 4 because it wont be until like turn 8.
I really want to talk about the grave hate and land hate specifically though. I came up against dredge more than once, and I didn't feel like I wanted to remove threats from my deck in order to combat their strategy, mostly because they don't have the option to block on a lot of creatures (amalgam enters tapped, bloodghast cant block etc) so I'd rather just pedal to the metal. What other graveyard decks might it be worth it to take out threats for grave hate?
Land hate on the other hand could be useful, it could help solve the problem of wurmcoil on turn 3 for example, but a lot has to go right for a 3 mana card on turn 3. If were on the draw, they might already have wurmcoil in play before we even get to 3 mana. What decks is it worth it to pull out threats for land hate?
I agree that colorless lands are pretty bad for the deck, it's why I dropped the 2 contested warzone fairly quickly after adopting this deck. It was just too awkward in a lot of situations. However, I really don't think 1 Cavern of Souls in the main is an issue. If we get stuck casting one spell per turn (ie, we only have 1 land) then we lose anyways, that isn't hard to tell even from the limited play that I have had. That said, we need to draw a minimum of 2 lands to win a game, it's just a truism. As long as both of those lands can produce red mana for creatures, and at least 1 of them can produce 1 mana for Grenade or Bolt, then we should always be able to play our hand exactly as we need to, at least that has been my experience. 1 Cavern can only hurt us in games where we only draw 1 land, and we are going to lose that game anyways. In all of the games I have played, not a single time have I needed to cast Grenade or Bolt off of Cavern. So 1 cavern main is fine. In the side, it's probably bad, and I'm happy to get rid of it, it was there because I have no idea how to construct the sideboard and I couldn't think of better cards, now I have better options, I probably will never have a land in my board again. And I hope to get to discussing the sideboard some more.
On that note, I won't concede on Ramunap Ruins, and I'm not interested in defending it anymore because we are at an impasse there, and in my estimation that impasse is likely caused by the fact that you have never played with the card in goblins (As indicated by your emphasis on how much life it costs, because it's never cost me more than 2 in a game). If you wish to expend more energy talking about ruins, you can, but unless you tell me you've played at least 2 dozen matches with it as a 4-of, I'm not interested in speaking on it anymore.
So, if we can move past the maindeck manabase, as I would like, which matchups do you think are our worst? And what do you side out? In my experience so far, half of my losses have come from GWx decks, so in my small sample size, that is the worst matchup. Is it a bad match in your experience? What I have done in the past is board out Foundry Street Denizen on the draw, and brought in Blazing Volley or Savage Alliance, which is a similar approach that I take to the Taxes match. I will be replacing Volley/Savage alliance with Electrickery, now that I'm aware that it exists lol, or possibly forked bolt. My basic approach, on the draw, was to take the control route (which sounds weird, but has actually been working) they don't play mass removal and can't keep up with the goblin production. So I wait until a turn where I could cast an escalated Alliance after blocks are declared or play a whack plus a volley effect and wipe their whole board or kill them in one swing. Again, sample size is small, so maybe this is a bad approach, but it's been working.
I do like your approach of looking at which cards are "Essential" and which cards are "situational" and I agree with your list for the most part, except maybe Foundry Street Denizen as necessary (I just outlined where I think it is situational) and both War Marshall and Legion Loyalist (both of which i feel like I would probably never cut). Could you explain your thinking there, I'm almost certainly overlooking something.
I hope you do not find me too confrontational about the lands, I am quite enjoying our conversations so far, and I am learning a lot from you and hope to continue to do so!
Cheers!
I haven't had time to absorb it all yet, but yes, I discovered electrickery last night after I decided to read back about 10 pages in this forum lol. I didn't find it when looking for damage to all opponents creatures on gatherer, probably due to the weird wording on overload, but yea, it seems much better most of the time.
While scrolling back through this forum I compiled a list of about 25ish cards that all seem like reasonable choices for sideboard, and I want to discuss a lot of them. I actually reached out to the guy that was featured in the CFB article to talk about his SB choices, because I assumed that was a reasonable place to start, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet. I really don't know the matchups for goblins very well, these past 20 matches are pretty much the extent of my experience. It's interesting to me that you say that Dragons claw doesn't seem great because the burn match is generally good for us, if that is true I will probably cut them all. The reason I had them in the first place is because the 5-0 guy obviously thought they were important enough to play the full playset, and I started with his exact list.
There's a lot in his SB that I don't understand, well pretty much the whole thing except the smash to smithereens. Lol I posted his SB a few posts ago when I first post my list, I think it's here on page 208.
And after all these matches, there is just no talking me out of Ramunap Ruins, it's won me multiple games now, and never costs me more than 2 life in a game. I like teetering peaks, but coming in tapped is a much bigger downside than losing a couple life, in my estimation.
4 Foundry Street Denizen
4 Legion Loyalist
3 Mogg Fanatic
3 Fanatical Firebrand
2 Frenzied Goblin
4 Mogg War Marshal
4 Goblin Bushwhacker
4 Reckless Bushwhacker
1 Goblin Chieftain
4 Goblin Grenade
14 Mountain
4 Ramunap Ruins
1 Cavern of Souls
4 Smash to Smithereens
3 Dragon's Claw
3 Savage Alliance
3 Kari Zev's Expertise
1 Cavern of Souls
1 Goblin Chieftan
And my records (14-4) on MTGO
2-1 GW value town
2-0 UW control
0-2 abzan
2-1 Dredge
2-1 eldrazi tron
added Blazing volley to sideboard
2-1 Storm
2-0 GB Rock
1-2 GW value (skipped through attack step that would have forced bad blocks, might have won?)
2-0 8 rack
0-2 Madcap Moon
2-1 mono white eldrazi taxes
0-2 tron
2-0 Goblin Mirror (W3, W4)
2-0 UW Control (W5, W8)
2-0 W Eldrazi Taxes ( W8, W9)
switched blazing volley for savage alliance
2-0 UW control (W4, W7)
2-1 Burn (L>4, w5, w4)
2-0 Storm (W4, W4)
The letters W/L correspond to Win or Loss, and the numbers respresent which turn the game ended. the > only follows a loss and means that I lost at turn 4 or later. Each game is recorded chronologically and independently within the parenthesis seperated by comas. So for example, 2-1 Burn (L>4, w5, w4), means that I beat burn 2-1, Lost game 1 in more than 4 turns, won game 2 on turn 5, and won game 3 on turn 4.
A lot of that information may not be useful to you, or to this conversation really, because what I'm hoping to discuss is sideboard strategies.