So it seems to me, either a Dryad or a Fastbond adequately sets you up. So, you have five cards you want in your first hand, 60 cards in the deck. So then, the question is what the odds are of getting one of these five in the first seven draws. Let that probability be P1.

Let the probability of drawing Ancestral or Brainstorm or Street Wraith be P2.

P1 ~ 47 percent (52 percent on the first draw)

P2 ~ 64 percent

Ancestral and Brainstorm each give you three draws, which would raise the probability of drawing a Dryad to 61 percent (65 percent given one additional draw -- say if you started second). So generally speaking, given that I have sufficient draw early on or a Dryad, I like my chances, and the odds seem fairly good that such a situation obtains. If you lack good draw or Dryads, then surely you consider a mulligan. But that doesn't seem like a big shocker. And given the fact that you have such strong draw, I'm not sure if the downside is so big.

But suppose you don't have a Dryad in the opening hand. Old GrowAtog tried to counter and draw until it could drop a bomb. It had 4 Brainstorm; 3 Sleight of Hands; and 1 Ancestral to go with 4 Gush. A potential difficulty: unless you had Fastbond; it seemed to be the case that you often wanted to keep up UU for a counterspell, which makes Gush's alternate cost more difficult. In the case now, since one land  is often enough to keep everything in the deck active (I think that this is the reason why Gush is so huge in the deck; not necessarily the combo of it and fastbond); you have all your draw at your disposal since you're mana-lite -- making it easier to (a) find your bombs; (b) stock up on Duresses or pitch-counters. I don't see this as such an inferior gameplan, or even inferior at all.

I might also wonder this: early versions of Gush-GrowAtog spotted something like 4 FOW; 3-4 Misdirection; 3-4 Counterspells/Mana Drains. So something like 11-12 disruption spells. The version Stephen proposed has 4 Duress; 4 FOW; 2 Misdirection. So you're really only losing 1-2 disrupting spells.

So I have two questions

(1) If you add in 4 Mana Drain, what do you remove?
(2) Do the metagame shifts since GrowAtog originally debuted is different, does this lend preference to Stephen's proposal?

I might also wonder this: early versions of Gush-GrowAtog spotted something like 4 FOW; 3-4 Misdirection; 3-4 Counterspells/Mana Drains. So something like 11-12 disruption spells. The version Stephen proposed has 4 Duress; 4 FOW; 2 Misdirection. So you're really only losing 1-2 disrupting spells.

MartinMM:

I can't speak for Stephen, but based on my experience with decks like this, here's my take on why Mana Drains don't help this deck so much.

Whereas Mana Drains require you to keep UU open to use, this deck wants to do anything but. In fact, because the deck relies on pitch-counters only (in the maindeck), it can feel free to Gush at will since most of its key cards require only two mana, only one of which requires a specific colour (presumably, if you have a Mox or Crypt or Lotus on the board, all the better -- since you only need your land drop for the turn to cast, for the most part, your key spells. In other words, it seems to me that the deck is trying to get by with as few active mana sources as possible, which runs counter to Drain.

(Note that the essential differences - or so it seems to me - between the old and new versions of GrowAtog go like this: -3 Sleight of Hand; -2 Misdirection; -4 Drain; -2 Psychatog; +2 Merchant Scroll; +3 Street Wraith; +4 Duress. Duress maindeck adds to the disruption; Street Wraiths go faster than Sleights and more Merchants lead to more efficient card draws.)

So a standard game might go like this: the deck either draws cards or Duresses turn one, turn two drops a Dryad with backup; and forces the opponent to deal with the immediate threat while outdrawing them. In this scenario, in turn two, you'd rather Dryad out than save UU open. The next turn, you'd gather draw cards and grow the Dryad, relying on Duress or pitch counters to keep you safe. (The same logic goes through if you drop the Dryad turn one.) The reasoning is that you'll draw through your deck fast enough to either go lethal or provide too many threats to stop. So it's focus is much more aggro-based than old GrowAtog, which was more Aggro-Control.

Further, so it seems to me, you're not trying to out counter your opponent; rather, you just want to drop a Dryad (or a Fastbond) and protect it. (Since there are so many cheap draws in the deck, I think odds favor you having the ability to play an early Dryad.) So it seems to me that the 4 Duress; 6 Pitch Counters serve this deck just right. I don't think this is, strictly speaking, a control deck. Finally, there are really no big drain sinks. I think Drain works best when it's not merely a counter, but when it fuels a draw engine. Unlike, say, straight Tog decks during Gush's restriction, GrowAtog never needed Drain mana to draw, and I think it's even truer now. So as much as I like Drains, I'm not convinced they belong here.

I think alvin6688's post in here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=33318.30 addresses why less Togs and no maindeck Berserk well enough. Although I personally would consider axing a Regrowth for a second Psychatog. My worry there is that while the deck accelerates so quickly, it takes a while (in terms of T1 time) to become lethal.

Hope this helps some.

The problem here, I believe is that combo already would not use Impulse, and one extra card does not negate that fact, as combo would really be seeking a draw 7 source over anything, and paying two mana for an effect that has no guarantee (particularly since combo is so mana heavy), cannot grab mana (like Lotus/LED), and costs two mana, it doesn't seem like Peer would have much effect.

But I do assume that what was being said was that while Peer is superior in combo, it is not really viable in combo in its current form.

The problem with Peer is that it's still Impulse, which only Mono U currently uses, and the problem there is that the early mox-Impulse play can net you one of the deck's bombs (Phid, B2B, Chalice, or even mana denial or sideboard cards) early on as mentioned. Digging one more card really doesn't make up for that in Mono U, and the one more card really doesn't seem to be much insentive for decks that currently don't use Impulse to use Peer.

However in Mono U particularly, the reveal part does aid in the psychological factor that your hand is filled with counters, although a smarter player will play into them anyway.

The difference is that Tog needs its Drains very badly for the deck to function. Mono U doesn't. While it may hit the same things, Mono U has Phids as available draw while Tog has lesser options, and is already mana choked under Waste effects and B2B. If they expend their energy answering Chalice for 2, the other effects do them in. (Esp if they are using Shaman, and therefore, red)

These are just some basic preliminary thoughts to spur discussion and debate following worlds and entering the SCG and TMD tournaments of the fall.

Initial observations yield that the metagame was slanted towards decks that contained the Crucible/Wasteland engine. In every instance in the top eight, those two cards were in a pair (and generally appear to be so with all decks that use Wastelands), and have become synonymous in essence as most decks with Wasteland will sacrifice card slots for bombs.

In addition, Artifact Prison decks are now able to use Gemstone mine in particular, as shown through Cron's 6th place list, as the synergy with Crucible first noted from Eric Miller's TMS allows for bombs such as Balance to be fit in the maindeck along with better mana smoothing.

Current Workshop-Prison and Workshop-Aggro decks have taken a cue from Fish. Fish thrived because it was difficult to find a solution to the deck's many threats. Backed up by counters and with a number of redundant threats that can chip away enough to let topdecks finish the deal, there was no encompassing or silver bullet answer. Current 'shop decks echo this through their use of a volume of threats. The density of threats such as Trinisphere, Crucible, Big Men, Smokestack, Sundering Titan (in other cases, Chains or Moon) make it difficult to stop, as the Shop and artifact mana allow for such threats to drop turn after turn, and thus the opponent, pushed into the control role, cannot outcontrol. In addition, the over-the-top strategy which worked against Fish (larger men) does not apply here, and the answer appears to be to find ways around it (via basic lands/Citadel, or options like that which remove the number of threats that you must address).

This assault on non-basic lands has pushed typical multi-color control out of the limelight, unless they adjust (such as Tog dropping red). Even a handful of basics are not enough to mount an assault on the array of artifact decks. The two strategies most prominent were the basic land strategy (which could not only be seen in the 1st and 5th place lists - the only without Wastes/Crucible - but had an effect on other lists as well, such as the 8th place list, which uses extra basics, even suboptimal ones, to smoothen the mana base), and to use Crucibles of one's own. In a similar manner, one can try to ignore via a combo strategy such as Belcher (4th). However the vulnerability of the deck to an early Chalice for zero/one or Trinisphere is crushing to combo in general, and thus makes Belcher/Storm combo very unviable, as they cannot merely Xantid away the problem or through spells into counters.

Meanwhile, Workshop aggro has fixated itself as the premier aggro deck.  Although lacking as consistent a goldfish, it makes up for it with a larger potential explosion, along with stronger disruptive elements in Trinisphere, Crucible/Waste, Chalice post-board, and more specific builds can incorporate Blood Moon or Chains.

This use of nonbasic hate (including Titan, which was in every Workshop deck, along with Control Slaver) hated out 4cc and Tog in particular. Of those two, Tog is best equipped to metagame to it, as it can survive on three colors, which Kerz can attest to with his 21st place showing. On the other hand, 4cc has a more difficult time as one or two Islands do not carry the deck through such matchups, and the loss of red (REB, Rack and Ruin) is devastating in terms of keeping pace with the metagame. 4cc running it's own Crucibles (in multiples) MD is the other strategy, albeit one that dillutes the deck, and tricks with Goblin Welder and moxen in the grave (via Memory Jar, Shaman, etc) is a major difficulty, along with the ability of the Workshop-based decks to active Crucible/Waste faster than 4cc can. As it was noted in the forums, the coin flip is becoming more important due to this factoring in of Shop, Trinisphere/Crucible, etc.

The top eight does not indicate a pull to a specific deck, in that sense, however it does indicate the power of builds which have the following in common:

3-4 Trinisphere
3-4 Crucible of Worlds
4 Wastelands
1 Strip Mine

(These bombs can decide games on their own)

As much artifact mana as possible

4 Goblin Welder
1-3 Sundering Titan
1-3 Triskelion

(Resilience against control and the mirror)

And, to get more narrow,

4 Mishra's Workshop.

Force of Will's power is diminished somewhat due to the sheer density of threats in these decks (Welder, Crucible, Trinisphere, Fat men), especially since non-prison control is weakened by the amount of brown in the format, and Duress for the same reason (especially against Welders, and even Fish).

The reason why Mono U proved to be so strong is that

a) Mana Leak gives it a better chance to counter on one land
b) The ability to ignore Crucible of Worlds/Wastelands
c) Postsideboard Flux and Blasts for Welders (in other cases Control Magic as well for aggro)

Which breaks the norm of 4cc and Hulk.

To adjust to the power of these decks, decks will need to allow for more basic lands (two or three usually isn't even enough to suffice, especially once another threat is on the board or when facing B2B), and/or Crucible. In addition the hate needs to be directed at Welder before artifact hate is considered. For decks with green, Ground Seal becomes a more potent option as it is a more permanent answer. For other colors, Fire/Ice or Triskelion remain powerful options both for Fish and Welders at once. In addition, Energy Flux has risen in value sharply, and will be a sideboard card which non-Control Slaver control and aggro-control must now turn to.

The metagame deck for the moment is obviously Mono U, as it has one of the better strategies versus the artifact men, namely to steal with with Control Magic. Other than that, the format really is having trouble adjusting to the big men. Control Slaver's use of Platinum Angel and Pentavus is strong, but niche. Flametongue Kavu's value obviously shines more here, and also versus Phids. Due to Mono U, the threat of B2B obviously becomes more of a consideration  in addition to the Wasteland threat.

And that brings up some concluding thoughts

Archetypes weakened

-Fish: The use of large artifact men is too much for Fish to handle on it's own, much less when couple with Trinisphere and Crucible locks. Fish's pitch counters, even when combined with Standstill are simply not enough. In addition, the downfall of Tog and 4cc cause Fish to lose matchups which helped to make it so strong. Nevertheless, Flux is a bomb, and Fish, while no longer the top deck, is still a threat which can still close matchups to nearly 50/50 despite the hate due to its redundancy and inherent strength as a whole.

-Storm/Belcher combo: Too much potential for autoloss from prison decks, as well as hate from the revamped Mono U. This applies to combo in general, as the chance of Workshop (at times, even regardless of the coin flip) can be game and can cause simple match losses which combo isn't prepared to take.

-4cc: Mana base needs to be reconsidered. Not only to deal with Wastes, but Back to Basics as well, as Mono U will be popular at least for now, especially among five-proxy environments. Although it takes skill to master, it's not incredibly hard to get bombs and cast them (i.e. B2B) with Force backup.

Note also that the strength of these brown-based decks and variants will not be as strong in the US due particularly to the lack of Workshops to go around and the inability to function in five-proxy (even nine-proxy) environments. However Mono U will spread much like Fish due to the lack of duals, and the ability to survive five-proxy by simply adding in four moxes and lotus.

Congrats to all who played, and additional praise to all who made the top eight, and to Windfall,  of course,  for taking it all.

For reference, the top eight lists from Gencon.

(From: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/bd138)

1st Place - Mark Biller (Control Slaver)

Mana Sources (26)
4  Volcanic Island
4  Polluted Delta
4  Island
3  Underground Sea
2  Darksteel Citadel
1  Flooded Strand
1  Mox Jet
1  Mox Sapphire
1  Mox Emerald
1  Mox Ruby
1  Mox Pearl
1  Sol Ring
1  Black Lotus
1  Mana Crypt

Creatures (7)
4  Goblin Welder
1  Pentavus
1  Sundering Titan
1  Platinum Angel

Counters (8)
4  Mana Drain
4  Force of Will

Draw (11)
4  Brainstorm
4  Thirst for Knowledge
1  Ancestral Recall
1  Time Walk
1  Fact or Fiction

Disruption (4)
2  Duress
2  Mindslaver

Other (4)
1  Mystical Tutor
1  Tinker
1  Yawgmoth's Will
1  Demonic Tutor

Sideboard (15)
3  Blue Elemental Blast
3  Flametongue Kavu
3  Old Man of the Sea
2  Red Elemental Blast
2  Duress
2  Mogg Salvage

2nd Place - Dave Allen (Aggro Workshop)

Mana (23)
4  Mishra's Workshop
4  Volcanic Island
3  Shivan Reef
2  Polluted Delta
1  Tolarian Academy
1  Mox Sapphire
1  Mox Jet
1  Mox Ruby
1  Mox Emerald
1  Mox Pearl
1  Sol Ring
1  Black Lotus
1  Mana Vault
1  Mana Crypt

Creatures (14)
4  Goblin Welder
4  Juggernaut
2  Su-Chi
1  Sundering Titan
1  Gorilla Shaman
1  Triskelion
1  Duplicant

Disruption (11)
4  Wasteland
3  Trinisphere
3  Crucible of Worlds
1  Strip Mine

Draw (9)
4  Thirst for Knowledge
2  Fire/Ice
1  Wheel of Fortune
1  Memory Jar
1 Ancestral Recall

Other (3)
1  Mystical Tutor
1  Time Walk
1  Tinker

Sideboard (15)
4  Chalice of the Void
3  Red Elemental Blast
3  Rack and Ruin
3  Hydroblast
1  Trinisphere
1  Tormod's Crypt

3rd Place - Giovanni Conedera (The Man Show)

Mana (23)
4  Mishra's Factory
4  Bloodstained Mire
3  Badlands
2  Mountain
2  Swamp
1  Mana Crypt
1  Sol Ring
1  Mox Sapphire
1  Mox Jet
1  Mox Ruby
1  Mox Emerald
1  Mox Pearl
1  Black Lotus

Creatures (18)
4  Goblin Welder
4  Juggernaut
4  Su-Chi
3  Triskelion
2  Gorilla Shaman
1  Sundering Titan

Disruption (15)
4  Trinisphere
4  Wasteland
3  Blood Moon
3  Chains of Mephistopheles
1  Strip Mine

Other (4)
1  Demonic Tutor
1  Yawgmoth's Will
1  Wheel of Fortune
1  Memory Jar

Sideboard (15)
3  Chalice of the Void
3  Crucible of Worlds
3  Red Elemental Blast
3  Rack and Ruin
3  Coffin Purge

4th Place - Michael Simester (Two-Land Belcher)

Mana (38)
4  Elvish Spirit Guide
4  Tinder Wall
4  Land Grant
4  Dark Ritual
4  Chromatic Sphere
2  Cabal Ritual
1  Tropical Island
1  Bayou
1  Mox Sapphire
1  Mox Jet
1  Mox Ruby
1  Mox Emerald
1  Mox Pearl
1  Mana Crypt
1  Chrome Mox
1  Lotus Petal
1  Sol Ring
1  Mana Vault
1  Lion's Eye Diamond
1  Black Lotus
1  Mana Cylix
1  Channel

Creatures (3)
3  Goblin Welder

Kill (5)
4  Goblin Charbelcher
1  Tendrils of Agony

Search/Draw/Broken (14)
2  Living Wish
2  Brainstorm
1  Demonic Tutor
1  Tinker
1  Mystical Tutor
1  Vampiric Tutor
1  Wheel of Fortune
1  Memory Jar
1  Yawgmoth's Will
1  Necropotence
1  Ancestral Recall
1  Timetwister

Sideboard (15)
4  Xantid Swarm
3  Oxidize
1  Artifact Mutation
1  Taiga
1  Goblin Welder
1  Uktabi Orangutan
1  Gemstone Mine
1  Scavenger Folk
1  Darksteel Colossus
1  Mishra's Workshop

5th Place - Stephen Menendian (Mono U)

Mana (21)
8  Island
3  Polluted Delta
2  Flooded Strand
1  Library of Alexandria
1  Black Lotus
1  Mox Sapphire
1  Mox Jet
1  Mox Ruby
1  Mox Pearl
1  Mox Emerald
1  Sol Ring

Creatures (6)
4  Ophidian
2  Morphling

Counters (15)
4  Mana Drain
4  Force of Will
4  Mana Leak
2  Counterspell
1  Misdirection

Disruption (12)
4  Back to Basics
4  Wasteland
3  Powder Keg
1  Strip Mine

(Draw 6)
4  Impulse
1  Ancestral Recall
1  Time Walk

Sideboard (15)
4  Energy Flux
4  Propaganda
3  Blue Elemental Blast
3  Control Magic
1  Counterspell

6th Place - Kevin Cron (Stax)

Mana (24)
4  Mishra's Workshop
4  City of Brass
3  Gemstone Mine
1  Tolarian Academy
1  Black Lotus
1  Mox Sapphire
1  Mox Jet
1  Mox Ruby
1  Mox Emerald
1  Mox Pearl
1  Sol Ring
1  Mana Crypt
1  Mana Vault
1  Lotus Petal
1  Grim Monolith
1  Darksteel Ingot

Creatures (6)
4 Goblin Welder
2 Sundering Titan

Mana Denial (13)
4  Trinisphere
4  Crucible of Worlds
4  Wasteland
1  Strip Mine

Lock (8)
4  Smokestack
4  Tangle Wire

Other (9)
3  Meditate
1  Ancestral Recall
1  Tinker
1  Wheel of Fortune
1  Demonic Tutor
1  Hurkyl's Recall
1  Balance

Sideboard (15)
3  Red Elemental Blast
3  Tsabo's Web
2  Blue Elemental Blast
2  Fire/Ice
2  Tormod's Crypt
1  Hurkyl's Recall
1  Mindslaver
1  Triskelion

7th Place -  Nick Trudeau (Tools 'N Tubbies)

Mana (24)
4  Mishra's Workshop
4  Taiga
3  Wooded Foothills
3  Forest
1  Mountain
1  Strip Mine
1  Sol Ring
1  Mox Emerald
1  Mox Pearl
1  Mox Jet
1  Mox Sapphire
1  Mox Ruby
1  Mana Crypt
1  Mana Vault

Creatures (21)
4  Goblin Welder
4  Juggernaut
3  Su-Chi
2  Sundering Titan
1  Masticore
1  Triskelion
1  Duplicant
1  Anger
1  Squee, Goblin Nabob
1  Flametongue Kavu
1  Uktabi Orangutan
1  Karn, Silver Golem

Disruption (11)
4  Wasteland
4  Trinisphere
2  Crucible of Worlds
1  Blood Moon

Other (5)
4  Survival of the Fittest
1  Memory Jar

Sideboard (15)
3  Tormod's Crypt
2  Artifact Mutation
2  Naturalize
2  Blood Moon
2  Chalice of the Void
1  Viashino Heretic
1  Genesis
1  Platinum Angel
1  Duplicant

8th Place - Tom Rotchadl (G@y/r Fish)

Mana (20)
4  Volcanic Island
4  Polluted Delta
4  Mishra's Factory
3  Island
2  Mountain
2  Faerie Conclave
1  Bloodstained Mire

Creatures (12)
4  Grim Lavamancer
4  Spiketail Hatchling
4  Cloud of Faeries

Draw (8)
4  Standstill
4  Curiosity

Counters (10)
4  Force of Will
3  Stifle
3  Daze

Disruption (10)
4  Wasteland
3  Null Rod
2  Crucible of Worlds
1  Strip Mine

Sideboard (15)
4  Red Elemental Blast
3  Rack and Ruin
3  Sigil of Sleep
3  Sword of Fire and Ice
2  Fire/Ice

Analysis and better formatting to follow.

edit: Corrected errors. Mistake due to my suckness.

This thread reflects why Gaea's Blessing is not a great answer to Dragon in a format with Tormod's Crypt, Coffin Purge, and Ground Seal, among the instant speed BEB, STP, and so forth.

I'm not certain, but I believe the odds are actually lower than 1/47 that this will occur as there exists something like 47^47 different combinations (and thus, much smaller percent that the two blessings are in the bottom three). In addition, the problem becomes that even if the odds were as (high?) as 0.05%, there is a minute probability that it never occurs, and thus, your opponent can chose to draw it out (since the alternative is a loss) by forcing you to prove that it does occur in that fashion eventually.

The idea behind using the citadel is that you have a indestructable artifact source for Welder - to prevent "in response" destructions and Gorilla Shaman when you need to Weld in a threat. Usually the Wastelands would aim for colored sources anyway. The ability to "Time Walk" through your Welders greatly reduces the effectiveness of TFK.

To address the use of Goblin Vandal versus Gorilla Shaman, it becomes closer to a specific metagame call to what types of artifact decks you expect to see.

In the specific metagame of prison or prison aggro decks resembling MUD, Stax, Stacker, TMS, and so forth (let's not get into the "names" debate), the Vandal becomes superior due to the abilities you mentioned of being able to take down the 3+ CMC Artifact.

Where the Shaman shines is the matchups where the deck is more dependant on Goblin Welder. Although Null Rod may shut off artifacts, they, of course, do not do so for the Welder, and the ability to destroy a mox in response to the Welder's activation remains the strongest reason for Shaman's inclusion - versus Control Slaver w/ 7/10s and the 7/10 matchup (assuming you counter the Gilded Lotuses there).

Addressing the Exalted Angel problem, after sideboard, the ability to use Maze of Ith has also proven to be helpful - of course, not that you'll drop the Ith to fill a land-drop, but more as a combat trick - to avoid Waste effects. In addition, Grim Lavamancer also becomes a boon here for its ability to prevent the morphed angel. Between that, and trying to cut off white sources, you can also afford to be more lenient as to what you counter in the early to mid-game as the angel is the only viable threat at that time, and there is no must-force-through spell on your part.

It's like watching B-Grade actors duke it out.  :roll:

Here's the thing. Sometimes when TMD users come off as being harsh, it's because they see things from a different point, and what comes off as nagging or dissing are merely their attempts (though not tactful) to show you that you are wrong.

It goes back to something similar to what an old pro said. There are many possible plays, but he only sees one - the correct one. Since TMD members (particular many of the full ones) test (as a general rule) much more than the average, they know when an idea will or will not work essentially on sight. Others have tested them already and have validated their own conclusions. Such ideas to them are rubbish because their knowledge on type one allows them to filter through ideas.

The typical counter-argument tends to be "but deck X did good at this tournament." Perhaps it did. Perhaps it did against good decks. But not necessarily versus good players (with good not meaning players just in your meta).  In addition, part of these deck's wins can be attributed to shock. The challenge is reproducing these results consistantly in large-scale tournaments to get believed.

The other option is one that is rarely utilized, and what tends to anger many of the more experienced players- terrible write-ups. You must, MUST explain how the deck will play out in the key matchups (for instance, now, Fish, 4C Control, 7/10 Split, and so forth). Not just what cards are key, but from hard testing (read: multiple matches against skilled opponents) pulling the trends. "This tends to happen," "Deck X tends to do Y" and how your deck succeeds. Not just "you have card X" (which infers, "so you just win").  Posting matchups based on a single card is generally not a good idea, and it's rather annoying to read either since it provides absolutely nothing of substance.

Looking at the Crucible combo deck just posted that won the MN 52-person tournament. The comments that proceeded were based on one thing - people want to know how and why it did good, not just what the end result or the list was. The what doesn't matter to them - they didn't win no prize, they want to know "is this deck worth me putting time and possibly money into," and WHY THAT IS. If it doesn't make sense to them (usually because of lack of justification) the attitude is simply deksukz kthxbye. Or something of the sort.

If you're not one to be in-depth or thorough, well, you have to be - that or prove your worth through multiple and consistent results, and be prepared for scrutiny if you use multiple results - particularly if they aren't in well-established metas. Otherwise, just don't take yourself too seriously. If you make yourself out to be the player who tuned or created the next big thing, you're in for a reality check. Otherwise, if you have the attitude (not say you do, but really do) of "This is not tier one. Can I make it tier one? Any suggestions (including, scrap the deck)?" the reception is better.

The burden of proof lies on the person posting the newer deck - they must explain clearly why they should be taken seriously. I'm not talking about a paragraph here, but extensive information on why the deck succeeds against the key matchups. Only claim tournament wins if the deck has gone to a major (read: 75+ would be a good start) tournament (as in one of the known-by-name tournaments). Anything else is really infused with the confounding variable of play skill and luck.

One example of such (that is not the rule): The deck The Man Show may have been criticized or nit-picked to some degree before the SCG tournament. But when it succeeds at a tournament with 8 rounds of swiss with many (as in over 20) top-notch and proven players, and makes it to the finals, beating Perez, it proves the deck can hold water, regardless of nit-picking. Having a deck win a 52-person tournament (5 rounds of swiss, I'm not sure?) where none of those conditions hold true, is really not that strong an indicator. Any such tournament wins being claimed as evidence is essentially reverting back to using percentages. They don't mean a thing.

Otherwise you merely have long babbling that in turn leads to tl:dr.

--

You're right to say it seems exclusionary. But it really is amplified from reality. Posting a deck that makes sense (because it is fully justified, and the justification is based on hard testing), will be taken seriously. But just because your post is 10 pages doesn't make it good. Most such posts are merely explaining card choices as opposed to matchup analysis.

It tends to lead to one-liner responses simply because people have lesser tolerance for it. While that in itself does not justify it, that is what I feel where the stereotype comes from. Good decks get taken seriously. Winning a tournament does not make a deck good.

If any guidelines were to be made, the main thing is you must justify your deck by explaining key (tier 1) matchups in-depth in terms of how they play out and why the deck will win without the surprise factor (this means multiple paragraphs per deck - you need to have something that would make sense to you were you not using the deck - you need to convince us, not the other way around). Justifications should reflect trends from multiple (I would say at least 20 matches, though a threshhold would merely be a number, really) testing sessions. Otherwise the community is mostly interested in decks that will beat whatever the current tier one is.

Finally, many of such posters need to have some humility. Odds are heavily stacked that they are not the best deckbuilder ever. When flaws are pointed out, there needs to be some sembalance of thought, "maybe they're right." Responses need to be justified in depth using reasonable logic, and not "use card X or card Y. Card Z totally hoses them." Trends are the most important thing here. And remember, many of the time, the solution to the problem is not taking out cards A,B, and C and putting in cards X,Y, and Z, but scrapping the idea altogether. Sometimes you just have to let them go.

Interestingly there's also a since of elitism from the other side as well - where both sides simply assume the other one is wrong and simply argue from there - without checking to see if indeed they are right or wrong. The members like Kowal, Klep, JP Meyer, etc., are usually right. When Meyer says "I don't know what color I would add, but I would definitely cut black," it may sound harsh to the sui black player. But it is true. And that does not depend on whether you think it is or not.

The idea with things like that is that there's not one fatal flaw in the idea other than it's just bad. That's the way it is with many decks, it's just janky, or poorly conceived, or not finely tuned. With those commentsm they allude to the fact that there's not much you can do, the idea is flawed and won't work - so quit wasting time on it. And if the writer does not justify it, there's really no reason to take them seriously since they have no logic behind it or reputation to support it of any sort.

Basically, the more humility you show, the better responses you'll get. If you take yourself too seriously, people will just assume you won't listen and thus, will just flame.

The main argument I have with such logic is that someone need not be a featured-writer to criticize writing. One doesn't challenge Roger Ebert to make a better film than those he criticizes, to draw along similar lines of thinking.

It's true that Tan's recent articles have been below par. But they are improving, as others have noted.



The idea here is that the analysis are not as in-depth as most players would like to improve their play.

The thing this deck lacks due to lack of blue are consistent draw and disruption.

Bazaar is useful primarily because of Squee, to be able to use it every turn. Otherwise, there's just not enough useful cards to discard. Lacking Brainstorm and friends is not wholly negated by Spoils, which makes you more vulnerable to aggro-control (you're not that fast of a deck) and the Buried Alive should really be Squees for the purpose of Bazaar. By drawing more with the Bazaar you'll get the Dragons in the grave (you only need one Dragon and Bazaar to go off). As noted, Slaver + Spoils =/= good times.

Lack of Compulsion also hurts here primarily because it allows you to have a counter up to avoid massive mana burn due to Purge and it's also a draw-discard engine.

The reason why Force of Will (and thus blue) are so necessary is because you're tapping out to force through your threats. Duress and Force are quite compliments to each other - as they also prevent your opponent's key cards. Unmask fails here because its effects are more inconsistent, it's not strong at any point in the game the way Force is - it also doesn't prevent nasty topdecks. In addition, Unmasking a Coffin Purge is not good times.

Not to say green is bad, but that blue is necessary. Green adds many wonderful things, but cannot stand to the strength that blue adds. That in mind, BUG Dragon seems to be the way to go. Blue adds better draw and disruption.

What Toad meant by his comment was that if you post some "out-there" decklist that is neither mainstream nor even heard of, you're going to have to justify it - tell why anyone would bring it to a tournament in the first place, and explain the cards in it.

Since you were just asking if anyone brought it to a tournament, there's no substance to it. Thus, it is of no use to the TMD community, and that's why it was moved to this forum. If you explain the deck and what you see in it that would make it fun or successful (and post it in the open or casual forum as necessary), you'll be taken more seriously and with more friendliness.

The community here is basically friendly and does welcome new decks and ideas (Much like Misetings, which does have quite a friendly community for those who go there, but they will be up front and tell you if your post was worthless), but by reading the stickies, you can see the guidelines they have, and one of them is to justify your decklist or add something to the community rather than a decklist and a more-less meaningless question. If you had posted a more meaningful discussion about the deck and had concluded by asking if anyone had played it, you would get a better response. In a sense, you do get what you give.

Attempting to use proper diction and syntax does help to give you credibility.

Hope that helped.
If you add to your post, I'm sure you'll be taken more seriously.

As most expected, nothing changed from the recent B/R announcement, which is both a good and bad thing. Regardless, it's time to look forward to the summer's metagame.

With that in mind, will the metagame change at all before Gencon and the major tournaments, or will it stay the way it is now? As Cron noted, things are not set in stone for the major tournaments. The board is set and the pieces are moving.

Have you found 5D cards to toss into decks to improve their quality, and do you expect any new decks or improved decks to make a ripple this summer, when many of the major tournaments occur?

With Hulk and Slaver versions currently occupying tier one, is there a way decks can react to shake things up (while no one deck is winning tournaments in a dominant manner, certain decks are top eighting more than others, of which Hulk is a clear culprint)?

This is the time of year for type one to make their mark on the MTG's general crowd, and to erase unpleasant memories of the misplays of GenCon '03.

Fortunately, the metagame was able to quell Workshop Slaver, Dragon, and Oshawa, the decks that abused those lands the most. There was definitely no domination of Workshop.dec or Bazaar.dec. In addition, Wastelands have become more prevalent through Fish. Neither card was anywhere near as broken as the chicken little's of the world made it seem.

I will graduate from my local high school Sunday (6/6).

You'll need a stronger draw engine if you want to do anything.

See the Blue-Red Fish decklist under the sticky to see what the natural course of evolution for this deck will look like - that would help more than any furthur comments as Fish is what a refined version of this deck is destined to be.

Good luck deckbuilding.

Trying to combine two good decks to make a better one rarely works, and confuses the deck and it's gameplan. For example, the draw 7 argument should be moot because all three belong in Shop slaver, and adding Mana Drain only confuses its gameplan.



Mana Drain is a terrible option for the deck simply because it is so tempermental. Discussing the Gilded Lotus leading to easier Drains, if you have a Gilded out, you should be accelerating your draw and seize the beatdown role, not switch roles.

Your overall role is beatdown using Force to power through your threats (ideally - although there are must-counter spells), and your mana allowance every turn is meant to accelerate your spells out. Mana Drain also disrupts the use of Workshop. Again, bearing in mind that you're using Gilded to power your Draw engine or kill cards, a first turn Workshop means third turn Drain up, at which case you do not need the boost of Mana Drain mana. In addition you can't control the game without losing your tempo as the beatdown.

Consider your ideal. Turn two Mana Drain using the mana for TFK the next turn. Seems fine enough. However the idea here is that you're trying to pressure the control player through a barrage of threats. That's why you need the full array of three-mana Draw 7s in Workshop slaver - so you'll force one through - and essentially, that's all you need to get started. You're trying to force through the TFK on their turn to leave them vulnerable on yours. By waiting for a spell for ther reactive Mana Drain, you lose the oppurtunity to play two draw spells, and therefore, slow your own development.



I believe you are misinterpreting Chalice's strengths. Going first, Chalice for zero or one has its strengths. A Chalice for zero after you've had an oppurtunity to drop moxen is random - but is an option which slows the opponent severely, as well as skews the power level of a given hand.

However, should you not have that option, Chalice for one or three remains powerful. Right now, with the metagame giving strength to combo, Fish, Hulk, and both slavers, Chalice for one slows down their engine - and except for the combo matchups, allows you to go the beatdown route in a manner that hurts your opponent more than you.

Chalice for three stops your draw engine. Against Hulk, it essentially wins the game.

Your testing against Dragon shows that Dragon can easily play around Chalice for two, granted. But agaisnt Draw 7 and Two-land Belcher, getting an early Chalice goes a long way to buying you enough time to get a Slaver active - here you are not the beatdown at the onset of the match, you are the control, if you try to out-combo them, you will fail miserably.

The idea with Chalice is that you use it not as a prison-lock tool where you're trying to stop their win, but as disruption. As you're beginning to power out threats, dropping Chalice for zero or one does one of the following - it either slows their development, and thus, their ability to stop your threats, or it prevents their utility options (i.e. Brainstorm), thus also slowing their options for keeping up with your speed. You're not trying to use it as a I-win-the-game card - although that is certainly an option. Tossing is for a lower option doesn't win the game alright, but it's meant to slow them more than it slows you.\

By practicing using the Chalice purely as a disruption tool (unless a superior option presents itself - the idea is that you're not waiting for one to appear) to slow your opponent down, you will find that it becomes more useful if used correctly.

Also, addressing your sideboard.



You lack higher number of Red Elemental Blasts, Gorilla Shamans, and Trinisphere, which contribute to your woes against various decks. Many of these cards (Wheel, the creatures) are only there because the deck is so confused as to what it's trying to do that it must leave out ideal cards.

I have absolutely no idea what the point of that, or the link, was.

Addressing Entomb. This is fundamentally bad because it goes against the gameplan of control slaver. Slaver uses its large draw engine of Thirst for Knowledge + potential Memory Jar to discard threats, as it doesn't need to discard a threat early (an early Slaver usually nets little and an early Pentavus is vulnerable to disruption). In addition such a move would be to move the deck to a more beatdown mode - going for the early Slaver, or Pentavus, which it is clearly not. The Atog Lord already defined why it is so situational, so that does not need to be addressed, but it is also detrimental to the nature of Slaver's gameplan.

Entomb does not add any speed since the turn one Welder is the ideal drop there. On turn two, with a set of moxen this is either the TFK on first-main-phase turn or the Mana Drain turn (it's also ideal to drop a Slaver off Drain mana too, obviously). The Slaver/Pentavus/Platinum is usually the crown of the tempo control slaver has gained through its massive draw or control elements (either TFK or Drain). Thus, in reality, it does not really provide the speed the deck is looking for, nor fit into the plan of the deck. Once the TFK engine can get going - or once the game simply progresses, getting a card into the grave either through the TFK or by getting it countered is merely a formality.

Also, the idea here focuses on The Atog Lord's second point - you must have artifacts in play to weld. Currently, this is the biggest difficulty in using Slaver, that Shaman or artifact destruction are keeping it from using Welder, and Entomb does not address this. Of course, postsideboard, this becomes amplified as more Shamans will enter from the key decks (Hulk, the mirror) that you must keep into account. This is the problem that needs to be addressed - not dumping a card into the graveyard.

Looking at control slaver and Hulk. In the mirror Entomb provides very little advantage for obvious reasons concerning tempo and your opponent's available cards. Although getting out an early Slaver helps versus Hulk, game one, you do have an advantage over them through your threats, and a slaver means less without a Tog - meaning it's best to late the progression of the game drop cards in the grave. Game two, it's all about Blood Moon since their Shamans go a long way to negating your Welders. Thus cards you add in should be to improve these two matchups primarily. Entomb is a niche card. This is not its deck.

Actually, don't.

If this is not as fast as Draw7.dec or Belcher.dec and does not have the consistency of Dragon.dec, (which this is not, and does not seem to have the potential to be) then why develop it furthur if there are better options in combo?

The idea of the Ironworks is to generate mana, but it lacks the speed of going for storm + Tendrils. If it cannot match that speed, there's really no point pursuing it.

If this is meant to be a budget option - since one could conceivably build it from the type two skeleton, put it in the right forum (although 2/3 of the posted lists are not it could be an option there), otherwise, why spend valuable testing time on a sub-par idea? Innovation is good, but the idea of creating new decks is to create new tier ones (or twos - although ones are certainly more prefered).

The kill in this build is Mishra's Factory, which, with a Crucible, can recur, although it will certainly be weaker should the Crucible not hit, or if Blood Moon does.

My mistake there, I made the mistake of associating this with similar decks (totally combo) I saw on SCG and I confused the two. I have had frustration with people bent on getting combo builds to work, and have seen so many threads that they all seemed the same. Apologies.

Now that I'm on right topic, the problem then becomes, how is this deck more resiliant than Trinistax as opposed to incorporating Crucible (sans Fastbond) into Stax?



It becomes very difficult to assure this - you're trying for a two-card combo opening hand, followed by another two-card combo the next turn. The key card here is Crucible. If that is stopped, the deck simply will not be able to win. This situation is theorhetical - what has testing shown about the consistency of the deck?

Not running off-color moxen is a strange choice here - particularly if the deck is bent on acceleration, especially since you cannot assure first turn Workshop and becomes more synergistic with a Trinisphere (played before obviously) as opposed to the one time boost - your next drops get accelerated as well which is absolutely essential to getting a prison lock down - you basically must play a spell every turn for the first few turns to ensure a complete lock. The idea is that if you drop a Trinisphere off a Ritual, you become as slowed as your opponent, and you want to maximize not only the speed in taking advantage of Sphere, but also the chance of a first turn three-drop.

Also the next comparison becomes how you take advantage of the lock. Stax uses the Trinisphere and Tangle Wires to slam down the Smokestack. The question becomes if Crucible is a better way to take advantage of a prison lock in a prison archetype - it has potential to be faster with Fastbond, however Smokestack also takes out lands in a similar manner, is in itself a single card, and hits all permanents (that fluxuates in its usefulness) plus has the utility of Goblin Welder behind it.

Jar would also seem a stronger way to dig for lock pieces / Crucible, and can deposite Wastes etc. Is the addition of Green primarily for Fastbond - Deed is an afterthought, worth dropping blue (Brainstorm, Force of Will, TFK (maybe), etc.)? In other words, this furthurs the suggestion that the closer the deck becomes to Trinistax, the better.

Duress may also prove to be counterproductive since you're trying to drop an artifact turn one, thereby minimizing the point. Although the one thing you must hit is Blood Moon by Slaver, FCG, and so forth, granted, I don't think Duress is the best way to handle this.

Crucible is an interesting card. However the ways to correctly use it are limited, so the logic behind my questions are to test ideas out to find the right one (if indeed there is one aside from utility in 4C - or even that).

edit: I confused this thread with another from SCG. Thus the information here is not as relevant to this deck as to other, more combo builds.

Because of the nature of the combo as attempted here - very forward minded and inconsistent, it cannot come down quickly with even a good hand (remove one 'o,' then we'll talk) and the "combo" does not directly win you the game barring jankier options like Ring which are dead otherwise.

At this time this would seem to be an intrinistically bad combo for that reason and this one: There's no reason to play this over Two-Land Belcher, Draw 7, or Dragon in a tournament setting - especially based on the lists that people have been churning out.

In addition such decks tend to be dependent on Mishra's Workshop and will have to abandon the combo once a threats begin to hit (i.e. Fish, Even a Tog/Dryad, Madness, etc), thus becoming better in theory than in practice. Deed is a slower option here.

It seems the more natural course of this card to be more of a utility card in decks like 4C that don't need to use it as a combo piece as shown here.

It's usually best not to base a card on a best-case scenario.



This of course, is impossible mana-wise (you're getting four mana out of three sources) and card wise (takes 9 out of 8 cards), and represents a perfect hand anyway - especially considering Fish can only run two moxes maximum. Regardless Dryad does not ass a consistent threat to the deck, also bearing in mind that the gameplan of Fish revolves around swarming the opponent with multiple smaller threats - not one big one.

Imagine drawing a Dryad late game or a green source you inserted to support the Dryad instead of a red one. You get the idea.

On an aside: While aggro my be the threat in your meta, it's important to remember that control slaver, the mirror, and fish are the matchups Tog decks must consider. Oath looks good only versus Fish, and to even say that is untrue - they can the capability not only to play around it but to smash you with it as well. Against aggro the strongest thing to do for Tog to hit the board, get mad and swing, and there really isn't such thing as an aggro metagame right now in a powered field.

If you're going to stick with Oath, why not use the Landstill formula (RGU) with manlands? Otherwise if you drop an Oath and nothing happens, well, it's going to be a long game (you have nothing to force them to play creatures - and it's difficult to get one out early consistantly as well - it helps reduce dead cards to have the manlands available as opposed to drawing a creature than having dead oaths. Time Walk also has been disrupting that strategy - thus if one is to go for it, you must either dedicate more, or none at all for it to be effective, even versus aggro (remember that Madness has Wonder, FCG has its combo, TnT has Duplicant (which simply owns here), as do Welder decks, and Landstill does have have to counter Oath, so it can expend its energy with your Tsabo's Web)

And remember that it's not as simple as dropping Oath early - you simply can't gurantee that, and it becomes obsolete should you stick with the 4C plan and drop an Angel - creating dead cards, as opposed to just Landstill-Oath.

 Just a thought, since you seem to place a high reliance on Oath.

That is very true - however it did show that work is needed, and unfortunately, it is the measuring stick for players who do not play or follow type one, and does reveal some of the unpleasamt realities about the average type one tournament field. As an aside question - do we even have enough people that could make it to an event to have invite-based and still have a reasonably large, and thus, notable tournament?

One thing from Ben's articles that struck a chord with the type one community is the assessment of how bad we are - particularly compared with the pro tour players. Whether the latter part is true or not, the fact that mistakes - both obvious and not - are there, evidenced of course by Gencon last year - or watching any tournament for that matter - perhaps not as bad as Gencon, but regardless, the assessment that the collective whole of type one players are lower at the collective whole of PTQers also has some merit in that sense.

However, the counterbalance to the argument is the nature of mistakes in type one. Minor mistakes often blow up quite large. In control, one open window can lead to Mind Twist, Slaver, Combo, Ancestral Recall, Yawgmoth's Will and the like, and the same goes for Prison. The acceleration of the format (both in mana, draw, and brokenness) means the same for aggro - giving up even a turn can lead to broken plays to balance the game in a way that does not translate to examples in other formats.

One fact is that type helps to hone one's skills in a way that extended, standard, and limited often cannot. The approximations - both in deck building and in every play are the norms in type one, especially when analyzing a metagame, numerous matchups (as opposed to Ravager, Goblins, and R/G Ponza), and constructing even the 15-card board - it's not as simple as people believe it to be with tossing in the power nine, and 51 broken cards and calling it a day. There's more threats, more answers, and thus it leads to a better understanding of what works BEST and what doesn't, and not only that, but why it works.

In type one, you are also used to the razor's edge - namely making decisions that decide games at a very early turn. In standard, this simply does not exist - although Ravager and Goblins puts you on a fast clock, there is often very little one can do about it - the decisions aren't as critical persay - you either do X or you don't. Although this leads to more mistakes, it also leads to increased understanding. Before we work on innovating the format, someone noted in the sticky's that one needs to understand the intricisies of the format before they try to innovate it. Learning to play a deck before adjusting it is imperative.

Granted, we make mistakes. Stupid ones. Alot. And we need to do our homework. However players have also mastered complicated aspects as well - and understand the mechanics of the game in a unique manner that other formats cannot offer.

For those TMDers who play extended and standard in particular, how true to you believe this statement to be? Do type one skills carry over into other formats - do they make you a better player in such formats than say, a vice-versa situation of a two player entering one? In what ways? This is not to inflate our opinions of ourselves as much as it is to define the format itself - and the nature of the players in them - the learning curve is certainly different, and before we decide where we go we must know where we are.

One point not in contention is that we are not all great players (and there are very, very few exceptions to this rule, of which I am not one). How does the community improve this? How does an individual improve this? More testing obviously, but from the tournament warriors - what strategies do you use to keep in games, to furthur the understanding of the community itself? Testing in what way - how do you control for errors and misplays? Not to prove someone wrong, but for the sake of the format. For this after all, is the most important thing, because it's the one thing that we can directly change ourselves. What things do we need to keep in mind that we are not?

One last point of discussion - in terms of innovation. We need it, obviously. But don't test every single card - like Finkel once noted, he sees things differently. Remembering the basic ideas - two card combos are usually not good, there are solid gold standards in terms of counter and draw and so forth go a long step towards saving time.

It is put-up or shut-up time for the community.

[aside]
As a personal example - I believe that vintage translates into increased skills. For regionals, I did not intend to play, and ended up building a deck from scratch a half-hour before. Utilizing principles used in type one to build the deck (in terms of curve and types of threats), as well as taking an understanding of the control-beatdown roles from playing 4-Color a year back, I finished second - not because of my mad skillz (which I have none), but due to experience from the researching type one. I would not have entered without that knowledge - I did nearly zero testing in standard.
[/aside]