what happens if at the end of your opponents turn you untap time vault by skipping your turn and then tap it for an extra turn?

Card Advantage means nothing if you you can't capitalize on it. Fish is very effective at stopping control slaver's kill conditions. CS is going to beat fish with tinker or a late game yawg will. Tinker means nothing if null rod is in play (so they have to play around that), and yawg will only really be effective if fish's gameplan failed already failed.

Solemn doesn't win you the game like Old Man of The Sea does against fish. By bringing in old man of the sea you are adding to the deck a new kill condition. Solemn is neat, and yes there are synergistic tricks to getting him into play, but all he is going to do is cantrip and grab a land. He can bring you back into the game by recovering you from a tough spot, but Old Man just wins the game. fish cannot beat a protected old man of the sea. Assuming it resolves (you have more counter+draw), they only have a small number of STPs (note to fish players, wth aren't you playing 4 of these?). A resolved Old Man makes it so fish can never attack again. It buys unlimited time by completely nuetralizing their gameplan.

If your argument for Solemn is that he is a multipurpose card which is effective against both fish and stax.... don't you already destroy stax? Assuming they don't get a completely absurd opening, you have welders, shamans, mana drains, forces, and good draw. If that wasn't enough already, you have rack and ruins as well.

I always felt that Workshop decks were overrated and simply couldnt recover from rack and ruin. Now they seem ever worse.

So much for primitive justice.

The reason for the drop out of the mountains win again has little to do with the meta.

Two cards that are possible problems for the deck.

Suppression Field and Darkblast.

Thankfully nobody really plays suppression field. This card was overhyped. It's good but nobody has found if it has a place in anything or not. If this card becomes popular, TMWA will have a tough time against it.

Darkblast is more popular but still isn't very big. A few decks play darkblast as a 1-2 of after sideboarding (sometimes they play 1 mainboard). They can tutor for it, so that kinda blows. However the decks that do play it use only a low number of underground seas (primarily). These can be wasted to buy you some time. Also all of the decks that play Darkblast are also vunerable to graveyard hate, and TMWA packs 4 tomods crypts, 2 main, 2 side (my version has enlightened mainboard to tutor for it).

Every deck has problem cards. These cards can be serious problems but thankfully they haven't caught on much. If they do.. TMWA is in trouble.

TMWA has a good matchup with all decks other than belcher and storm combo and those two archtypes arent the most popular. So why did people stop playing this deck? I dunno. It has very consistant hands. I'd take it to any tournament and expect to place well. It's funny to beat people with it because they always complain about how you got lucky or how they got screwed over. People don't like losing to a "bad" deck. I enjoy it.

I find it funny that you are trying to be all moderator-like but at the same time write this with terrible grammar and English.


anyway, check out this thread: http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=25054.0

(in before lock)

There is not always a direct link between a good deck and a high finish. Time and time again, good players have piloted "bad" decks to successful tournament finishes. It is the strength of the players and knowledge of their decks that determins the outcome of most matches. Of course there are terrible matchups and broken draws, but those are anomalies.

oh secrecy >_>. I love how this debate has basically become "my deck pwnzors against ubastax, but I can't show you the deck list, so take my word for it."

okay, here is a question for uba stax players: you go first, it's turn one, you know you are playing against drain based control. You have the option to play first turn smokestack or uba mask. Which do you play? Which has a more powerful effect against the opponent? What other cards in your hand influence your decision? What if those cards weren't in your hand? Why do you choose to play one over the other?

[/size]

Is that the list you are referring to?

I can't see that having any better of a game against Uba Stax than a more standard version of fish. All this deck seems to have on stax is the 2 of crucible and seal of cleansing. Aparently this deck has performed decently, but it makes me want to cry. The inclusion of Old Man seems weak at best.   Cloud of Faeries? The reason why that card was played in the first place was it's synergy with curiosity, which is not here. In fact no draw spells other than the situational Standstill are in this list ( I have nothing against standstill, I always found it better than brainstorm in fish but it needs another draw engine to go with it, ie curiosity or ninja as it is not reliable, or enough draw by itself. remember fish wants quantity not quality). 3 Meddling Mages seems flat out wrong. If you are trying to combat Oath, TPS, and Slaver, as you say you are, Meddling Mages is a bomb. 2 Seal of Cleansings wont give you game against oath either. Nor will only 2 Swords to plowshares. As controversial as people may find this: It is wrong not to play at least 3 swords in the current meta. The only thing this has on combo is null rod. Crucible and Old man are both very expensive for fish at three mana and are both varyingly situational or just too slow. Fish has always had null rod. I'm not going to even mention the board, as those are constantly in flux, other than say WTF?

I didn't want this to turn into me bashing OFM 2K5, so sorry if it seems to have come out that way. The card choices just seem illogical, and your statement that this deck has a strong matchup against Stax doesn't seem to be true. Unless an exceptionally good player was piloting this deck, I'd feel no worries going into the matchup with ubastax.

if it's not the list... well ignore this (you said you were playing ninja?)

I've only tested maybe 5 games against UW fish, but they were decent hands for both players.

Uba Stax COMPLETELY DESTROYED the fish deck. Fish has no particularly strong cards against you. It's small number of counters allows for sucessful agressive play. Fish is so slow that you have as much time as you need. Uba Stax has the ability to drop a bomb nearly every turn. Fish can't deal with it all. Barbarian Ring is nuts once active. Goblin Welder makes any counters or meddling mages useless. Your wastelands and strips are very good against their relatively unstable mana base. Chalice for one or two is very gamebreaking. Fish can not race or play enough permanents to race smokestack. A smokestack in play, is GG for you.

The only way I see fish beating Ubastax is if it gets a draw engine going by turn two. But even then, what is fish going to draw into? Fish can draw a million cards and still have no way to win or stop you anytime soon.

It's true that a fish build maindecked to beat stax will have the upper hand, but those, at least in my knowledge, are not the norm. Crucibles, Old Men, and Seals all seem to be suboptimal mainboard against the general metagame.

talk about read the facking card.

I'm retarded, sorry.

new question.

Is the number of permanents a player sacks to smokestack determined on resolution of the ability or when putting it onto the stack? For example, if a smokestack is set to 3 and I stack it so the remove a counter ability resolves first (putting smokestacks to 2 soot counters), and then resolve the sacrifice ability, how many permanents must I sacrifice? 2 or 3?

okay so the ability to gain threshold and kill welder is more important than keeping a blast through a mindslaver turn because after mindslaver you are screwed anyway? makes more sense now.

thanks guys.

If you are playing blue and a large amount of blue cards, you better have a very good reason not to be playing force of will.

I find this version of stax to be the most interesting. I'm going to start fooling around with it soon, I think.

Is there a reason why pyroblast is there over red blast? pyroblast fuels threshold but they are sideboard so them being dead isn't an issue. Red blast looks better for it's strength against mindslaver.   I know they are similar, but often people seem to think they are exactly the same. But they are not the same, there will be rare instances where one will be more useful than the other, and it's the little differences that determin winning or losing.

Mongrel is going to be better because he is cheaper to cast. Bazaar and three casting cost things don't work well together. Missing a land drop because of Bazaar sucks. Mongrel is better overall because you can discard anything to him. The extra damage vampire hounds may provide is going to be negated by the lack of speed he has.

goblin grenade and reckless abandon are both really good in goblin sligh as a finisher, however in this deck the finisher is the combo so it's not really necessary. goblin grenades can be dead cards at times (same with food chain obviously), as usually they are only good if you can burn your opponent out in that turn.

Thanks for the insights  into kataki and shaman 


I like the idea of e-tutor instead of a genju a lot. I love genju late game but I hate seeing two genjus as they are almost always dead draws. I always love seeing crypt. I don't think null rod would be necessary but a seal of cleansing might be nice.

When did goblins stop playing a full set of strips and wastes? Attacking the mana base gave goblins the few additional turns it would need to win. Also the deck seems as if it cut on lands (namely, wastes) for other cards. I don't think this is right. Goblins plays many cards that cost three or more mana. It can't afford to miss a drop within the first few turns. With no general card drawing, getting to 3 mana sources is a must. Of course if you get a lackey, all of this is thrown out the window, but that doesn't justify cutting mana sources, especially one that serve many uses (wastes), in my eyes.

REBs in aggro decks always have their ups and downs. The main concern of any aggro deck is Tinker. More games against aggro are ended by tinker than in any other way. If an aggro deck can stop tinker, they have a very good chance of winning the game. The problem with REBs in aggro though is that they are reactive cards. It's in aggro's nature to play things at sorcery speed, to tap out during its turn. In order to play REB you need to hold back a mountain, by holding back a land, you aren't dropping threats. This leaves the aggro player with two options: dedicate the first 1 or 2 turns playing threats and then keep mana open for REB while beating them down, or constantly keep 1 mana open and drop 1cc guys on turn 2, 2cc on turn 3, etc. Neither of these options is fullproof. By dropping threats first, you are giving your opponent crucial time to get tinker, or do something else broken. With the increase of tutors, turn 2 tinkers are all the more prevalent. But if you hold back mana, you are also giving your opponent more time to win the game. You must also consider that your opponent will typically have more counters than you, therefor if they force your REB which you were keeping open instead of playing guys, you in a terrible situation as you essentially gave your opponent extra turns.

Perhaps what I said before was unclear, I don't think REB is a bad card in FCG, it's just that I don't think it's a good one. It has good synergy with lackey as you won't be forced to tap out with guys. If you don't draw lackey, I don't think you will be able to play it before turn 3-4. Turn two is when piledriver and recruiter comes down, not dropping them to keep REB open is a mistake in that the longer you wait, the harder it will be to win. The downside of it possibly being a dead card isn't too great, because you already have a good matchup against most non-blue decks. It's definitely good in that it can by you an extra turn or two to win the game, but I don't think it should be included without serious look into its usefulness and without playtesting. There was an old saying about FCG: other than the food chains and the mana, the rest should be goblins. The only other considered card was wheel of fortune, but giving seven to your opponent proved too dangerous. I don't know if that saying holds true anymore. Red decks might be forced to play REB main now as almost a staple card.


Going back to what Gabe said about DSC not being fast enough against FCG in control. A hand that lets you find/cast tinker and has a force of will should be enough to race them straight out (the force being for countering some random dangerous spell, thus giving you time to win). That's just as likely as your opponent having a fast opening with recruiter/foodchain or piledriver + swing for a lot early on.
As the game goes on longer and the control player gets a decent amount of mana, goblins loses as nothing stops pentavus. If you're not playing pentavus then you are playing oath, which stomps FCG anyway, or gifts. If you are playing gifts, well, I hope you lose.
------------

Oh about the decks I play: shitty ones like sex, the mountains win again, enter the dragon, and cherry parfait. Before I was talking from the perspective of a typical control or combo deck.

Nah I'm ripping off starwars.

I'm just saying this deck has the same problem with pentavus that every aggro deck has.

Frankly both decks are very complicated. I want to believe what you said here but at the same time, I know the teammate you are talking about isn't someone I would call a skilled type one player. He's learning, but it's mostly from me and you. He only knows what he's been told, he doesn't actively read online.

I don't know which deck is more complicated, because I haven't played them enough, however gifts seems easier to pick up and play. It's gameplan is more straightforward, whereas CS seems to have several different things going on at once. I think the decks are so close to being the same, that it's simply a matter of playstyle on which to play, not that one is strictly better than the other. Despite everyone's desire to make a deck perfect, it's never going to happen because a players skill must be taken into account, and that throws all logic out of the window.

LIES! Mongrel DOES fear pentavus, unless he has a rancor on him 

Thinking of Shadow of Doubt that way, it does seem good.

I don't know. At least with the decks I play, FCG seems like an easy match. FCG is fast, you just have to be faster. Usually I feel like I can be. REBs is a new addition to FCG, and IMO not a very good one. FCG has to tap out every turn to play its guys. If it wants to hold back mana for REB, that's just good for me because I'll have more time to win the game. Then again, FCG has a better matchup against control slaver and gifts than the random crap I play.

also the fact that in general high level players use "better" decks like workshop and drain decks leads to people feeling less need to test against aggro and aggrocontrol.

goodbye control slaver. hello gifts.dec.

(ignore this - I misunderstood the quoted information)

I figured as much. I just like to poke fun at people for creaming over imperial seal when they never even used vampiric tutor before.

I'll admit I don't know control slaver inside and out, so my opinions are going to be less informed. It's never been a deck I've liked, but it's been so popular and around for so long that I've got a good sense of it.

I disagree with turning slaver into a combo deck. I don't like how all of a sudden people are changing it into something drastically different than it has always been. By adding every tutor to the deck, the deck isn't able to play control cards it use to use. It is sacrificing control for speed. But is the speed necessary?  Was control slaver too slow to beat the decks in peoples meta? Was the control not good enough, so it CAN be sacrificed for speed? Was there something wrong with the deck, or is it just being made "better?" Why is slaver going "all in?"

Aggro isn't ignored, but nobody really cares about it.

Straight up aggro such as FCG is not even worth testing against in my opinion. FCG plays basically zero disruption outside wastelands and stripmine. Whenever I play against, or really any deck without counters, Goblins I feel invincible. I feel like as long as I try to win as fast as possible, I will win. It's like goldfishing. With the increase of tutors tinker for DSC is a very easy play to make within the first few turns. It's like aggro has no way to deal if you have even a single counter.

However, Aggro Control is worth testing against. Sometimes there is so much hate that the matchup becomes incredibly difficult to win. Knowing how to beat the hate, and if its not possible, changing the deck or sideboard to make it possible is very important. Aggro Control is a very popular type of deck as it is usually budget and less difficult to play than other archtypes (at least against the matchup its made to beat). There are many different aggro control decks, and it seems like a new one is made every week. Testing against every version seems near impossible, but all aggro control decks do one thing the same, disrupt you with generally the same cards. You don't really need to know how to face wild mongrel or flying men, it's how to deal with duress, wasteland, chalice, stp, and meddling mage that is important. If you know how to combat those cards (and the other commonly used disruption cards), you should be well off.

I believe a rogue deck is a deck that uses some cards that other decks don't use, or atleast not very often. The new cards need to be better than any other alternative card, or the deck isn't rogue, it's bad.

....I'm sure people changed their decks or way of playing the game in order to deal with minds eye.... >_>

I really hope you mean Vampiric Tutor. It's that card that was considered bad in control slaver before it's sorcery speed brother was made.
--

Why are people cutting echoing truth? It has always been the perfect card for anything you didn't like. With the new lists it seems like that if something bad resolves your only answer is "win the game."

obviously infinite mindslaver and infinite turns its different, but the point I wanted to make is that they are both possible but rarely required to win.


or you could just destroy the oath.... that's probably a lot easier than the combo.

What is the justification for kataki over gorilla shaman?

Kataki comes down for 2, and you never have to pay for him again, unless your own artifacts are being hampered.

Gorilla shaman comes down for one and costs one mana to kill each mox.

They both deal with artifacts similarly, but gorilla shaman removes them from play, stoping welder activations and permanents to sack to stax and tap to tanglewire. Since gorilla shaman costs one less and can come down before manadrain, he seems more useful to me.

Also I've noticed that while the genjus are amazing when they work, they often are too mana intensive. Whenever I have a red blast in my hand, I dont want to tap out. This means I need 4 mana sources to swing with Genju and still keep R open. With the five strip effects you play, getting to 4 mana takes a while. Just something to think about.