Nice report, Matt. A few points:

1. You can thank IBA for the Bodyguard tech. He was the first person I heard the idea from, though I didn't mention it to anyone until it had already been leaked in the open forums at The Source.

2. IBA's reasoning on Diabolic Visions is that iit's an Impulse that pitches to both FoW and Unmask. Since you're not running Unmask it's probably not the right call. You might want to consider Unmask though... IBA insists it's insane.

3. In this "metagame" (and I use the term very loosely), it seems like pretty much every sideboard should begin with 4x Leyline of the Void. It's excellent in the Flash mirror, and it's good against a lot of the dedicated hate decks as well (most notably UB Tog).

Haha. You didn't ruin the format, PTW. No one seems to be smart enough to figure out that Spoils Dragon is played totally differently than BUG Dragon. I don't think a Spoils Dragon build has T8'ed at a significant tourney in several months, due more to lack of play than its inability to do so, I believe.

You're actually working against several problems with this thread. The first is that you've posted this petition at a site dedicated solely to Type 1. The vast majority of the players here at TMD couldn't give two shits about Type 1.5, because any issues pertaining to that format have no bearing whatsoever on the format they're actually interested in. You can solve this first problem by discussing such things at a forum dedicated to the appropriate format, which would be The Source.

The second and more important problem you face is that your argument is completely flawed. The banned list in 1.5 is by its very definition inextricably tied to Type 1's Restricted List. It is the very gauge by which the acceptable power levels of cards are measured for 1.5's healthiness as a format. Without it, judgements of that nature would be purely arbitrary. Furthermore, the cards you suggested as possible candidates for unbanning in 1.5 clearly belie your lack of knowledge of the format. Lotus Petal, Gush, Fastbond, Fact or Fiction and Vampiric Tutor would utterly decimate the format if unrestricted. All of the cards which you suggested that wouldn't necessarily be completely detrimental to the format are the ones which are widely agreed to be unnecessarily on the T1 Restriction List in the first place (e.g., Fork, Braingeyser, etc.)

Unfortunately I can offer no remedy for the second problem, short of suggesting that you actual play 1.5 at a tournament level, and learn more about it. Frankly I'm rather surprised that you're pursuing this issue with such fervor when you have so very little actual knowledge of the format.

This statement is completely unfair. Stompy and Sligh are bad decks, but they're not that bad.

I'm going to ask this as directly as I possibly can: what in your opinion makes this deck better than Tog?

On a fundamental level, they're the exact same deck with different kill conditions. It seems widely agreed that you have a weaker manabase and that your kill condition gets hosed by Null Rod. Tog doesn't have these problems. You also have less draw than Tog. So now that we've identified what makes the deck worse than Tog, can you tell us what makes it better?

The only benefit Charbelcher would give in a control-heavy meta is a more stable manabase. The kill condition itself is much weaker against control, because of its higher casting cost. Where you might be able to slip a first turn Food Chain under Mana Drain, you'll (almost) never do so with Belcher. Furthermore, control is far more likely to have maindecked artifact hate than enchantment hate, meaning they're going to have more answers overall. Decks like Fish and U/G Madness can shut off your combo with Null Rod as well.

The bottom line is that I can't think of a single reason to play Charbelcher over Food Chain unless you're trying to dodge CoP: Red, which should be pretty much never in a competitive meta.

The Golden Rule is truly steadfast only in what would be considered a competitive meta. The moment you move outside of that realm, it becomes less necessary, obviously. In a meta with a bunch of Cop:Reds and whatnot, then I suppose Charbelcher is a decent addition. I'd never endorse it in a competitive meta, especially against Germbus, where their Drains will utterly crush you, but against WW, Parfait, etc., why not?

Listen to Zelc - he's right on with everything. Rack and Ruin is the strongest artifact destruction available in a meta rife with Chalices. The 2-for-1 effect is very strong.  He's also correct that Null Rod is an extremely poweful tool in the current meta, and shouldn't be neglected. With regards to Pulverize - I have tested it, and while its effect is awesome, FCG simply can't recover from the lost tempo to make it worthwhile.

An ideal, generalized FCG board is going to look something like this:

4 REB
4 Rack and Ruin
3 Blood Moon
4 Null Rod

I'm not. Most of the time they're too conditional to be truly useful. The fact that they're goblins is their only saving grace.



This is astute. Chalice can be an issue, particularly set at 2. In metas where you might see a lot of them, then Oxidize, R&R, Meldown, and Mogg Salvage are all viable and in fact recommendable alternatives. Mutation is the default because of the tempo shift it can provide, but it can be liability against Chalice.



The fact that it's a creature never struck me as a bonus.  It's a liability. It's great for eating Moxen and Chalices, but it's not nearly as flexible, reliable and comprehensive in its uses as something like Oxidize or R&R.

The Golden Rule says nothing about red mana. It says mana, which Striplands are. If red mana were implicit, then Mox Emerald, Mana Crypt and Sol Ring would all be unacceptable choices, which obviously isn't the case.

Striplands win games. It's as simple as that. The deck is not pure combo by a long shot. It is primarily aggro, and aggro benefits from a disruption strategy supporting its attack. Furthermore, Strips can be used to lock opposing unstable manabases out of a specific color, often providing the ability to resolve or protect a key spell which otherwise would not succeed.



Technically 4 permanent sources in play (or two and a Crypt or Sol Ring) is ideal, but overall you are correct. 25 mana sources is an ideal amount. At least 21 of them should be permanent mana sources.


I understand why, but you're in the minority. Artifact Mutation in the board is so much more reliable, and more often than not is a massive tempo shift in your favor. Nevertheless, one or two Vandals aren't going to cause too big an issue, since they're goblins, so if you like 'em, run 'em.

Wheel was mentioned as the only possible exception to the Golden Rule in my original post:



It was also discussed by others on page one of this thread. If there is an exception to the Golden Rule, it's Wheel of Fortune. However, most people that have tested it in a competitive environment have found it to be decent, but an extreme liability against control. Considering that the top 3 decks in the format right now are control-oriented, it's extremely hard to justify Wheel's inclusion.

20 mana sources is way too few to support the deck reliably. It's good that you're lucky with Lackeys, but it's extremely safe to say that luck is not the best foundation upon which to be basing deckbuilding decisions.

If they have they're doing the wrong thing. Regardless of whether or not those slots are accelleration, they most certainly need to be mana sources of some kind, or you'll invariably be hitting mana-screw. If you're adamantly against accelleration, the only logical replacement would be Mires or Mountains. I think you're severely underestimating the importance of accelleration and of Food Chain, though.

As for the use of Null Rod, Al is right - Josh (Vegeta) runs them in the board, as do I. They're an excellent SB tool, but are a foolhardy replacement for mana sources in the main.

To restate my point with regards to a possible SB primer for FCG: were I to create an SB primer, it would NOT forcus on specific matchups, nor specific cards to be included, except perhaps in the most general sense. To a large degree, these aspects of the deck are already covered in Vegeta's official FCG primer.

Because FCG is so unique a deck, with so little room for alteration before losing its potency, I would instead concentrate on which portions of the deck are least necessary when facing specific archetypes. In other words, rather than concentrationg on what to side in for certain matchups, it would focus more on what to side out. This aspect of play seems to be the most commonly misunderstood for players just learning the deck.

Because the deck is relatively new, and because it's one of the few truly viable budget options in today's meta, it's seeing a huge influx of players interested in it, but who often don't understand how unique and complex a deck it is. That was the reason for this primer, and would be the main reason behind an SB primer as well.

The primer explains why 2 SGC's is the right number. 3 is simply dead too often to be warranted.

Even without a Food Chain on the table, Wheel can = the win, as it can draw into one.

You're right that Piledrivers and Warchiefs are huge contributors to the deck's aggro strategy. As far as the "Piledriver and Warchief Aggro Plan" are concerned, Piledrivers are useful in multiples. Warchiefs are not. You only need one to fulfill their role. Having 3 maindeck means you're likely to get one early. If not, you've got 6 other ways to find them (Recruiters/Matrons). The point is, yes, Warchiefs are really really useful. No, you don't need a bunch of them. 3 is good. 4 can be a liability because of their double-red cc.

As for Sharpshooter, 1 is absolutely necessary. 2 can be good in certain (read: aggro-heavy) metas. More than 2 is almost always unnecessary.

@Sam_Haight:

I've considered it, yes, but I'm against it because it requires running a higher nonbasic count (Badlands) over basic Mountains. Even if you're running only one, it further destabilizes an already fragile manabase. And, as many others have pointed out, black doesn't do much that Tormod's Crypt doesn't.

@Gimbles:

You may have noticed that Wheel of Fortune was briefly mentioned as the one existing possibility as an exception to the Golden Rule. I have tested it, and it certainly has its merits. In the end, I chose not to discuss it at length, because I was really interested in stressing the importance of Rule #3. By stating that the Wheel is a definite exception, it opens up room for conversations beginning with: "Well, X card is as powerful as Wheel of Fortune, and it's an exception, so why not this card?"

I'll say that Wheel can be a powerful tool in the deck, although it is occasionally a liability against control. I want to make it clear that I consider Wheel to be the one and only card in the current pool that can justifiably break the Golden Rule.

@ArdvarKing:

SBing with FCG is as unique and difficult a task as is altering the maindeck. I was tempted to write a section on it, in fact. However, this primer was intended specifically as a guide for deck development, not play strategies, so I chose to leave it out. If people are interested enough, I will write a second mini-primer on sideboarding. If I were to do so, I would avoid discussing specific matchups, as that's pretty well covered in Vegeta's primer. I would be more interested in laying out a set of basic rules, as I've done here. (I.e., what never to remove, what's safe to remove in what numbers, what is less necessary against basic archetypes like Control, etc.)

@Mon, Goblin Chief:

Actually I have tested Clamp in the SB. In a control heavy environment, it is a very effective tool. It has wonderful synergy with Recruiter, and isn't nearly as large a Drain target as Ringleader or Food Chain. It's definitely a viable SB option. Again, though, this article was intended to concentrate on maindeck development, not on SB development. When I get the time, I'll set my mind to writing a comprehensive SB guide.

@Negator:

ESG is absolutely a viable budget option. In fact I endorse their use as Moxen/Lotus replacements in a budget build. However, the Official FCG Primer covers the budget version of the deck, and this article is intended to deal with complete optimization of the deck.

@wu:

I'd never drop lower than 3 Prospectors myself, but in a technical sense only one is absolutely necessary, so that's how it's listed in the basic architecture.

Technically it doesn't violate the Golden Rule in that it can be considered a mana source. Elvish Spirit Guide also falls into this loophole, and is a viable option for budget Moxen replacement. However, Wu is right that the green can pose a problem. The deck is very tight on green mana sources, and isn't guaranteed to reliably be able to play the Tinder Wall when it needs to. More importantly, it's not arguably better than any of the other mana sources in the deck, save perhaps for Lotus Petal.

As Food Chain Goblins has been gaining increasing popularity in the last few months, more and more people have been making attempts at further optimizing the existing "best build". As part of the small group that was originally responsible for developing the deck into its current form (along with Vegeta2711, bebe, and TeenieBopper), I have the benefit of having thoroughly and rigorously tested a great many of the cards that are now being suggested publicly as options for addition to the deck.

Because there seems to be so much public interest in improving FCG these days, I feel it would be beneficial for a few basic ground rules to be set out and understood by those that intend to do so:


Rule 1: Understanding FCG's Strategies and the Balance Therein

The rule: it is absolutely imperative that alterations to FCG do not upset the subtle balance between its aggro and combo elements.

The most fundamentally important thing to recognize about FCG is that it's not primarily a combo deck. Certainly its combo makes it robust and versatile, but it is its rock-solid aggro strategy which makes it fundamentally viable. This isn't to suggest that the combo element is unncessary; the point is that it is the combination of the two strategies, and their inherent synergy which make the deck so viable. The balance between the two is fragile in the extreme, making FCG perhaps one of the least customizable decks in the format.

One of the biggest mistakes I see being made by people attempting to alter FCG is that the proposed changes significantly upset the balance between the deck's combo and aggro strategies. Efforts to make the combo element faster almost invariably destabilize the aggro element. Examples include running Gamble or Skullclamp as search for Food Chain, running a high Matron count to search for Recruiters, running off-color moxen for combo accelleration, etc. In theory, these are all sound ideas, and in fact I've playtested all of them thoroughly, as well as many others. In all cases, however, the addition of these accellerants severely weakened the consistency of the deck's aggro approach, and were eventually abandoned.


Rule 2: FCG is not Good for Adaptation to Any Metagame

The rule: either FCG is the right choice for your meta or it isn't. It can't be forced.  

One could draw a comparison between FCG and Gay/R, in that they both represent genuinely competitive "budget" decks in the format, and they both have an aggro element backed by a secondary strategy. They are both versatile, and have powerful draw engines. I would assert, however, that their similarities are outweighed by their differences.

Gay/R is defined by its ability to be adapted to specific metagames. Of the deck's basic architecture, roughly a third of the deck can be adapted to suit a specific meta. This is one of Gay/R's greatest strengths, and the source of its continued popularity. FCG, on the other hand, is Gay/R's polar opposite in this regard. Because its strategy is so fundamentally reliant upon a high goblin count, and because of the delicate nature of the balance between its strategies, there is a proportionally miniscule aspect of the deck which can be altered to meet meta demands. Realistically, it's safe to say that either FCG is a good meta choice or it isn't. There's very little that can be done to change this. On the up side, it's got a strong game in a wide variety of metas. In fact, the only meta where it would be a definitively poor choice is one which is dominated by combo like Draw7, Belcher, and Dragon. While the sideboard can strengthen some of these matchups to a degree, neither its aggro nor its combo element is fast enough to consistently beat the pure combo decks in the format.


Rule 3: (THE GOLDEN RULE) If it's not a Goblin, Mana, or Food Chain, it Doesn't Belong in FCG

The rule: Seriously, I'm not kidding. This isn't an exaggeration.

FCG is built purely upon synergy. Every card in the deck has beneficial interaction with every other card in the deck. This synergy is owed completely and totally to the fact that every non-mana source in the deck is a goblin. Literally every single non-goblin card added to the deak weakens its overall synergy. I can't stress this point enough. This rule is not an arbitrary one. This is derived from having tested a great many seemingly synergistic non-goblin cards and found that they are in fact a detriment.

I have yet to see a non-goblin card aside from Food Chain with the level of raw power that it deserves a spot in the deck. In the existing cardpool, see no exceptions to this rule. If Ancestral Recall were red, it would be an exception; that's the power level I'm talking about here. In all likelihood, if FCG is to be changed much from its current form, it will be by the printing in future sets of goblins which provide useful effects currently not present in the deck, broken mana sources, or by the printing of a miraculously better combo card than Food Chain. I certainly think that we're bound to see more cards fitting the first category than the second or third, but time will tell. In the meanwhile, we can only work with what we've got.


Rule 4: Basic Deck Architecture

The rule: There is very little room for alteration in FCG before making it worse than it was originally.

The following is a decklist including elements which are absolutely necessary for the deck's smooth functionality. Each card will be discussed below, as will open slots.

Essential FCG

// Mana        
        5 Mountain
        4 Taiga
        4 Wooded Foothills
        4 Wasteland
        1 Strip Mine
        1 Mox Ruby
        1 Mox Emerald
        1 Black Lotus
        1 Sol Ring
        1 Mana Crypt
        2 ***                                                  
       
// Goblins
        4 Goblin Lackey
        1 Skirk Prospector
        4 Goblin Recruiter
        4 Goblin Piledriver
        2 Gempalm Incinerator
        2 Goblin Matron
        1 Goblin Sharpshooter
        3 Goblin Warchief
        4 Goblin Ringleader
        2 Siege-Gang Commander
        4 ***
       
// Combo
        4 Food Chain
       
       
Card Explanations:

In-depth explanations for individual card choices have been done to death for FCG, and are well covered in Vegeta's FCG Primer. I will be concentrating here on the reasoning behind the quantities of each card, working under the assumption that you know what they do and why they're there in at least a general sense. If you don't, I encourage you to read the official Primer.

5 Mountains
We want to keep a reasonably high basic land count, as the deck is very very mana-hungry, particularly for red. Resilience to Wasteland and other non-basic hate is a must. Going below 5 Mountains is highly unwise.

4 Taiga
A given.

4 Wooded Foothills
Also a given, although the number deserves some discussion. Unlike older aggro decks like Sligh, this deck actually doesn't benefit from the deck-thinning aspect of Fetchlands. If anything, it wants to be drawing more red sources in the early game. In the late game, Recruiter completely removes the necessity for deckthinning. Therefore, while it could support more than 4 Fetches, FCG actually only wants the bare minimum necessary for color-fixing.

Striplands
A point of great contention in the deck's infancy, it's now widely agreed that a full compliment of Striplands is an absolutely necessary inclusion in the deck. While they do in fact cause more mulligans than a Stripless build, the trade is more than worthwhile. It is really the deck's only control element, and a necessary one at that, particularly in a meta with so many Workshops. 5 is a must.

Lotus and on-color Moxen
A given. Off-color moxen are a poor choice for the deck simply because it's already running on an unstable mana base. Further removal of colored sources for colorless ones would severely harm the deck's consistency.

Sol Ring and Mana Crypt
Necessary inclusions. Help accellerate out Food Chain, Ringleader, Matron, and Rack and Ruin. Note that 2 double-colorless mana sources is just about the maximum the deck can support. Any more than this, and you'll often be taking unnecessary burn. This is due in part to the lack of synergy with Warchief, which reduces the colorless cost of nearly the entire deck. 2 double-colorless sources is ideal.

2 Open Mana Slots
Chrome Mox and Lotus Petal are almost certainly the best choices for these slots, and are the current standard. In an extremely Null Rod heavy meta, or a meta which requires you run your own Null Rods, though, you might consider running Bloodstained Mires or Mountains in their place.

4 Goblin Lackey
This shouldn't need to be said, except that I actually saw someone say in seriousness that Lackey has no place in FCG. So, just to reiterate the obvious: Lackeys. 4 of them. Removing them would be akin to removing Welders from Slaver. They are absolutely that important to the deck. If you disagree, please stop reading now, as I assure you I can't be of any help to you.

2 Skirk Prospector
This number is actually rather variable. I've seen decks run anywhere from 1 to a full 4. As long as you're running at least 1, you're well off. I strongly recommend 3-4, but 1 is the bare minimum. I've seen arguments against running any, but I can only assume that those people don't understand the synergy with Sharpshooter and SGC, allowing for a win condition not requiring the attack phase. This is yet another aspect of the deck's versatility and shouldn't be ignored.

4 Goblin Recruiter
Combo piece, as well as one of the most broken goblins ever printed. 4 is a must.

4 Goblin Piledriver
See Goblin Lackey. Piledriver is equally important to the deck's aggro strategy, and are most potent in multiples. 4 is right.

2 Gempalm Incinerator
Uncounterable creature removal that cantrips. 2 is the bare minimum. In a field with so many Welders, as well as a fair showing of fat, 3 is probably a good idea. 4 may be overkill, as Incinerators are somewhat conditional. In an extremely aggro heavy meta, 4 could be acceptable.  

2 Goblin Matron
Actually a rather large point of contention. I've seen people say that the deck shouldn't run any, as they're too slow, and I've seen people say any less than 4 is a sin. I could write an entire primer just on Matron, but I'll try to keep it to the basics. This ties in directly with what I was saying earlier about the fine balance inherent in the deck's construction. Those that argue that Matron is too slow are correct, to a degree. When in aggro mode, they are essentially an overcosted Demonic Tutor. In combo mode, with a Food Chain on the table, they are an unrestricted Time Walk. Because their role can shift so dramatically, the best road to take here is the middle ground. We don't want to be drawing multiples in the early game, so 4 is too many. They flat out win the game for you with a Food Chain on the board, though. They can also get you the exact goblin you need in the mid to late game, so we definitely want to run some. 1 is too few, 4 is definitely too many, and testing has shown that 3 is often too many. 2 appears to be the ideal number.

1 Goblin Sharpshooter
See Prospector. It's a necessary combo element for the direct damage kill condition. Additionally, it handles opposing Welders and Fishies rather handily. Especially nasty when brought into play under a Warchief. 1 is the bare minimum, because it provides excellent utility, and can be searched for via Matron or Recruiter. Because they work so well in multiples, it wouldn't be unwise to run 2-3 of them, particularly in a creature-heavy meta. We don't want to be drawing them in the early game, however, so 4 is definitely a bad idea. 1-2 will likely be the best number.

3 Goblin Warchief
3 is the minimum. Many builds run 4. They are an excellent accellerant for the deck, and we always want to see one by second or third turn. However, the double-red can at times be prohibitive, particularly when running less than 3 Prospectors. Furthermore, they aren't as useful in multiples as one might think. There are only 6 cards in the entire deck that can benefit from having more than 2 in play at the same time. I recommend 3, but 4 is reasonably common.

4 Goblin Ringleader
See Recruiter. 4 is a must.

2 Siege-Gang Commander
Part of the direct damage combo with Prospector and Sharpshooter. Also a gargantuan tempo shift when dropped via Lackey second turn. 2 is the ideal number. 4 is far too many, as its mana cost is far too prohibitive for consistent harcasting. 3 is too many for the same reason. We really only want to play them via Lackey, since they're a huge liablity when facing Mana Drain. 2 means there's a fair chance we'll get it opening draw along with a Lackey, but won't show up often enough to be truly dead. I've heard some argue that the deck should only run 1, but this is incorrect. This is because when comboing out with Food Chain, we want to use one SGC for mana generation (5 mana for SGC nets 9 under Food Chain), while we reserve the second for use in a direct damage capacity. 2 is the correct amount.

4 Open Goblin Slots
No matter how much you want to, don't put non-goblins here. It will negatively impact the deck's performance, I promise you. The only possible exception to this rule is Wheel of Fortune, but it is a liability in a meta with a lot of control, which is most of them.

Some possibilities include: 1-2 more Prospectors, a 3rd Incinerator, a 2nd Sharpshooter, a 4th Warchief, 3-4 Mogg Fanatics, or perhaps a Goblin Tinkerer or Goblin Vandal for maindeck artifact removal. It should be noted that Tinkerer and Vandal have performed rather poorly in testing.  


Rule 5: Cards NOT to Run in FCG
The rule: some cards just don't fit.

I could spend a very long time going over cards that have been suggested for inclusion in FCG, and why they didn't pan out, but it will save me a lot of time to say simply that in most cases, the Golden Rule applied: they weren't goblins. I'll take some time to go over the more reasonable suggestions:

Skullclamp
In theory, a perfectly sensible option for the deck. Certainly the deck often wants to find Food Chain as quickly as it can, and Clamp should facilitate this. To a degree it does, but the effect is not significant enough to outweigh the fact that it's not a goblin. Thorough testing has shown that the combo accelleration was minimal, but that the detriment to the aggro element was significant. One of the main problems is that FCG doesn't want to throw away its resources unless it's doing so to Food Chain for the win. Often, when Clamp was used to find Food Chain, there weren't enough remaining resources on the table to go off. In the end, the Golden Rule applies.

Gamble
See Skullclamp. While it seems like a very good idea to accellerate the combo element of the deck as much as possible, in practice it only serves to destabilize the deck. In Gamble's case, the card is often dead in the late game, since it's most useful when cast with a full hand. In order to consistently draw it in the opening hand, though, you'd have to run 4, meaning that once again, we're dropping actual threats for theoretical combo speed. Thorough testing shows it just isn't worth it. Again, a victim of the Golden Rule.

Mirri's Guile
In theory the most viable option for combo accelleration I've seen suggested. It's 1cc, and isn't nearly as conditional as Gamble. The fact that it's green is a minor drawback, but not too significant. Testing has shown that the card falls to the same fate as the others, though. In most cases I would rather have been drawing a goblin when I draw the Guile. They don't call it the Golden Rule for nothin'.

Those are the main suggestions with any validity that come to mind. As I stated earlier, I have yet to see a non-goblin card with a power level that justifies its inclusion in FCG.


Conclusion:

It is in many players' natures to want to improve upon a deck they're interested in, and to make it their own. This is in fact the source of a great many of the advances we see in many of the upper-tiered decks today. However, while it pains me to say it, I think it very unlikely that FCG can be significantly improved upon using the current cardpool. Because of its unique structure, there exist a great many limitations on viable alterations to FCG. The available goblin choices have been picked apart so thoroughly that I'm certain that those options have been explored to the point of exhaustion.

Barring the discovery of a combo piece that does what Food Chain does but faster or more efficiently, I see essentially no room for improvement of the deck at this time. Beyond perhaps minor tweaks to the manabase or to a few goblin choices, it is likely that the deck is currently at its most optimal. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I encourage people to continue looking for new ways to improve the deck, using the rules above as a guide.

During the course of development on the current "optimal" FCG list, I actually tested Gamble in FCG in an effort to build a combo-centric version of the deck. The resulting problems were numerous, and you've actually alluded to the two main conflicts in your own posts:

1. Running 4 Gambles lowers your goblin density significantly enough that it causes noticable detriment to your aggro strategy.

2. Gamble is only really good played first turn. Running any less than 4 means this will happen occasionally at best. We're talking very very basic deckbuilding strategy here: if you want to regularly see a card in your opening draw, you have to run 4 copies of it.

As you can see, the solution to one problem exacerbates the other, and vice-versa. Gamble is a poor choice for FCG in any number. The general concensus here is correct: if you want to beat combo, do it with your sideboard.

Incidentally, the age-old rule holds fast: Gamble isn't a goblin and it isn't Food Chain, so it has no place in FCG. I eagerly await the day that a card is sufficiently powerful enough to break this rule, but for the time being it remains true without exception.

I'll throw in my two cents here with regards to Skullclamp. When the card was first released, I tested it extensively in FCG. I'm hearing some people say the deck absolutely doesn't need more draw, and others say it absolutely does in order to find Food Chain more consistently. Neither side is strictly correct.

In theory, the deck does want more ways to find Food Chain for a faster combo kill. In practice, Skullclamp does not provide this ability. Vegeta's comments about not wanting to sacrifice resources that cannot be immediately replaced is correct. FCG needs to reserve its resources to sac to Food Chain. If it burns them up looking for Food Chain, it has nothing to do with the Chain once it finds it. Furthermore, and most importantly, Clamp takes up slots that could otherwise be goblins. You'll hear myself and Vegeta and Wuaffiliate and various other people who originally developed the deck for Type 1 say the following over and over again: "If it's not a goblin, and it's not Food Chain, it doesn't belong in FCG." Extensive testing proved that this adage remains accurate with regards to Skullclamp.

However, Skullclamp did provide an unexpected benefit in testing - one which deserves mention. It made the deck stronger against control decks by providing 4 more turn 1 bombs (in addition to Lackeys). One of FCG's bigger problems against control has always been that its card advantage engine costs 4 to play, making it a big Drain target. Skullclamp provides similar utility, but in a much less risky package. That being the case, I set out to build a GobVantage variant that would be specifically tailored to beat a control-heavy meta. The result was a deck called ClampVantage.

ClampVantage is a mono-red variant that drops Food Chains for Clamps, and runs a higher compliment of direct damage goblins (4 Fanatics, 3 SGC, 3 Sharpshooter). Note that the high Sharpshooter count is due to their extremely strong synergy with Skullclamp. Because it's mono-colored, the deck has a more stable manabase, and is more consistent than FCG. It has more first turn threats, making its game against control a much stronger one. However, it lacks FCG's combo kill, which means it loses speed. It also loses green utility from the sideboard.

I wouldn't say that either deck is definitely superior to the other. Testing with ClampVantage has shown that it's extremely robust and versatile. In a control-filled meta it is quite possibly the better deck. In a diverse meta, FCG remains the unquestionably better choice.

For reference, the ClampVantage decklist (now a few months old):

//ClampVantage

// Mana
        13 Mountain
        1 Mox Ruby
        1 Chrome Mox
        1 Black Lotus
        1 Mana Crypt
        1 Sol Ring
        1 Strip Mine
        4 Wasteland

// Goblins
        4 Goblin Lackey
        4 Skirk Prospector
        4 Mogg Fanatic
        4 Goblin Piledriver
        4 Goblin Recruiter
        3 Goblin Sharpshooter
        3 Goblin Warchief
        4 Goblin Ringleader
        3 Siege-Gang Commander

// Draw
        4 Skullclamp

// Sideboard
SB:  4 Red Elemental Blast
SB:  4 Rack and Ruin
SB:  3 Blood Moon
SB:  4 Tormod's Crypt

Yes, REB really helps the Landstill matchup. Much much moreso than Pyrokinesis. It stops FoW, Drain, Standstill, Response, and kills Conclaves. Landstill's only available blockers first turn are going to be Factories, which are removed much more efficently via Wasteland. What you really want is a way to slow their control elements long enough for your goblins to do their job. REB is priceless in this regard.

Aside from REB, many feel that Blood Moon is another good choice against Landstill, but after a great deal of testing I've found this not to be the case. The reason that this is so is because it is easily removed via BEB or Chain of Vapors (requiring only a single blue) or a Disk (requiring only colorless). Due to its 3cc, it's also exceedingly difficult to resolve in the first place, and is a big Drain target. Moon is a speed bump at best and a liability at worst in this matchup.

From my experience, a combination of 4 REB backed by 3-4 cheap artifact removal cards (Oxidize, Mogg Salvage, etc.) for removing Disks and Factories is by far the best strategy for winning this matchup. Incidentally, Oxidize and Salvage both provide blocker removal, but without the card disadvantage, and they can remove Disk, which is by far the biggest threat Landstill has in the MD for FCG. In the side, Chill is an equally potent threat, but is answerable with REB.

With regards to the second Sharpshooter, it simply makes the first one twice as potent. As for needing a Prospector to be truly effective, this isn't entirely true, particularly if you have multiple Sharpshooters in play. You'll notice I also suggested upping the Propector count to 3, so you're much more likely to draw one early either way.

Wu and I definitely agree on the Matron issue - they're simply too expensive and slow (even with accelleration) to be included as a 4-of. Yes, they occasionally speed up the combo or find you just what you need when you need it, and that's why there are two of them. Along with Recruiters, you have 6 ways to search out the exact tools you need. Extensive testing has proven that this is enough. Other times, Matron costs you a turn when you'd rather be drawing an actual threat, and is a substantial Drain target. Two Matrons is the ideal number.

I was about to say some things, but then Wu said them first. I'll add to that that it wouldn't be a bad idea to find room for a second Sharpshooter also. They work exceedingly well in pairs, and make the direct damage win condition a lot more viable.

From the above list I'd cut 2 Matrons for a Sharpshooter and a Prospector. I'd probably also replace the 4x Pyrokinesis in the board with 4x REB, because Pyrokinesis is essentially for aggro, which FCG already applies massive beats to. Control, on the other hand, can be a bit more difficult. REB goes a long way there.

Congrats on the split.

Actually, I've been running 6 Fetches in FCG for a long time. It's true that 4 Fetches often don't provide the green sources when you need them most. I think 7 may be going a little too far, though. The reason for this is that FCG, unlike Sligh for example, doesn't actually want the deckthinning provided by Fetches. Its curve is set up in such a way that it can and does utilize the mana it draws in the late game. Additionally, it has the best deckthinning available in Recruiter. Thus the key with FCG's manabase is to find the best balance of green providers, with the least amount of deckthinners. 6 appears to be about right.

Rice is right on the money with most points, but I'll throw in my 2 cents:

1. 4 Incinerators is a questionable move. They're completely dead in a lot of matchups, and don't always perform the task they're included for. They can be very effective though, so 1-2 MD is a must. If you're in an extremely Welder heavy meta, I'd run 2 or more Fanatics before running Incinerators 3-4, because they're never dead draws, provide an additional turn 1 drop, and always perform the function for which they're intended.

2. True.

3. 4 Drivers are most certainly a must. 4 Warchiefs are not. 3 are a must, and depending on your manabase 4 can be a good choice, but is definitely not mandatory. Because of the number of off-red accellerants the deck is running, the double-red in Warchief's cost can be prohibitive. Their cost-reducing effect can become redundant and unnecessary, particularly in multiples. In the case of Sol Ring and Mana Crypt, they can even become detrimental. You definitely want to get one early on, but you don't necessarily want to draw several, so 4 isn't always the right answer. 3 is definitely mandatory, though.

4. I disagree. The color-smoothing they provide is indispensable. The added accelleration and additional turn 1 drops are a big plus. They also facilitate the alternative instant-speed direct damage win with Sharpshooter/SGC, should your opponent have pesky hinderances like Moat, Fog effects, 5D's Silent Arbiter, etc. At least 2 is mandatory, preferably 3-4.

5. Yup.

6. The deck packs a whole lot of ways to resolve Moon on turn 1 or 2, before your opponent gets Drain mana online. You're right that it's another counter target - a must counter in fact. That certainly doesn't seem like a bad thing. The more threats the deck packs that absolutely require control to answer it the better. I'll agree that it's a metagame choice, though. Decks like Landstill and Fish tend to be rather displeased by Moon, but the prevalence of artifact accelleration in a lot of other decks may blunt its effectiveness in some metas.

7. Again, a meta choice. Rod is better for beating pure combo like Draw7 and 2 Land Belcher, where R&R and AM are better for the Slaver matchups.

8. Too costly to be viable, in my opinion. He's great if you can drop him with Lackey, but otherwise he's a real liability against control. I'd run a second Sharpshooter over him.

jp, are you asking that with regards to Rancor? If so, I agree completely. There's MD removal aplenty for forcing through your attackers.

If you're asking the question with regards to Landstill though, it just never gets that far. Sharpshooter never stays on the board long enough to do any real damage, SGC almost never resolves, and Incinerator often doesn't have enough goblins on the board to do the job. Even if it does, there are usually only 2-3 in most builds, which isn't enough to finish the job.

I actually tried Rancor in FCG for awhile, because its synergy with Lackey and Piledriver is undeniable. However, the bottom line is that Rancor isn't a goblin, and therefore lowers the synergy of the rest of the deck. More importantly, the amount of early blockers in Type 1 is so low that it hardly justifies including 3 non-goblins to get around them. I suppose in an aggro-heavy meta they might be a good call, but in most metas I think they are probably best left out.

As for the off-color moxen, I'm wary of their inclusion. I disagree with the statement that this deck isn't red-hungry. It is in fact very red hungry. First, colorless mana has pretty poor synergy with Warchief. Also, it's unsafe to assume that you'll always have Food Chain for color smoothing. In fact, if you do have a resolved Food Chain, you've probably already won the game.

As an example of a time when it's very important to have multiple red sources: It's all too common to play Recruiter without a Food Chain in play. The most common stack for this circumstance would be: Ringleader, Warchief, Piledriver, Piledriver, Piledriver. Now, once that Warchief hits the table, the thing you most want is 3 red sources to get all of those Piledrivers in play and attacking on the same turn. Incidentally, this is another reason Rancor isn't all that necessary. They may be able to chump block one lethal Piledriver, but 3 tend to make that a lot more difficult.

To answer your last question about FCG's worst matchup: While I agree that Control Slaver is a real pain, I wouldn't say it's the deck's worst matchup. First, you're going to want to side out the cards in your deck that Slaver can really use against you. Specifically, Prospector and Food Chain. With that many open slots, you've got plenty of room for extreme hate, and your board options are actually rather good here: REB, Pyroblast, Naturalize, Artifact Mutation, Rack and Ruin, Mogg Salvage and Null Rod all come to mind.

In my experience, by far the deck's most difficult matchup is Landstill. Near every card in the deck is hate for FCG. 8-12 spot removal cards (including Fire/Ice which is often 2-for-1), 3-4 Stifle (which affects nearly every key play in your deck), 8 countermagic, Nev's Disk, Standstill, and manlands as blockers all make this matchup a nightmare. Note that I've just listed nearly every card in Landstill. You'd be lucky to win 9 out of 10 games against Landstill with FCG.

What's worse, your game doesn't get much better after board. Sure, you get REB and maybe Naturalize, but they get Chill. So the match actually gets worse for you post board. Contrary to popular belief, Blood Moon actually does very little for you in this matchup, as Landstill tends to run a reasonable amount of basic Islands, and they can use either Chain of Vapor or Nev's Disk to get rid of it. If anything, it's just a difficult-to-resolve speed bump.

I have yet to see a worse matchup for FCG than Landstill.

While I can appreciate any attempts to innovate FCG, as I worked closely with Vegeta to optimize the archetype, I feel as though some of your conclusions may be questionable. I myself did some heavy testing with the notion of taking the deck in a less aggro, more combo-oriented direction. This involved dropping Wastelands for better mana consistency, going to 4 Matrons for tutoring for combo pieces, and running Gamble as search for Food Chain.

After extensive testing with various builds working in this direction, I came to the conclusion that these changes made the deck significantly weaker overall.

First, Gamble is simply too inconsistent to be viable. Too often you get rid of one of your important combo pieces after its use. Because the combo requires Food Chain, Ringleader, and Recruiter or Matron in hand to go off, there's a high chance that Gamble may cause you to discard one of your key pieces.

Second, by cutting slots for Gambles and MD hate, the deck's overall synergy drops significantly. One of the deck's inherent strengths is that nearly two thirds of the deck are goblins, all of which have excellent synergy with one another.

Third, by dropping Prospectors and Sharpshooters, you lose the ability to kill your opponent via direct damage, should your ability to attack be restricted in some way (Spore Frog, Moat, whatever). It's also an excellent way to respond to mass creature removal like Starstorm after you've comboed off and all your threats are on the table. This secondary kill method is part of what makes the deck so versatile.

Fourth, Bloodmoon has terrible synergy with Food Chain. A single MD Forest and 4 ESG's has not proven to be enough to counter this lack of synergy. While I agree that Blood Moon can be an absolute house against certain decks, it effectively slows the combo overall, and makes it less reliable. It belongs in the board, especially if your intention is to go with a pure combo build.

Fifth, by removing Lackey, you're removing the deck's number one way to beat Control. This is not an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination. Lackey wins more games against control than Blood Moon, Wasteland, Chalice of the Void, REB, and Xantid Swarm combined. Which leads me to the most important point of all:

Sixth, the fundamental reason why this deck is so viable is that it has a way to win if its combo is disrupted. Not only does it have a secondary way to win, but it's a really, really, REALLY good way to win. Removing the aggro backup to the deck is in essence removing the most important reason for its viability. The aggro backup basically allows you to ignore combo disruption - an option not available to pure combo decks like Dragon, Draw7, 2-Land Belcher, etc.

In many respects, it's better not to think of FCG as a combo deck, but rather as an aggro deck with a really potent combo backup.

The way I look at it is this: If you're running FCG, you should run 4 Chains MD. No exceptions. They can be sided out in Slaver matchups. If you're really that inclined to run less than 4, then a mono-red GobVantage variant like Clampvantage could be a better option.

Clampvantage is a build I created a couple months back, with specifically the control/prison matchups in mind. The deck linked here is a 1.5 build, but it's very easily transferred to Type 1. It has a more stable manabase, and no way to kill itself via Mindslaver. (It also runs 3 SGC's and no Matrons. Rejoice.) Look towards the middle of page 1 for the current decklist.

It doesn't have the raw combo speed that FCG does, but it's more stable and much stronger against control and prison, so it might be ideal for your meta.

The logic presented here makes very little sense, Lord. You're suggesting that one of the most powerful cards in the deck should be moved to the SB in order to improve a single matchup. Have you considered that perhaps playing with the Chains MD and siding them out for that one matchup might be the more logical conclusion?

Vegeta's right - if you could you'd want to be running 5 Food Chains MD. Hell, I'd run 8 if I could. Matron is an important aspect of this combo, and should stay MD as well. 2 is usually about the right number, and tends to smooth the consistency and speed of your combo. My guess is that you're not finding them very useful because you're not concentrating very much on the combo aspect of the deck.

Bottom line: the deck does well because it has a strong combo element which improves its matchups against a myriad of decks in the field. Against the decks which the combo is NOT useful (like Slaver) you simply side out Food Chain for Artifact Mutation, Rack and Ruin, or the super-techy Mogg Salvage. If you're in a meta chalk full of Slaver builds, why not just go with the stronger manabase and run mono-red Seething GobVantage? The only reason to be running green in FCG is for Food Chain, and you most certainly want 4 of them. Moving them to the board is backward logic. You simply keep them main and side them out when they're a liability.