[Eastman's Deck] My Remora Vault deck/blog

[Rico Suave]

 Bob punishes them for doing nothing, but the deck already wants its opponent to do nothing.

If these things are true, wouldn't it be a win win scenario?

I want you to do nothing, and I punish you for doing exactly what I want you to do.  This seems decent, in theory at least.

Let me put it this way, does *any* control deck have trouble winning when the opponent does nothing?  

My point is if the opponent decides to play into the Remora, Bob is terrible.  Bob is terrible because it doesn't do anything by itself; it needs time to develop, and time is something we don't have if the opponent is playing into the Remora.  Not only will Bob be terrible, but Remora will be terrible too because it's drawing a bunch of dead cards.

This is something that didn't occur to me until I sat down and played it, and I'd prefer not to just discuss the theory of it but rather see if other people's experiences are similar or different from mine.

[Diakonov]

My point is if the opponent decides to play into the Remora, Bob is terrible.  Bob is terrible because it doesn't do anything by itself; it needs time to develop, and time is something we don't have if the opponent is playing into the Remora.  Not only will Bob be terrible, but Remora will be terrible too because it's drawing a bunch of dead cards.

I don't understand this exactly.  What do you mean by a bunch of dead cards?  The Remoras and Confidants?  I really doubt that drawing one Remora or Confidant out of ten cards is going to mess you up all that much.  Also, I prefer to play with two Sensei's Tops, and between that and fetches you can often just dodge them.

In my experience, it is incredibly difficult for an opponent to play into Remora.  Once they commit to playing into it, they really need to commit 100% (save for plays like casting a single Thoughtseize, perhaps), and if they don't pull off something amazing that turn, the game is generally over once you untap.  That's not to say it's impossible to win through it; just very, very hard.

[Cyberpunker]

I don't see any contradiction between running both Remora and Confidant.

Confidant draws you cards unless they do something. And Remora draws you cards when they do something.

Great synergy!

[vassago]

Let me put it this way, does *any* control deck have trouble winning when the opponent does nothing?  

This doesn't say anything really. Don't take this the wrong way, but No way? Really? Last time I checked, when I gold fish I like to pretend I win, for the most part anyway.  When you say this, it seems as if you are trying to prove your point by relating it to some unrealistic hypothetical scenario. Do you honestly believe that they would actually do nothing? My question, just like yours, is also rhetorical.

My point is if the opponent decides to play into the Remora, Bob is terrible.  Bob is terrible because it doesn't do anything by itself; it needs time to develop, and time is something we don't have if the opponent is playing into the Remora.  Not only will Bob be terrible, but Remora will be terrible too because it's drawing a bunch of dead cards.

I get your point. It's quite obvious actually. It's synonymous to saying how Force of Will can technically be considered card disadvantage. Does that make it bad? Who knows? Let us not get hung up on my analogy because it's slightly irrelevant and to go off into a tangent over it would confuse the thread. So, yes it may be true that if you do draw a Bob, or a Remora, in this instance, that it might not be good enough to deal with whatever they are playing in that specific moment, but that doesn't go as far as to prove that the inclusion of both is bad. I mean to be fair, we could say the same thing about all those moxen or lands, which by the way there are a lot more of them you'll be drawing in these moments. I digress from the point that this isn't enough to convince me that I should, if I chose to play this, play another card instead of Dark Confidant.

...I'd prefer not to just discuss the theory of it but rather see if other people's experiences are similar or different from mine.

I did this tonight before I saw your reply. I actually sleeved up a version of this deck and I will share some of my experiences that I had. First, let it be know that I only got to play 5 games against a Tez deck.  I won all 5 of them.

I unfortunately never got to play a Bob while Remora was out in the early game. Interestingly enough, Remora, in one game, stopped him from playing anything for two turns and when I had three mana, I could play Bob with a spell pierce back up. In other words, it slowed the game down long enough for me to develope mana so I could get a real threat on the table and continue drawing extra cards.  Real threats is a significant concern, in my opinion, for this deck as it seems as though two blue decks playing "draw go" for a while might not add up in your favor.  

The only other game where any significant plays that happened in relation to this discussion was a game where I landed turn one Bob. Second or third Bob trigger gives me a Remora which I play. He played into it which Gave me mana Force and a Demonic. Won me the game.

To summarize, I actually liked the two cards together. Remora seems like a good lead into Bob.  However, this is barely enough to say for certain whether or not it is good.  

I didn't care for timetwister. Got it three of those games, twice pitched it to Force of Will and the third time I really wished it was Ponder.  

[Bill Copes]

I've played Bob and Remora in the same deck and did awesome with it.

I only played 2 Bobs, so that I probably wouldn't draw into more than one of them during a game.  The logic behind including them was that I wanted to play something that the opponent considered a threat while Remora was online, but that I could also play early, independently, for a small mana investment.  This could have been Night's whisper or a slew of other cards, but I went with Bobs as they are a nice lead in for Tendrils, they actually do something in a deck that draws things out over consecutive turns, and they can be walls in rare instances.  I considered this deck more as a tendrils control deck than a valut + key deck, even though it ran both.  Every swing with Bob is one less storm you need to win.

I never took notes for the day, so I can't remember specific match details, but there were a games where I had both online at the same time.  I know I won those games because of this. In the heavily occurring instances that hands get burned early in order to stop each others' plays,  landing a Remora/Bob and following it up with the other is backbreaking.  The virtual turn advantage of Remora perfectly complements the extra-card-per-turn advantage of Bob.  It creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of scenario -- an anaconda that tightens tremendously over 2 turns.

Another small, obvious point is that Bob's extra card draws help you find the sources to keep feeding Remora.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Bob is also a counter strategy against other remoras.

[Delha]

I wouldn't say that it's win more.  Remora isn't a win condition, but a pseudo lock piece.  So, why wouldn't it make sense to have a threat and piece of disruption out at the same time?

I can certainly see the logic of this and the other responses, but I saw it differently.

The analogy I would make is that Remora is like Manabarbs. It makes the opponent not want to play spells. From there, Bob is like Power Surge, he makes the opponent want to play aggressively.

When you have just Manabarbs, you force them into slowing down their game. Once you have Surge down as well, you create a Catch-22, and they simply play as if you had no disruption on the board at all. Yes, they are taking damage from Manabarbs, but you have removed the incentive for them to play around it.

The analogy obviously isn't perfect. Drawing a card is obviously much better than dealing 1 damage to the opponent, for a start. I think it does a reasonable job of illustrating the principle though.

[Grand Inquisitor]

The analogy obviously isn't perfect

I think it's great.  Also, referencing Mana Barbs and Power Surge should be grounds for Adept status.

Strategically it also clarifies the next level consideration: once the opponent is forced into action are you prepared to deal with it?  To what extent, as other posters have raised, do you end up drawing into draw (instead of answers/the win)?  It seems this could only be answered through testing.

[hitman]

The analogy I would make is that Remora is like Manabarbs. It makes the opponent not want to play spells. From there, Bob is like Power Surge, he makes the opponent want to play aggressively.

When you have just Manabarbs, you force them into slowing down their game. Once you have Surge down as well, you create a Catch-22, and they simply play as if you had no disruption on the board at all. Yes, they are taking damage from Manabarbs, but you have removed the incentive for them to play around it.

When are you playing Confidant?  If you're playing it on turn two you've tapped out and are drawing to some number of Force of Wills.  The chance of drawing a single Force of Will is about 6.6 percent.  If they have a threat and Force, your Force is blanked.  If you tapped out on turn two to play Confidant with a Mox, you don't even have Spell Pierce up.  With the slim odds of having Force of Will and the increased likelihood of "dead" draws in a situation where you want to interact with an opponent, you have poor expectation. 

Vintage decks do things from very early on.  Your opponent is just as likely as you to have Force of Will in his opening hand.  With the slim odds of drawing into an additional Force of Will being about 6.6 percent and not having any other mana to use your other countermagic, what is the point?  If you do nothing until turn four, you've lost a lot of opportunity because if a capable player who knows your odds of drawing into Force of Will plays appropriately aggressive relative to his hand, you haven't gained anything.  If your opponent plays unnecessarily cautious into your Remora early, then you might gain something if you have additional countermagic, Remora and Confidant.  You're looking at a three card interaction that doesn't outright win the game and doesn't really guarantee your opponent doesn't win the game, although you're probably in pretty good shape at that point.  However, the number of cards needed and the time required to get there are too long in a regular game of Vintage.

Granted, I'm assuming we're talking about blue mirrors.  Your expectation is even worse against Workshop, Fish or Dredge decks.  I agree with what Rico Sauve has previously said because when played correctly, blue Vintage decks just play more aggressively when you tap out and have slim odds to interact adequately.  You gain a lot when playing against timid blue players but who doesn't gain a lot with largely any configuration of cards when playing against timid blue players?  All the arguments I've seen to support the interaction of Remora and Confidant bank on the accumulation of cards over several turns and their corresponding dominance from that point on to the endgame but Vintage decks don't just give you the early game because you played a Remora and don't just give you the endgame because you played a Confidant.

I think this is why players largely gravitate back to Mana Drain in the end.  Three card synergies are ultimately just cute interactions and not as powerful as just not tapping out and interacting normally with an opponent.  If you're playing against weaker players who are too cautious though, these kinds of interactions can be a particularly powerful strategy.

[Delha]

That's weird, I posted a response here, but it didn't seem to stick.

The analogy obviously isn't perfect

I think it's great.  Also, referencing Mana Barbs and Power Surge should be grounds for Adept status.

Hahaha, thanks!

I may or may not have been speaking from personal experience gleaned back in '96 or so.

Strategically it also clarifies the next level consideration: once the opponent is forced into action are you prepared to deal with it?  To what extent, as other posters have raised, do you end up drawing into draw (instead of answers/the win)?  It seems this could only be answered through testing.

I remember someone pointing out that Remora is a lot less intimidating in Tezz than in Shaymora. Feeding cards to an opponent with FoW sucks. Feeding cards to an opponent with FoW AND Commandeer is terrifying.

Also, it was brought up that Drain-based control decks aren't the best at leveraging the advantage of a Remora. IMHO, a storm combo pilot with 12 cards in hand is a lot scarier than a drain pilot with the same. You're much more likely to get another turn when facing down the latter, and thereby have a shot at recovering (though admittedly slim). The former is probably a straight up blowout.

[Grand Inquisitor]

You gain a lot when playing against timid blue players but who doesn't

This is exactly why I gave up on MD remora builds.  Also, in a remora mirror, it's whoever drops the 2nd remora that wins.

[Cyberpunker]

I am curious to know your responses:

In a control mirror, I usually wait the first Remora out. They draw and put down lands. I draw and put down lands. Eventually they will be forced to sacrifice or bounce their own Remora. Then I play some spells. The 2nd Remora resolves and I play into that one.

I don't understand how waiting the first Remora out in the control mirror is bad. You both benefit from developing your mana base and you both accumulate your cards. The effect is symmetrical except he taps his lands.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

I don't understand how waiting the first Remora out in the control mirror is bad. You both benefit from developing your mana base and you both accumulate your cards. The effect is symmetrical except he taps his lands.

This is assuming that your opponent does nothing while having Remora in play.  Ideally, your opponent will be casting spells while you fall behind, unless you play into it.

[Cyberpunker]

I don't understand how waiting the first Remora out in the control mirror is bad. You both benefit from developing your mana base and you both accumulate your cards. The effect is symmetrical except he taps his lands.

This is assuming that your opponent does nothing while having Remora in play.  Ideally, your opponent will be casting spells while you fall behind, unless you play into it.

True, usually though, the tapped mana takes away a lot of the opponent's mana.

[Grand Inquisitor]

True, usually though, the tapped mana takes away a lot of the opponent's mana.

I'd say this is only true about 1/3 - 1/4 the time.  The relevant scenarios for the remora player are:

1) Mana to support remora or no
2) Gas or no
3) FoW/Spierce/Duress or no

For the opponent the relevant scenarios are:

A) Has land drops and/or can get to 4 mana to play spells/moxen or no
B) Has bob or other pass-through threat or no
C) Has FoW/other backup for the gambit or no

It should be obvious from here how and when each player succeeds.  My experience in tournaments has been that remora players are beholden to the stats behind 1, 2, 3.  Certainly good bluffers can affect their opponent's play and create tilt.  Still, the opponent tends to have more autonomy to leverage A and C with playskill or build for B if they know they have a remora rich metagame.

2c

[median]

I don't understand how waiting the first Remora out in the control mirror is bad. You both benefit from developing your mana base and you both accumulate your cards. The effect is symmetrical except he taps his lands.

This is assuming that your opponent does nothing while having Remora in play.  Ideally, your opponent will be casting spells while you fall behind, unless you play into it.

True, usually though, the tapped mana takes away a lot of the opponent's mana.

My experience is that remora is fairly symmetrical in the drain mirror until it gets bounced or replaced. After that happens the remora player can usually leverage their increased mana quite easily and have little problems in the stalemate. The remora player will also have a stronger manabase with moxen and colourless accelerants, while their opponent give the remora player cards for each moxen they play.
I don't think waiting it out is a good strategy against remora unless you expect the second remora not to stick. Mainly because you've both spent four turns developing your mana base, and now only one can use it.