Keeper decks decrease LD elements

[Zherbus]

It is the single most dividing aspect of posting and reading posts on the internet. Metagame differences from region to region. I just don't see the metagame where Miner can be good in Keeper, even in NG.

Miner is weaker now than it was a year ago. Keeper runs more spot removal maindeck in the form of Cunning Wish, and keeps that in the SB when it used to just side it all out (Yes, I know Wish takes 3 on top of the spell, but Miner takes 3 to get working as well). Also look at how many Keepers are packing Teferi's Response in the board or even maindeck. Once you factor this all in to the equation, Miner just seems a whole lot weaker than its worth. Also, I think it worked so well in Legend Purple since you really can run it redundantly and protect it better with counters than a Keeper deck would.

For the record, I play against Keeper decks that STILL to this day pack Miners in the SB and I can still win the matchup. If it's not enough of a hoser, then I personally can't see leaving out much needed slots you need against other hard matchups.

Mastering your metagame is ideal, but how many metagames become stagnant enough to be predictable? I don't have the luxery of playing against the same decks week after week. I move from tourny to tourny and even at the same environments, the metagame will switch.

Remember that Keeper is flexible. All things that are flexible can stretch themselves thin. To prevent this in an aggro metagame, it is perfectly acceptable to go balls out on white and add multiple STP and Moat. In an environment full of Keeper, you say running Miners will be your way of dealing with it, and I will respectfully disagree.

There is tech that deals with bad Keeper players and there is tech that deals with good Keeper players. At the risk of stroking myself a bit too hard here, I have to say Miner works against less experienced Keeper players I have seen and it hasn't worked on me and other Keeper players I know to be very skilled. I ran it up until this summer sometime, and I personally feel the whole time it was a wasted pair of slots.

Assuming I am right, and it only works on bad Keeper players, do you really need it? I would say no. If I am wrong and its working against the best Keeper players you have run into, then keep on rocking with it. If its not broken, why fix it?

[leviat]

I don't play Keeper that often and when I do play I like the Paragon Keeper version so I guess you can take my post with a grain of salt, but anyways.

How can you say that Keeper needs to focus on Land Destruction? It seems to me that this almost negates the point to running Keeper. Keeper is a control deck, not a disruption deck. Purposely trying to attack the manabase not only seems out of place, but it seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Keeper is about having an answer to your problem. While I can see the obvious strategy behind land destruction your really only slowing them down, and Keeper is not really designed to "race" your opponent. When you include the new fetchlands into this equation I don't see how a creature like Dwarven Miner can really even keep up the tempo.

Don't misunderstand me, I think that Dwarven Miner can be some nice "tech" against 5-color control, but that doesn't mean Keeper should focus on land destruction. (Plus you might just be setting yourself up for a Balance).

I think your also disregarding the fact that something like Miner cannot attack and destroy at the same type like Mox Monkey can; It also dies to your own Abyss.

Besides, if land destruction were the key to winning in your metagame, then why wouldn't you play some kind of B/R land-d deck? Something more focused on lands than one or two Dwarven Blastminers is going to be more effective.

As a side note, I consider the Binghamton metagame to be very competitive and focusing on non-basic land destruction just isn't going to help that much. About the only deck I don't see is Nether Void and with the influx of BtB and BloodMoons, I'm pretty sure most Meta's have adapted to non-basic hate similar to ours.

[PsychoCid]

Well, even back in the day, the point was not so much to *focus* on the LD aspect, but to slowly squeeze it away, like a boa constrictor and its rodent prey.

I really think the addition of Dust Bowl brought us back to that, without sacrificing too much speed (as compared to Wasteland) and without putting excess focus on nuking your opponents mana sources.

[Legend]

Right, I think FOCUSING on LD is overkill, but I really believe that packing a couple of Dwarven Miners in the sideboard is a good idea, because it is truly amazing in the mirror match. I like Dwarven Miner better than Dust Bowl for two reasons: because it can be protected with countermagic, and because it requires no sacrifice of your own resources, merely the expenditure of three mana at the end of each of your opponent's turns. Look, I don't play Keeper, but I do know Keeper. One thing I still believe is that the best way to beat Keeper is by attacking its manabase, or taking advantage of its mana needs in some way. This possibility can be exploited in the mirror match, just as it can be capitalized upon by a Sligh deck or a Suicide deck. Miner is a big edge in the mirror. I am pro-Miner.\n\n

[Azhrei]

I just want to clarify something: I am not opposed to using Dwarven Miner in Keeper as a card for the mirror match. As such, it's very good.

HOWEVER, I think that with the abundance of other significant threats, devoting two slots in the sideboard to cards that are *only* good in one matchup (let's be reasonable and at least grant me that Miner is good against Keeper and not a whole lot else) is not as good as having cards that are good in SEVERAL matchups. REB is good against a bunch of stuff, as is Plow or Keg or Skeletal Scrying. I'll admit the CoP: Red counter-point right here and refute it by saying that PoP is a big enough beating to warrant it.

My argument is essentially that given the fact that so many decks are threats to Keeper, the intelligence of using cards specifically devoted to the mirror match is a good way to have trouble against Mask, or TnT, or Sligh, or Suicide, or Mono-Blue, especially when those two slots could have been better spent on either generic anti-control cards or generic anti-aggro cards.

So, in summation, Dwarven Miners are too specialized to warrant seeing play in most metagames. If they work for you where you are, more power to you-- I use Tsabo's Web, remember? I do, however, know that Web is too specialized to ever consider using anywhere else or in an unfamiliar metagame.

I will bow out of this discussion by saying two things:

1) When I talk, I always talk in terms of the theoretical best possible version of a deck, and rarely if ever in terms of my local metagame. This is why no matter how good it might be for me at my next tournament, you won't hear me saying that Keeper should maindeck two Composts. Those are metagame decisions, but have no bearing on deck theory for an unfamiliar metagame (by which I mean a tournament with a range of decks of varying power curves with many different archtypes represented; CoP: Red is the worst maindeck call in the world if there is no Sligh deck at the tournament, but Sligh is something you should normally expect to see IN GENERAL).

I think that the best way to build a deck is to arrive at the best possible version given what is *possible* to exist in the field, and then to tweak it according to what you expect to *actually* see. For example, maindecking Price of Progress in Sligh is taken to be a good idea based on what you can possibly see in T1 (a lot of dual lands), but if you were in a field of all mono-colored decks then Price of Progress, as good as it is *in theory*, might not even make the sideboard that day. I find that to be the best way to approach deckbuilding.

2) No one running Dwarven Miner in their Keeper deck nor anyone advocating running them as a standard choice will ever be listened to ever again should they say that Keeper has huge issues against aggro.

[Legend]

Yeah, Dwarven Miner is only good against the mirror.

So what? The mirror match is important. There are plenty of slots left to deal with aggro, even if you play two Miners in the board. I'm not buying this argument that using Miners will occupy valuable slots. You still have plenty of room for Plows, Kegs, COPs and whatever else you need. Miner has a narrow role to play, and it is great in that role. Hey, that's enough for me to justify its use since that narrow role happens to be so important. That is all I have to say about that.\n\n

[cooberp]

I think this is Legend's plot to get Keeper run fewer Kegs and CoP's against Ankh Sligh.

[Legend]

Curses, my evil plot for global domination of Vintage has been uncovered.

[FeverDog]

Look, its pretty simple, i believe everyone basically agrees that Miner is only good in the mirror. The question is whether or not Keeper takes up enough of your metagame to warrant siding Miners. In my area, there are a total of 2 fully-powered Keeper decks, so i obviously would never side Miners. However, NG and other areas are notorious for their amount of Keeper, in which case siding Miners can be a great call. I dont know what the argument is about, because it seems most of us agree on this point.

[Milton]

Looks like everyone agrees.  Miner is a metagame call.

But, we still have this:

Quote 2) No one running Dwarven Miner in their Keeper deck nor anyone advocating running them as a standard choice will ever be listened to ever again should they say that Keeper has huge issues against aggro.

So, basically agreeing with me, that it's a metagame call, Azhrei had to throw this in.  And I thought we were having a productive discussion!

I take solace in the fact that you guys won't listen to us guys anyway!    

My response: anyone posting an "optimal Keeper" deck that includes a maindeck COP Red shouldn't be listened to.   \n\n

[Zherbus]

What 'we' agreed on (and I still don't think Miner is at all worth it, but that is summarized nicely in previous posts) is that Miner is good against Keeper. You also agreed that in a Keeper heavy environment it is a good sideboard choice.

What Azhrei is saying is if you are losing to aggro, then you need to re-examine those sideboard slots. Can you beat a Keeper mirror without Miner? Absolutely. Can you beat aggro without having those slots open to you? Apparently some people are having problems in this area.

My answer, and Azhrei's, is that to handle the other decks, you need to rely on skill in the mirror. Wasting slots that can be used to beat the other trouble matchups could be very well the reason you lose to these other matchups.

I'm not trying to be condecending here, but here is the simple formula in my eyes.

* Keeper NEEDS X number of slots in the sideboard to deal with hard matchups in general. My reasoning is that there are many matchups that Keeper will typically lose game 1. Sligh and Masknought are great examples of bad game 1's.

* Keeper only NEEDS to get rid of dead cards in the mirror. The rest can be done by outplaying the opponent.

* Keeper has a limited number of slots to devote to all the matchups that can prove troublesome. In my sideboard, I have what I need to deal with Sligh, Suicide, TnT, Gro, BBS, URPhidian, and Mask. I have the room for these slots because anything I can bring in against Keeper, I can bring in against something else. (+1 Skeletal Scrying, +3 REB, -1 Abyss, -1 Swords, -1 Zuran Orb, -1 Cunning Wish - Scrying is good against Gro, BBS, URPhidian, Enchantress, etc. REB, is good against any blue based control.)

* Outside of the NG metagame back when more Keeper players were there, I have not seen or heard or read of any metagame where worrying about the Keeper mirror was as big of a priority. Everyone must admit that in the last 6-8 months, the focus in Keeper discussions is how to deal with Mongoose, Dryads, Ophidians, Su-Chi's, and Dreadnoughts. However, if such a Keeper heavy metagame did exist then devoting slots that are good against only Keeper would be perfectly reasonable, however I still argue that Miner isn't what it used to be.

* If I am going to see Keeper decks better prepared for the mirror than I am, then I would expect not to face them as they would be losing to other decks and thus be kept from my bracket.

All this evidence taken into account, I would never run Miner in a Keeper sideboard. Instead, I pack 2 Powder Kegs and an extra Swords to handle Mask, Gro, Sligh, and Zoo better. I pack 1 of each COP because its a nessecity. I pack 3 REB because they are absolutely crucial against blue based control. I pack Scrying, Pulse, Fracture, Ebony Charm, and Allay because they either make Cunning Wish worth running or provide a hoser to different types of permanents. I run a lone BEB to deal with Bloodmoon (URPhid, TnT, Zoo) and to provide extra spot removal (or to counter PoP) against Sligh. I fluxuate between Moat and Masticore because I don't like losing to creatures. I don't pack Miners because Keeper is a winnable mirror if I can outplay him, and if I couldn't then I feel that Miner wouldn't be enough to save me.

As far as 'camps' go, why be so divided? One people start jumping on sides, people get more bullheaded and start ignoring reasonable arguements. Soon, one person disagrees, and suddenly it's all about who has the bigger mob 'backing them up'. Thats hardly productive.

[Azhrei]

::sniffle:: No one does anyway.  

I'm just saying that between the Miner/anti-Miner camps, the anit-Miner people have not been having significant problems against aggro/weenie decks. It seems too much of a coincidence to me.\n\n

[Freddie]

I have not been having problems vs the aggro in my area, and I do SB a miner, I just run the grim artifact combo, and go "BLAM!" right into the aggro players face with a fireball, stroke or geyser.

My keeper build is a different disscussion to have though .

Just remember, go "BLAM!" right in the aggro players face any time you combo them out...

Last night in the tournament that I won, ever time I combo'ed I'd throw the winning card on the table and say BLAM!

SWEET!

-Freddie

[Zherbus]

...and 4 Impulse, Future Sight, only 1 Morphling. You know Academy doesn't have to devote SB slots to aggro either. You pretty much have to devote the whole board to control, it's like reverse Keeper in a way.

You are right, that is a different discussion.

[Legend]

I'm still not buying this argument that using up a couple of slots for Miner will hamper your ability to win other matchups.

[Big Blue]

Being the guy that some time ago advocated maindecking Dwarven Miner I probably should say something on this topic.

And then again, so much has been said, which is why I preferred to listen.

Well, now I cannot resist anymore. Please forgive me

@Azhrei: By the same token that Sligh can be expected in a random metagame (hence COP: Red) one could argue that Keeper (being "The" type I deck) should be expected in a random metagame - after all, what will good players be playing in a random metagame? Right, mostly Keeper (unless they have Jedi powers and can metagame). What will beginners play? Right, mostly Sligh, Stompy and Suicide (or bad decks), since they are the cheapest decks to build. I rather prefer to be stronger against the strong players and weaker against the weak players than the other way round. Outplaying a beginner is easier than ouplaying a renowned Keeper player.

Of course, as witnessed on this board, many excellent players also play Sligh, so this whole argument should not be taken too seriously. But I rarely meet Keeper decks piloted by bad players - so outplaying an aggro player is in general more likely than outplaying a Keeper player.

I also have to back up Milton on the OSE-issue, if it was meant seriously and not ironically (taking this argument seriously would imply that also Wasteland is very bad against OSE - granted, you have to take Teferi's Response into account, but that's why you play REBs and counterspells).

OTOH, I also do believe that the LD issue is less relevant than pre-Onslaught. The fetchlands are truly amazing, so 4 Wastelands really seems like overkill.

But reducing the Wasteland count and playing Dwarven Miner are not mutually exclusive actions.

[Rico Suave]

Freddie, you don't don't complain about aggro, but you do complain about mono-U.

Legend, I think Azhrei has posted that there are around 9-10 permanent SB slots, and 5 or so "metagame" slots.  I think if a Miner or two were going into the deck, it'd be in those metagame slots.  

Personally, I will not SB a card for the mirror match until ALL of my other matches are above 50%.  Right now that's about the case, but my SB is jam-packed.  In order to make room for those Miners, I'd have to cut a valuable card which would drop one of my other matches down below that 50% line.  

Also, it may just be me but I don't really have problems against SB'd Miners much anymore.  Between Wishes, Fire/Ice, and Balance, I can usually remove it assuming the dude resolves.  It just isn't so game-breaking as before.

I think now more than ever it's pointless to run Miner.  Not only is it weaker against Keeper than it's ever been, but Keeper has too many other hard matches to worry about the mirror.

[Milton]

Quote I'm just saying that between the Miner/anti-Miner camps, the anit-Miner people have not been having significant problems against aggro/weenie decks. It seems too much of a coincidence to me.

I'm the only one that complained about losing to aggro decks.  But, to be fair, the anti-miner people don't ever complain about Keeper losing to anything, other than TnT and Mask.  Both decks are still relatively rare and they really aren't even horrible match-ups for Keeper.  Heck, many of you in the anti-miner camp, since that seems to be the term we are using, still refuse to acknowledge Grow as a threat!  

And Keeper v. Keeper isn't always about being more skillful.  I never assume my opponent is less skillful.  

And, finally, I'm with Legend here.  I'm still not convinced that adding two Dwarven Miners means Keeper is laying down against aggro.

[Azhrei]

It's not "laying down" it's just worse than being at the top of your game against the decks that came to take you out.

Furthermore, the use of cards like Skeletal Scrying is a direct outgrowth of decks running many copies of Misdirection. I mean, give me a break.

I guess my point is that since we know, or at least I think we do, that very good aggro decks are Keeper's biggest problem. It therefore makes zero sense to me why you would use precious sideboard slots on cards that are good in the mirror, worthless against your worst matchups, and a 1/2 creature against the headache decks like Monoblue.

The only deck-specific spells worth playing are the ones that work against decks that you really can't handle well otherwise (CoP: Red, for example, as Sligh is a beating), and Keeper is capable of boarding in 4-6 cards against another Keeper deck without having to have any of those cards be dead in another matchup. There's just no reason to have a card that is good in only one matchup when you could have something else that would as good in that same matchup but useful in others.

Compare Scrying Glass to Dwarven Miner, for example. If you wanted to have one or the other occupying a slot to board in against Keeper, why would you ever pick Miner when you could have an equally deadly card that you could also board in against other control decks?

[-CF-]

Just cut red and/or play Oath in keeper and live happily ever after. At least then you don't have to get worked up over this Miner dork. ;o)

--
Chris

[TunaBoo]

Quote (-CF- @ Jan. 09 2003,17:37)Just cut red and/or play Oath in keeper and live happily ever after. At least then you don't have to get worked up over this Miner dork. ;o)

--
Chris

Woodripper is my hero. He is the single best reason to play oath

*I am not biased because I just got 2 pretty chinese rippers in the mail*


I think miner can be pretty decent if you expect people to side out removal. But if they are going to keep a fair amount in, he takes a lot of resources to protect - resources you could better spend gaining board position. Still, an unchecked miner can win a game for you, but is he worth protecting?

[Azhrei]

If you want to go KrOathan that's one thing, but otherwise you're just going to the opposite extreme-- cards that are great against some aggro decks (specifically weenie especially) but then useless against control/combo. KrOathan is at least worth consideration because it can go combo style against aggro even if it's worse versus control and combo due to a lack of red.

[Big Blue]

Funny that you mention the lack of Red in Trinity - this is just being under discussion in the Trinity thread

[CrazyCarl]

I haven't once missed the Miners from my sideboard.  I need EVERY single slot in my board(I have 2 questionable slots, but they keep me prepared for everything [the slots being Moat and COP: Black] so they stay), and I could cut the COP Black for one, but I really don't see the reason.

The question you need to ask yourself is: Do you fear other Keeper players enough to warrent a slot or 2 ONLY for them?  Miner can be amazing BUT this is Type 1, a lockdown like that CAN be overcome, so since it isn't auto-winning you the game, I don't see the big deal with needing to run it for some people.

If you could run 17 cards in your sideboard however, the first 2 I would add would probably be a Miner and Aegis of Honor(I'm a bit paranoid about Flaring Pain, though I shouldn't be ).  Since we can't however, Miner's a man down.

[Big Blue]

It is a myth that DM is only good against Keeper. It is also good against many combo decks. If you manage to survive the broken first turns you are in good shape with an active Miner (they probably won't have a single spot removal in their deck against Keeper).

I know that some people believe that it is "too slow" against combo, but I don't share that opinion (I have played successfully against Academy with 2 Shamans and 2 Miners; I borded out the Morphlings because THEY really are too slow...).

It was (was, because I don't see such decks anymore) also very good against B2B-less Ophidian decks (Factories, Dustbowl, Th. Glaciers) and I could imagine that it is quite decent against most 2 or 3 colour control decks (URphidian, OSE, etc.). On a sidenote, it also blocks Ophidians repeatedly.

If your metagame does not feature any of these decks (or they are a minority) then there really is no reason to SB DM. Otherwise, you should maybe reconsider your SBing strategy.

[Rakso]

You were talking about Academy. Shaman fucks it hard enough on its own. Is there a need to send it home with a double penetration and have nothing for the next bitch?

And I understand OSE (which, for SB purposes we lump with Keeper) but... B2B-less Ophidian decks? Thawing Glaciers?\n\n

[Big Blue]

Yes, I was talking mainly about Academy, since it was the only dangerous combo-deck present in the last 2 years (in my metagame). Granted, the 2 Shamans alone were excellent, but I was really happy (and my opponent really unhappy) about DM. It is not a card that is specifically there for Academy, but it is very nice to have in that matchup. Against all combo decks without basic lands and fetchlands DM is good, I'd say.

I am the first to admit that 5 Strip/Waste+2Shaman+2DM is *slight* overkill nowadays (that's what I played a year ago). But only 1 Strip/1 Waste/1 Dustbowl could be considered as "underkill", so to speak (BTW, that's the amount of LD I am playing in Trinity...)

On a sidenote: you are right, probably I should not have quoted the dangerous B2B-less Ophidian decks with Thawing Glaciers that ran wild in my metagame. Probably too specific