There are so many playing and skills-involving differences between the two decks ( Gifted and MG ) and so much claim around the last one, that I think impossible, at now, to see more play for Gifted.
In the initial path of development for this deck, a lot of players play their differently tuned list. There were a few crucial differences in each version proposed and there were a lot of possibilities for all of them in the proper metagame.
The little claim and the high skills required to master the deck forces a lot of player to "hate gifts" before trying to play it better.
None really start teaching, talking and judging the role of the players and the cards in the deck with results that could be commonly understood and easily re-used by the mass, and the deck saw him played only by the ones that really worked hard around it ( the Germans, Dicemax and a few others in America, Toad and a few others in France, Me and a few other in Italy. I don't want to dismiss anyone. Simply I don't know all the others. These are simply some examples. )
This "unusual" path, force people to stop thinking about it.
All the differences, the possible choices, the strange configurations of some players, weren't understood as "STRONG POSSIBILITIES TO ADAPT TO YOUR OWN USE" but as "A PRODUCT NOT FULLY TESTED AND RELEASED YET!".
A so superficial way of thinking to "Gifted" deponed it, almost completely, from his throne.
Steve's great role primarily consisted on having
teached things easy to learn to anything and having proposed a NEARLY UNTOUCHABLE and UNCUSTOMIZABLE deck to play.
He ( and his team ) thought about anything.
How could a net.decker or a little.experienced player think about tuning and toying anymore around a strong deck when he had a well-packaged and well described product to use without using anything else Steve's thread?
While he prepared a pack, a Gift, a ready-to-play-strong-thing, for all the people who want to play all his products, we went over and over debating which cards should be used in the XYZ metagame, in the XYZ spot, in the XYZ configuration.
This way of proposing a deck ( as a Work in Progress thing rather then a Fully Done Deck ), descouraged people
thinking at it as a
"good deck to play".
The Steve's work, on the other hand, because of his inherent strenght, descourage
"the thinking" itself, but it is another story.
Anyone took and play it as it is because it work really well. All the decks that he was going to propose during these years have been strong but difficulty un-customizable.
Even now, that both of the decks have done great things, I'm sure that people are thinking about MG as
THE better version of all the decks based on Gifts Ungiven and not such as
a different version with as much potential as the previous ones.
Steve's large use of well written English language and the large audience that he can dispone, de-throned Gifted, without a lot of real reasoning and comparation between the works, excluding his article.
I don't want to judge where or why or when the differences between the decks should underline their strength or their limits, but I'm sure that the MG AND Gifted could be easily played with good results in the right enviroment and/or with the rigth player piloting them.
I'm sure that, in this reasoning that I'm trying to expose to you,
the numbers still count.
A lot of people pick up the deck and did well with it ( MG Version ).
A few people play the other deck and some number could apper unbalanced, positively looking at a better winning rate of the MG version.
If these number
could reflect some sort of balance, I'm sure that we would see the same number of good results.
My opinion consist primarily on saying that is the Gifts'Ungiven Spell that is broken, not the specific Gifts Ungiven Deck@Xenoben.
Something everyone here seems to not understand (I guess they were all in a coma when Toad released this list and dicemanx placed at Rochestor) is this is not meandeck gifts, it's goal is NOT to resolve a gifts asap, it gains card advantage and a healthy mana base then resolves gifts for the win.
I agree with your statement and I have the same feelings that you have about the deck strategy and his winning game plan.
OTOH, I would say for sure that you cannot go under 3 Gifts for consistency reasons.
You would not see them so often, sometimes it is needed to rise the density threats in your hand thanks to it and I think that a game plan can be easier developed with heart-attacks being conscious that you have more of them in your deck and if one or two went countered, you can resolve the next one that you have been able to tutor anyway.
I see it played in the deck as Engine, such as Intuition is the Tog's engine. Three should be the perfect number, allowing you to play it fast when needed but having a lot of choices to resolve "at least one of it during the entire game process".
I play 4-of-them in my maindeck, not because I want to transform my version in a different version of Steve's deck.
I have the Gifts#4 maindecked because I found that I don't have any other playable card that can fit this spot
better than Gifts. Maybe it is only due to my playstile, but I don't feel the need of nothing more than this card.
...Use of LoA...
...Not using petal and mana vault...
I have the same feelings that you have about those cards.
A lot of "Storm-Ended" games would have been easier to close if I would have played with the single Lotus Petal maideck.
OTOH, I want to draw into lands when needed against MW.decs and Fish.decs, so I would not cut anything for it now.
Thirst For Knowledge ....
...But, I do find this card suboptimal.
On an extended intent.
Talking about Skeletals and TFKs.
I try all those configuration "extensively" ( translate this word such as: As many games as needed to produce a good statistic number )
0-4
You don't support the needed variety of drawers to power up the GIfts when needed.
A lot of TFKs need a lot of maindeck artifacts and netting you three cards giving you two isn't enough to guarantee a full hand and a good recover
You cannot tricks Welders activations and you should rely on Y Will to win any DSC-game with them in play.
I cannot play 4 Gifts. I played three of them because of lack of space.
1-3
With this configuration , have large access to drawers and draw options, but I missed an additional tutor ( Merchant Scroll or Vampiric Tutor ) and the Gifts#4
This configuration seems balanced, I preferred dropping another drawer to fit in the needed lacking "pieces".
2-2
This configuration is strong!
It let you abuse of Skeletals and TKFs and GIfts in multiples, without relying them to minor roles, due to their being "1of".
I win a lot with those 4 drawers, but I felt the deck to be too much mana hungry. Skeletals cost a lot, TKFs and GIfts and FoF and all the sorceries, usually force you to decide the precise sequence of spells to play to win, without failing in a single prediction, because you usually can't resolve two or three of them in a row because of the amount of mana available.
If your mana base isn't stressed too much by your opponents' I suggest you to play this configuration.
It wins more than you think any control matchups and relying a bit less on Gifts Ungiven, let the deck to be more flessible and reactive to "unthought and unlucky game situations.
2-1
I switched a TFK for a Skeletal, when I realize that it usually drew me more cards without cutting too much power to my Winning Y Will.
I started to fetch more Undergrounds and I changed too much the winning rate against a lot of aggro.control decks, hating your lands all around.
If you see a few Wastelands or you have to face a lot of pure control games ( Tog, C-Slavery, Oath ), play a full set of Gifts and this drawers configurations.
ReBs would not hurt you too much and you would "surf" through your deck with ease.
1-2
At now, I', playing this configuration.
With 4 Gifts and a single Merchant as additional Tutor.
I'm satisfied with it, but I fully realize that it is not a so correct compromise between my needs to win against Fishes and MWs and my need to be able to play a control-role with the deck when needed, yet.
As you, I could easily add a basic Swamp to the deck, in order to let me safely play all the strong black spells I need.
While your version REQUIRE IT not to autoscoop to inconsistent hands, I ended up cutting it.
I don't want to reiterate the same statements, but playing with the Swamp,
at now is more incorrect than playing with 2 TFks:
-I want to abuse of Mana Drains soon
-I want to be able to Gifts for different lands configuration when I unluckily need the colour to win
-I want to give some more problems to the opponents using Pithing Needles against me
-I want to use my own Pithing Needles on opponent's lands when needed
The compromise that I made consist on playing with all the available spells that can let me play a better Gifts, while not relying too much on secondary colours or situational cards, especially becuase the Blue Spells are needed and all the other ones are only the perfect complementar compedium to them.
I regret playing the deck aggressively and all the cards in my maindeck have been perfectly weighted during the past days.
The deck won Control-Mirrors and have an edge over the Gift's Mirrors because not rely entirely on Gifts - the strong and weak weapon of the deck.
@Single Merchant Scroll
I play it over Vampiric Tutor, because I lost too many games during which I was forced to play an early andblind VT against an unknown opponent, leaving my mana base too opened to early attacks.
I added another Gifts to power up at his maximum all the possible Merchant targets.
It power up Gifts, it is an additional tutor for my bouncers and it is bad only against decks with Tangle Wires and Spheres.
I don't want more tutors for a few Threats, I need to conduct the game without consuming all my weapons in the first turns of the game hoing that them would positively resolve.
Tutoring a lot and Drawing less cards, leave the deck "watered" and with a lot of bad topdecking possibilies because of a lesser threat's density.
The right amount of Tutors and Drawers would let you surf throught the deck in a flat-less way.
I feel that Rushing and Rebuild are good targets, because they cover almost all the spectrum of the possible opponent's threats. I wouldtry to add a single F/I in some place to have cheaper and definitive answers to the "nasty-weenies-with-nasty-abilities" I have to faces all day long.
@Pithing Needles
They have been the best addition to my sideboard since their print.
I played a lot of Chalices in their spot before them, for the Combo matchup, but they were so un-sinergic with all the rest of the deck, that I lost interest on them.
I confidently board in Needles in multiple copies when I'm on the play. I regret a bit them when I knew the oppoent's deck and I perfectly know about them being able to stop all of them with a single CotV for 1.
I board out Duresses, Mindtwist, Mystical, a Gifts and a TFK swapping in the right configuration of Needles, E.E.s and R&R.
Needles #1 usually calls Wasteland while the other one is usually resolved for Welders or fat artifacts with abilites.
E.E. can get rid of a lot of permanents and R&R are usually game ending if they targets larger and hypercosted artifacts.
@How are you going to face Bazaar.decs?
If you would choose to play with E.E.s you would not have solutions to Animated Dragons or larger Madness/CelebralAssassins Creatures ( excluding the slow Cunning Wish ).
If you go for Pithing Needle, you can stop Bazaars but they can discard things in other ways and you could not stop the real threats that would appear on board.
If you would play with Crypts/Furnaces, you would have nice solutions to graveyard problems, but the smart opponent could went around them easily.
Are you sure of your "utilities spells" configuration? Anyone of them is indirectly inadequate to let you survive to
those decks.
Balance is !!!STRONG!!! but... look at these interactions:
Balance-Mongrel is bad
Balance-Dragon is bad
Balance-Titan is bad
E.E.-Rod is bad
E.E.-Fatty is bad
Burning-Dragon is bad
Burning-"A lot of Fatties" is bad
Cunning is good but slow. So in the end it is bad in these matchups.
A lot of your maindeck solutions could be swapped in your side to power up the right matchup, while leaving some more universal choices in your maindeck.
@Mana Base.
Play with a single Tundra and add the Fetch #5 or anything else you feel better than it.
Try City of Brass if you are not pestered by MWs and Fishes.
MaxxMatt
