Gifts at Rochester - a unique approach

[dicemanx]

The lists are not up yet on SCG, but before they actually make an appearance I thought I would post my list ahead of time and discuss some of the choices, which might seem questionable at first glance. I also want to stress that some of these choices *could* very well be inferior - however, its not unusual for me to "weaken" an archetype in favor of surprise value or sacrifice a little consistency in favor other considerations.

First, the list:


GiftsX
====

mana sources (25)

1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Sapphile
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Lotus Petal

1 Library of Alexandria
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Polluted Delta
1 Flooded Strand
2 Island
1 Swamp
2 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island
1 Tropical Island


spells (35)

disruption:

4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
2 Duress
3 Pithing Needle

card drawing/optimization:

1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
3 Thirst for Knowledge
3 Gifts Ungiven
1 Fact or Fiction

tutoring:

1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Merchant Scroll
1 Burning Wish

broken/other:

1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Recoup
1 Time Walk
1 Rebuild
1 Tinker
1 Darksteel Colossus


SB:

4 Oath of Druids
4 Forbidden Orchard
1 Akroma Angel of Wrath
1 Razia Boros Archangel
1 Gaea's Blessing
1 Tendrils of Agony
1 Coffin Purge
1 Red Elemental Blast
1 Duress


The list is an offshoot from Brassman's Gifts build, with the emphasis on the following choices:


Mana base:

1) Swamp and Library of Alexandria:

The LoA, and whether it deserves a slot in the deck, is not subject to debate as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps other Gifts players would disagree based on their experiences, but I have found after about 6+ months of playing this deck almost exclusively that LoA simply wins (steals?) games for me against a variety of archetypes, ranging from control to aggro to even combo or Stax. I will not deny that there might be the odd game where I do not get critical mana drain mana in time because I'm drawing a LoA instead of a blue land, but the downside is greatly offset by the benefit that this card provides. LoA also increases in strength with Pithing Needles (see below).   

The Swamp is the land that would probably generate the most criticism. However, I have found that if you are running a relatively heavy commitment to black (such as running Duress in addition to the Tutor and Will), you don't want to be losing games because you're cut off from that color by Wastelands. The basic Swamp also hedges against powerful non-basic/Island hate, even though they are a relative rarity - Blood moon, Back to Basics, and Choke. Nevertheless, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure if the decision to run the basic swamp over Island (what the Swamp replaced) is "correct", although I cannot recall any instance so far where I regretted it. That might change of course.


Spells:

1) 3 Pithing Needles:

While Brassman style Gifts decks should run artifacts beyond the mana and DSC because of Thirst for Knowledge, my preference goes to all 3 Needles main over Brassman's 2 Needles and Engineered Explosives. I cannot even begin to list all the games that Needle has won for me or put me in a position where I am afforded an opportunity to win the game. Every single archetype apart from certain mirrors (that don't use Gorilla Shamans and/or Belcher/Time Vault) and Grimlong has relevant targets. Even so, Needle can be discarded to TfK if it serves no other purpose. Here's a quick summary of archetypes and how Needle helps out:

WGD - Regardless of what has been claimed on the forums to date, I will contend that WGD is hands down the toughest match-up for Gifts. Of course I have very specific WGD lists in mind which unfortunately I'm not prepared to discuss just yet, but suffice it to say that as long as WGD assumes the beatdown role and generates enough early pressure against Gifts (whether or not its aided by Xantids), Gifts is always fighting from behind. Pithing Needle changes the assessment of this match-up completely. Stopping Bazaar (and then Compulsion if necessary) could mean game against unprepared WGD opponents. I have yet to lose against the WGD in tournament play just on the strength of Needle. 

Fish - This is argaubly the most prevalent archetype that I have to contend with, including the local scene and certain US events. I also believe that Fish is one of the most challenging archetypes for Gifts, depending on how the Fish deck is constructed of course. The problematic cards include Null Rod and/or Chalice of the Void, Meddling Mage, Wastelands/Strip Mine with CoW back up, along with any instant speed disruption beyond FoW such as Daze and/or Misdirection. I've noticed that quite a few Fish decks have started to play Waterfront Bouncers as a hedge to Oath, with the added bonus of cutting off the Tinker/DSC plan for Gifts if they are forced to rely on it (by Wasting their Burning Wish/Yawgmoth's Will for defensive purposes). The prime targets for Needle against Fish is typically Wasteland, although stopping Aether Vial to ensure a Mage doesn't hit play, stopping Bouncers to go for a quick DSC plan, or stopping Factory beatdown can all factor in significantly.

Stax - This is perhaps the one match-up where Needle really stands out. The primary target is usually Goblin Welder, although Shaman might have to be named first depending on what is in the Gifts player's hand - for instance, it might be better to save the FoW for a more threatening business spell and have Needle deal with Welder (instead of being forced to nail Welder which would otherwise make all artifacts uncounterable if it resolves). Needle also adds to the permanent count, which can be critical against Tangle Wire and Smokestack, and of course it can put an end to CoW/Wasteland plans.

Control Slaver - While Needle on Welder is hardly game over as any adept T1 control player will tell you, it nevertheless alters the make-up of the long struggle that usually defines this match-up. Not having to worry about TfKs ending the game if a Welder is on the table puts less pressure on Gifts, even though the match-up is often decided on who can draw more cards. Needle can also on occasion be set against Shaman or Mindslaver (or even Strip Mine if they they run the CoW/Strip lock), although Welder is the customary choice - the decision is to either have future counter battles over Shaman/Tinker, or resolve Needle #2 on either one.
 

2) Absence of Belcher/Time Vault/presence of 2x Duress:

While a debate rages on in a separate thread over the merits of Belcher or Time Vault (something that appears to have no satisfactory conclusion), there is a third option which I dare say is superior: running neither. The two extra cards can really make a huge difference as far as *getting* Gifts to a position where it can win. Gifts prides itself on being a deck with relatively few dead cards - the weakest cards to draw are typically Recoup and Burning Wish, and very rarely Needle but only if a TfK is not accessible. Adding to the early "useless" card count by including a third way to win adds too much risk for rewards that are not readily apparent to me. Notice also that Duresses (2 main and 1 SB) actually increase the strength of early Burning Wish and Recoup - I have won games just because I had the additional disruption that was enabled by running Duresses. Of course you don't just Recoup/Wish up a Duress without forethought -  you have to carefully assess whether plan B (Tinker/DSC) will be sufficient to win the game, and if Recouping/Wishing up Duress will put you far enough ahead or establish some measure of control so that relying on the DSC plan is not a big issue. This is similar to a comment about the "folly" of Demonic Tutoring up Ancestral Recall early in another thread - you make the play if the board position dictates that it is the best play and if it will put you ahead so that you can stay ahread. Duresses simply gives you more options with Recoup and Burning Wish (as does that lone Merchant Scroll incidentally).

One caveat here - there seems to be a suggestion from my paragraph above that it's either Belcher+Severance/Vault+Fusillade or 2x Duress. This is not necessarily the case, as the two have some measure of independence from each other - you can certainly run both or even none of these cards.


3) Draw spell configuration:

3 Thirst for Knowledge and 3 Gifts Ungiven is what I decided on for this event, although other configurations could be as good. Before using the transformational SB, I used Cunning Wish instead of the third Gifts to give me some flexibility - I then put the 4th Thirst OR a Skeletal Scrying in the SB to Wish for apart from other stardard instant speed disruption spells like Rebuild, REB, or Rack and Ruin. Since the SB changed dramatically, I was faced with either upping the TfKs to 4, running a main deck Scrying (which is what I would have prefered in retrospect actually), or running the 3rd Gifts, among other decisions such as adding a Vampiric Tutor or additional bounce. Any of these plans seem perfectly reasonable in my mind, as all three have respective strengths and weaknesses and are ideal under specific situations. Perhaps it might be surprising that the Gift count could go as low as 2, but this is a point that Brassman touched upon earlier, the fact that Gifts is not necessarily a card you want to see early with this style of Gifts deck (one that is radically different than Meandeck Gifts in terms of how it should be played).   


Sideboard:

The SB was the showpiece of this particular Gifts iteration. It is something that I used successfully in a previous event, and this configuration managed to get another player into a top 8 at our local OVC T1 event who emulated the strategy. The idea is very simple - instead of having a defensively oriented SB with the intention of fighting through hate cards game 2 and three, why not make a decision to alter the strategy of the deck to evade the hate cards the opponent was bringing in against you. In other words, keep the deck aggressive instead of fighting on the back of your heels, which is usually an unpleasant proposition. While I did have Blessing in the SB, it didn't always come in with the rest of the Oath pieces - I either kept Tinker Colossus and added the two Angels, or I removed Tinker Colossus and added Blessing. I only did the latter against Welder packing decks, because the last thing you want is to Oath up a DSC with Welder in play.

Now the first question usually is - why bother with a SB like this instead of playing a deck like Meandeck Oath? The reason is that I feel Brassman Gifts has a strategically superior game 1 against the field, perhaps the only exeption being Stax style decks.     This is further emphasized by the fact that the most prevalent archetype, Fish, has been gunning for Oath and has some very scary main deck spells to deal with this strategy (Meddling Mage along with Bouncer to name a couple, not to mention the Swords to Plowshares that have crept back into the deck or Seals of Cleansing that have increased in popularity). Meandeck Oath also has problems utilizing the Oath plan against a resolved Welder for obvious reasons. While it retains flexibility because it is not *reliant* on the Oath plan like regular Oath decks, nevertheless its alternate Gifts strategy is diluted and has less chance succeeding.

The other major question is - isn't this strategy viable in only one event, losing strength once people know the SB? Not necessarily. I had the understanding that many of my games at SCG Rochester would go to time, and because of that would attract an audience that would see that I was playing an Oath plan. That didn't take away the fact that a given player facing me wouldn't be faced with very tough decisions when SBing. Once I knew the cat was out of the bag I started shuffling in all 15 cards into the deck and then removing 15 cards. I don't always utilize the SB plan, and if my opponents expect Oath and have junk like Bouncer or StP/Seal of Cleansing main or name oath with Meddling mage in game 2 while I'm running straight Gifts, then their chances just got diminished greatly. Alternately, it was conceivable that  an opponent would mistakenly think that I *was* playing Oath and make some grevious errors of judgement game 1 like keeping bad starting hands or naming the wrong things with Mage.

So the final question is - if I don't always SB in the Oath plan, then isn't it the case that I have nothing to SB at all, and thus puts me at a serious disadvantage? Well, no not at all. Gifts is a type of deck that doesn't want to SB out very many cards - this particular configuration already had main deck ways of dealing with problems like Null Rod/Chalice/other via Rebuild or Needle, and furthermore post SB the opponent, IF they were aware of the transformational plan, could not possibly SB exclusively against Gifts if there was any danger of Oath coming in. Basically, I get a "free pass" on cards like early Meddling Mage game 2, who has almost assuredly has to call "Oath".  I also affect what sorts of hands my opponent's keep - the threat is always stronger than the execution rings true here.

Therefore, this SB is essentially 3 cards in terms of defensive spells. I selected Duress as a card that would come in against every control deck including the mirror. I also selected it because it is a sorcery that can be fetched with Burning Wish. Red Elemental Blast is the second card to come in for the same match-ups, as well as being a lone emergency removal spell against Fish. The Gifts Ungiven/TfK friendly Coffin Purge rounded out the selection, both for the mirror (to clip a Yawgwill or Tinker if paired with Recoup when they Gifts for the cards) and for any other deck that uses the graveyard like WGD. I felt that against any control mirrors I aready had a good main deck configuration (almost as if I was "pre-boarded" against them) so SBing would be minimal. Against Stax/Shop decks, the bounce spells like Rebuild and Hurkyl's Recall or Rack and Ruin that would typically make the SB get pre-empted by the Oath plan. Against Oath, another archetype I anticipated showing up in numbers, I was prepared to just go for the typical Gifts win game 1, and game 2 bring in just the Orchards and the 2 Angels (and Blessing) in place of Tinker-Colossus and 4 random mana sources. Needles would be kept in if they were running Wastelands to fight for Orchard superiority if necessary.




So how did I fare at SCG Rochester? I went undefeated in the swiss with 5-0-2, busting out a 5-0 start and ending with two intentional draws. I faced some archetypes which are arguably very difficult for traditional Gifts - 2 Fish decks early (which both fell to the surprise Oath plan out of the SB), a vicious little Goblin-Burn deck with ugly hate cards like Goblin Vandals/Null Rod/Pyrostatic Pillar (mono-R Fish, if you will, which again could do little against my change in strategy post SB), and the WGD deck that made top 8 (I was his only loss) that fell to Pithing Needle game 2 of our match. The final match was against Outlaw's Gifts deck, a mirror which we apparently were both happy to see.

In the quarterfinals I defeated fellow Canadian Bryan Finch piloting an updated OFM, again on the strength of Needle game 1 against Factories to stave off the beats long enough to Recoup a DT first for Tinker, then flash back Recoup for the Time Walk just in time to beat down after a Null Rod made it into play on his side. The Oath plan game 2 did him in even though he knew 100% that it was coming in - I REBed his 1st turn Mage on Oath, then had two Oaths in hand to punch past his resolved Seal of Cleansing. I couldn't find my Orchards and he wasn't casting creatures, so I had to play a Needle on his Factory to buy time. I allowed a CoW to resolve earlier which represented a danger via Wasteland as we continued to play draw-go for a while. He soon found Wasteland and cleared my 3 lands, but I waited for Needle #2 and stopped Waste, dropping an Academy in play with a few Moxes and Lotus on my side. Since I was drawing counters instead of draw spells I wasn't doing much, until finally I saw both an Orchard and Duress. I checked his hand and noticed that my counters outnumbered his answers (StP, Gilded Drake, and Misdirection), so I activated both Oaths to get DSC and Razia and they took it home.


I finally succumbed to Endress Oath in the semifinals, although I could not contend with his amazing starts even though he mulled to 6 and then 5 in both games. My game 2 loss was a fascinating game that I might describe a little later. It featured me dropping a hard cast Akroma off 3 Orchards to kill his Oathed up Akroma and stave off defeat after my opponent drew both a Blessing and Spirit of the Night, only to have him Blessing back his Akroma and draw Time Walk from the cantrip to allow for a second Oath activation (yes, he matched me in the Orchard count!). An agonizing Gifts that I resolved after the turn was passed with me on 6 life was enough to net me a Time Walk of my own, but a Brainstorm and Fact or Fiction afterwards was not enough to find the necessary Yawgwill to win the game. Fun stuff.

[Moxlotus]

If you could do the tournament over again-would there be any changes you would make?

What changes would you make it you were to play the deck in a Stax heavy metagame?

Did you test against Oath before the tournament?

congrats on your finish.

[dicemanx]

If you could do the tournament over again-would there be any changes you would make?

None. I didn't play enough games to expose any weaknesses, and the deck and SB functioned exactly how I imagined they would.

What changes would you make it you were to play the deck in a Stax heavy metagame?

Apparently if (Uba)Stax shows up to an event there is no sense playing, because it is the best deck and will own everything . Well I kid, but if I anticipated such a meta I would add another bounce spell to the main deck (another Rebuild or Hurkyl's Recall) and possibly one more in the SB over the Coffin Purge.

Did you test against Oath before the tournament?

I only had experience against Gifts Oath and Salvagers Oath with my Gifts deck, not Endress Oath. I felt I had a strong SB plan in theory, but my execution against Jeff in the second game might have been questionable (but only because I had to make a decision that only testing could have pointed me in the right direction). Let's see what people think:

Jeff mulls to 5, and on the play I look at a hand of:

Pithing Needle
Duress
LoA
Orchard x2
Mana Drain
Duress
 

I removed Tinker, DSC, Burning Wish, and Recoup, so the Tendrils plan is out. I did NOT side in a single Oath, which is intuitive here. These might or might not have been strategic errors, but again it all depends on what testing would show. I win through either exploiting my opponent's Oath, or if absolutely necessary I can hardcast Akroma and win while shutting off Oath with Orchards. I have the card drawing and Will, so I should have "inevitability", but his strength is the early game and getting Oath to stick with Oarchards in play is his best chance. However, I have to really be careful of one thing: I cannot mindlessly drop an Orchard and start making tokens. Since I'm not playing Oaths there is a distinct danger that I can get beat down. I also am in a situation where I have no idea if my opponent even knows about my SB plan.

So play begins. I lead with LoA, with a CoB on his turn. My turn I draw a card then draw for LoA. Here's where I had to formulate a plan. I either expose the Orchards and risk him not casting Oath at all, or hold them back until Oath hits play then surprise him. If he knows my plan then this is moot, but at this point I cannot be sure. So I decide to forfeit my land drop and opt for Mox and Needle to protect my LoA and Orchards once I play them. As it turns out, he managed to draw into a couple of Orchards early so all of a sudden I was on my heels again being forced to try to counter his Oath, but he reached 4 mana and had Leak back up. He drew that Oath after I ripped one from his hand with Duress, which I was forced to take because he had the ability to establish Orchard superiority. His Oath resolved and he got Akroma, but at this stage I set up the triple Orchard-hardcast Akroma play which ws followed by him drawing Time Walk as I described above.

congrats on your finish.

Thanks!

[Moxlotus]

I removed Tinker, DSC, Burning Wish, and Recoup, so the Tendrils plan is out. I did NOT side in a single Oath, which is intuitive here.

I see your reasoning, but I think you cannot assume you will win an Orchard war and therefore you must win with Tendrils.  Wastes give Orchard advantage to Oath so you shouldn't assume you can win that war.  However, I haven't tested against a lot of Pithing Needles (which you ran 3 of) so I'm not sure that this is the optimal choice either.  Even so, I would have put in 1 Oath so you can try to win an early Orchard war and be able to tutor for Oath at your leasure.

Your decision in game is interesting.  I am not sure which is better.  My gut reaction would've been to just lay down the Orchards but I haven't played a deck with a transformational so I don't know how much I truly value surprise value of those.  If you would've had the Tendrils plan or a MD Oath it is clear that you should've laid down the Orchards.  Given your situation-I'm not sure what I would've done.

[dicemanx]

I see your reasoning, but I think you cannot assume you will win an Orchard war and therefore you must win with Tendrils.

This could be true, and it could be the case that I made a strategic mistake SBing. However, I was thinking that if I don't win the Orchard War early, I can win it with Yawgwill and multiple Time Walks. I simply wanted to cut down on cards that had little to no function outside of actually killing the opponent, although it might have been wiser to keep a Burning Wish in and leave one Duress in the SB (I sided in the 3rd Duress). I think Shock Wave suggested a possibly better plan of just bringing in Orchards for 4 other lands and not bring any creatures at all, with the idea of winning only via the Wish for Tendrils. That way I don't face the danger of drawing any bad cards as I can even SB out the Tinker/DSC in favor of the REB and Duress, but I still have the Orchards to retard the Oath plan. This way I'm not reliant on my opponent actually casting the Oath so that I can win faster, nor would I worry about SBing in my own Oaths, which are  potentially useless cards.

It's an interesting challenge to figure out exactly what the optimum SBing strategy is. Not testing it could have potentially cost me that match.

I also had another quick thought: perhaps having Platinum Angel in the SB might make some sense both for the Oath match-up (Tinker target mainly, or via Oath) and the Grimlong match-up. I'd still keep Razia and Akroma, but dump the Blessing in favor of Platinum Angel.

[winnie]

With the Oath plan in the sideboard, I think I would prefer Vampiric tutor over  Merchant Scroll. I know that it's CD, but the fact that Vampiric can find Oath & Orchard gives it an edge. And you can easily support it with your swamp maindeck. I you want to keep  Merchant Scroll, you could replace mystical with vampiric.

What is your opinion ?

winnie.

Oh and good job !

[Machinus]

Would this deck work in reverse? I mean, running Oath, and transforming it into a Gifts deck to trump all the Oath hate if it's a big deal. What do you think about using that strategy in places where Stax is popular?

[dicemanx]

With the Oath plan in the sideboard, I think I would prefer Vampiric tutor over  Merchant Scroll. I know that it's CD, but the fact that Vampiric can find Oath & Orchard gives it an edge. And you can easily support it with your swamp maindeck. I you want to keep  Merchant Scroll, you could replace mystical with vampiric.

Vampiric is superior if I SB in the Oath plan, but game 1 I actually prefer Scroll and Mystical instead, for a variety of reasons: no loss of life, both are blue (for FoW purposes and to not overtax the black mana), Scroll is a Sorcery (for Recoup purposes) and 2cc to evade CotV for 1 (to fetch Rebuild). I think the key word here is "prefer" - I don't think I've established which tutor base is ultimately best as this Oath SB plan is quite new to me, so I'm still trying to improve the deck.

Would this deck work in reverse? I mean, running Oath, and transforming it into a Gifts deck to trump all the Oath hate if it's a big deal. What do you think about using that strategy in places where Stax is popular?

I'm sure it can work in reverse, but then it would be more appropriate to discuss this in the Oath threads . I want to be playing Gifts G1 because I feel like I have a chance to beat everything including Stax. I don't want to start with Oath, because I've noticed that Fish is rampant and they are essentially "pre-boarded" against Oath.

[FiReiSFuN]

Congrats on your finish at Rochester... I just have a few quick questions.

First, are there certain matchups that you would bring in the Oath plan everytime, or is the plan designed to just keep your opponent off balance?

Second, in the match against Oath that you describe, wouldn't the correct play be to drop the Orchards?  He may not WANT to play Oath, but then again, that helps your game against him.  It gives you more time to find and hardcast Akroma or Razia, while at the same time building up counters to battle his angels.  Could you go a little bit more in depth about exactly why you decided to wait with the Orchards?  Seemingly it was the right play to make, as you would have been in a favourable position if he had not ripped Time Walk.

[DirtyFrank]

Good work, Peter.

I've been running a very similar version and I've never regretted the swamp either.  I have been running cunning wish instead of the 3rd Gifts, but that is with a more traditional (i.e. not transformational) SB.

I haven't been playing with LoA, but I think I've been missing out.   That 3rd Island doesn't pack the same punch!

Did you miss having a pyroclasm in your SB?  I've found it to be very effective in certain match-ups.

[Phele]

I agree with Winnie on the Vampiric Tutor case. You are goin to fetch black mana early very often cause of Duress anyway. And you are even playing a basic Swamp. So why not play the Vampiric for the mentioned reasons, if you are still playing two Merchant Scrolls. It just fits better with your Oath-plan that just fills out more-less your whole sideboard.The only reason that stands for the Scroll in my eyes beside being fetchable for FoW is that the Vamp is the worse topdeck. I never felt having that much problems with the life loss an I'm even playing two scryings in my Gifts. But we don't have that much fish around so probably I would rethink about it a bit when entering your meta.

What do you think makes your deck better than Goat – just the surprise factor? Goat combines the use of Oath imo better for both worlds by adding Krosan Reclamation for the secondary kill and Regrowth as a really nice Gifts-goodie. And you have much more space in the sideboard with Orchars already main. Aditionally Sundering Titan becomes a really devasting and safe plan for the Control-Matchup.

Edit: Btw, congratulations on your nice finish and the good work on the deck

[rureddy31]

I am not too familiar with Gifts, to be perfectly honest, however I may have a siggestion. What would be the harm in running 4 Orchards MD, instead of having them take up 4 spots in the board. I suppose you lose the surprise factor after the board, but at least your deck gains a little for utility, and room for some actual wish targets. I dunno, just my 2 sense. About the swamp thing, I wonder if maybe CS should do the same thing, perhaps instead of the 5th fetch or 4th island...? Suggestions, comments ?

[dicemanx]

Congrats on your finish at Rochester... I just have a few quick questions.

First, are there certain matchups that you would bring in the Oath plan everytime, or is the plan designed to just keep your opponent off balance?

My strategy was to always go with the Oath plan against Fish, Slaver, Stax, Oath, and the mirror, unless I knew that they knew it was coming. Then I might or might not go with it, but even if I didn't change my SBing for game 3 I would of course still shuffle in my 15 SB cards and remove 15 cards all over again. I would also consider going back to straight Gifts if the match reached game 3. Against Oath, I would only bring in the Orchards and creatures, not the Oaths (although bringing in just 1 might be wise). 

Second, in the match against Oath that you describe, wouldn't the correct play be to drop the Orchards?  He may not WANT to play Oath, but then again, that helps your game against him.  It gives you more time to find and hardcast Akroma or Razia, while at the same time building up counters to battle his angels.  Could you go a little bit more in depth about exactly why you decided to wait with the Orchards?  Seemingly it was the right play to make, as you would have been in a favourable position if he had not ripped Time Walk.

I was overly concerned with giving tokens and getting beat down, because I essentially had to rely on his Oath for the "easy" win. I wanted to make things easier for myself by allowing an Oath to resolve, and then dropping my 2 Orchards, especially since I had resolved a Needle on the turn where I had to make that decision. What also influenced my decision was the fact that I had the LoA/Needle start with two Orchards in hand and he led with a City of Brass, so at that stage it looked very improbable that I would get "out-Orcharded". If I actually kept the Burning Wish in the deck, then I would play the Orchards and use them for mana without hesitation. My approach should have succeeded barring a series of specific card draws by my opponent, which is exactly what ended up happening (drawing into 2 Orchards of his own, drawing an Oath and having Leak back up a turn after I Duress, ripping the Walk etc). It is conceivable that had I dropped the Orchards and eventually lost due to token beatdown that such a strategy would be put into question instead. The error, if there actually was one, probably was most likely due to SBing out the Burning Wish I think.

Did you miss having a pyroclasm in your SB?  I've found it to be very effective in certain match-ups.

The Oath plan alleviates the need for Pyroclasm post SB, but I could see it being missed game 1 as a Wish target in case of emergency, or post SB as a way of killing Mages set on Oath or tappers/Bouncers like Stormscape Apprentice/Waterfront Bouncer. The latter two aren't that big of a deal though because I still have Needles for them. The Coffin Purge is a flexible slot in the SB, so that could be swapped for something like Pyroclasm.

I agree with Winnie on the Vampiric Tutor case. You are goin to fetch black mana early very often cause of Duress anyway. And you are even playing a basic Swamp. So why not play the Vampiric for the mentioned reasons, if you are still playing two Merchant Scrolls. It just fits better with your Oath-plan that just fills out more-less your whole sideboard.The only reason that stands for the Scroll in my eyes beside being fetchable for FoW is that the Vamp is the worse topdeck. I never felt having that much problems with the life loss an I'm even playing two scryings in my Gifts. But we don't have that much fish around so probably I would rethink about it a bit when entering your meta.

There is only 1 Merchant Scroll main, not two. What winnie cited in favor of Vampiric is couterbalanced by what I mentioned as advantages in favor of Mystical and Merchant Scroll. However, as I also said, I don't know the answer to what's better at this time. I tried it without Vampiric and I didn't miss it, although for all I know that might change in the future. The question is more complex that just which of the three tutors to select for the two slots. What also needs addressing are things like, is it better to run Vamp than Gifts #3, or Needle #3, or the 25th mana source, etc.

What do you think makes your deck better than Goat – just the surprise factor? Goat combines the use of Oath imo better for both worlds by adding Krosan Reclamation for the secondary kill and Regrowth as a really nice Gifts-goodie. And you have much more space in the sideboard with Orchars already main. Aditionally Sundering Titan becomes a really devasting and safe plan for the Control-Matchup.

I think that Goat has a whole set of problems to deal with that makes it a bit of an unfair comparison. The Oath plan is not very solid as far as the beatdown option is concerned, especially given the fact that Fish is running rampant *pre-boarded* already for Oath match-ups. Plus, you want an Oath to actually win it for you if there's a Welder on the table. I view the two kill conditions in Goat as going completely unnecessarily ALL IN. That is, you better have firm control over the game before you rely on that DSC to punch through or you better be 100% sure that you will get that Reclamation/Yawgwill to resove and have enough mana after milling yourself completely. I also take issue with the fact that Goat has a huge amount of potentially dead cards (the regrowth effects, the Oaths, Wish, DSC, even the Orchards can lose it for you). This deck can obviously win because it plays many broken cards, but running a control deck with such a high element of risk is not an option that I would entertain any time soon. That is to say I'd rather play straight Gifts, nevermind the transformational board, over Goat.

I am not too familiar with Gifts, to be perfectly honest, however I may have a siggestion. What would be the harm in running 4 Orchards MD, instead of having them take up 4 spots in the board. I suppose you lose the surprise factor after the board, but at least your deck gains a little for utility, and room for some actual wish targets. I dunno, just my 2 sense.

This is certainly a valid option because gaining 4 SB slots is pretty significant, but it in turn has two potentially significant drawbacks. Losing the surprise factor early in an event is huge, but the fact that you decrease your opponent's clock can be very significant too. Gifts can have very long games against decks like Fish where you struggle for control and engage in wars of attrition, something that would all but disappear the moment you start running Orchards. Then there's also the issue of what lands to cut for Orchards. Whatever you do the mana base will suffer. Would you start cutting the basic lands, or duals?

About the swamp thing, I wonder if maybe CS should do the same thing, perhaps instead of the 5th fetch or 4th island...? Suggestions, comments ?

If you run Duresses it might be an idea, but it would probably be met with the same criticism as I receive for running a Swamp in Gifts. I'm not even 100% sure if its the way to go, but its been working OK so far. I don't have enough empirical evidence yet to know. Maybe the question is moot if Duresses should be making room for Mana Leaks and Blood Moons?

[yespuhyren]

I am not too familiar with Gifts, to be perfectly honest, however I may have a siggestion. What would be the harm in running 4 Orchards MD, instead of having them take up 4 spots in the board. I suppose you lose the surprise factor after the board, but at least your deck gains a little for utility, and room for some actual wish targets. I dunno, just my 2 sense.

This is certainly a valid option because gaining 4 SB slots is pretty significant, but it in turn has two potentially significant drawbacks. Losing the surprise factor early in an event is huge...

There is a good thing and a bad thing about this.  The bad thing, is IF the people know your deck, then they'll know whats coming, but then there is no surprise factor.  If they have no clue about your deck, then seeing orchards might actually be GREAT for you.  People assume orchard is only in oath.  Therefore, after they see an orchard, they are likely to play the matchup as if they were playing against oath, which is very different from how a deck would try and beat gifts.  This could give you a little bit MORE of a surprise factor.  I believe that them playing against you thinking your are playing something you are not is better than them playing you without a clue. 

Of course, the issues of you getting beat down and what to cut are big issues.  The surprise factor, however, benefits in my opinion.

[dicemanx]

There is a good thing and a bad thing about this.  The bad thing, is IF the people know your deck, then they'll know whats coming, but then there is no surprise factor.  If they have no clue about your deck, then seeing orchards might actually be GREAT for you.  People assume orchard is only in oath.  Therefore, after they see an orchard, they are likely to play the matchup as if they were playing against oath, which is very different from how a deck would try and beat gifts.

This reminds me of another thought that I raised earlier about the Snow Covered Island (conspicuously absent in my Gifts lists). I haven't played a SCI up to now because I didn't want to have people know that I was playing a Gifts deck - on the flip side though, it might be a very wise idea to run SCIs in any non-Gifts based deck that normally runs Islands in order to try to trick your opponent into thinking that you are playing with Gifts. In the case of Orchards, its not event necessary to run all 4 main for this type of trick to work - 1 or 2 might suffice. This is actually one interesting way to create some additional room in the SB of my listed Gifts deck without running the full complement of Orchards - instead of 4 in the side, have 2 main, 2 SB, and have 2 slots to work with. Perhaps there's a happy medium there somewhere.

[JayC]

I still stand by my suggestion that you won't run a snow-covered island because it would make your deck less aesthetically pleasing, but I imagine having a mix of Orchards in the main and side would tip off the transformational sideboard plan. I think the key in the sideboard plan is the surprise.

Anyways, Congrats on the Top 4.

[FiReiSFuN]

@JayC:  What if people just thought he was playing GiftsOath (GOAT)?  Now whether or not that tips any of his hand anyhow (ie; clueing in a fish player to have Meddling Mage chant Oath, etc.) is a different strategy altogether.  Speaking of that, I also like the strategy of going from GiftsOath to straight Gifts to avoid Oath hate.  I've always been partial to GiftsOath though, so I guess I like the idea of having an explosive combo deck to steal wins G1, and let me win G2 with a boarded Gifts deck.  It's my opinion that Gifts is one of the strongest decks in the format though after boarding (correctly boarding I might add), so that might color my decision.

I think what this topic illustrates more is that it might be time to turn more attention to the idea of hybrids and combinations of decks.  It really is the ideal way to throw your opponent off his sideboarding plans.

[nataz]

obligatory congrats on the win
all hail our Canadian overlords. Seriously, you guys kick so much ass when you cross the boarder to NY, its not even funny anymore. Thank god your meta-game sucks, or else who knows what you all would be capable of.

@ the issue of MD orchards

there are so many version of gifts right now, but on the issue of Orchards, you can pretty much split them into two categories.

You have SSB style in all of its forms, MDGifts with misD, Control Slaver Hybrids, etc. No matter what kill combonation they use, be it Tendrils, DSC, FF/vault, or Belcher, non of the above decks really have much use for orchard.

However, the only well known gifts.dec that runs both orchard and gifts is the MD Oath hybrid.

I think that by putting any number of orchards MD, you immediately get your opponent thinking about Oath in gifts, and they can SB appropriately. Otherwise, game 1 for all that they know, you are just playing one of the many variation of straight gifts, and I think will be less willing to risk oath hate post board.

[winnie]

There is only 1 Merchant Scroll main, not two. What winnie cited in favor of Vampiric is couterbalanced by what I mentioned as advantages in favor of Mystical and Merchant Scroll. However, as I also said, I don't know the answer to what's better at this time. I tried it without Vampiric and I didn't miss it, although for all I know that might change in the future. The question is more complex that just which of the three tutors to select for the two slots. What also needs addressing are things like, is it better to run Vamp than Gifts #3, or Needle #3, or the 25th mana source, etc.

I really agree with the last sentence. BTW, I miss vampiric tutor when I don't play it. So currently I'm playing a 61 cards deck. Vampiric IS this 61th card.

winnie.

[Smmenen]

When I first saw this list I was struck that it was indeed a unique approach.  Upon closer scrutiny, I'm not sure.

I think, first of all, we should be more careful about organizing this deck.

As I did in another thread, the heart of the deck is a six card combo:

TEH COMBO

1 Yawgmoth's Will (clearly the most important card, imo)
1 Tinker
1 Recoup
1 Burning Wish
1 Colossus
1 Time Walk

Back when I proposed meandeck gifts, Burning Wish was just crazy European tech which most americans eschewed.  That is so easy to discover that it suggests conspicuousness or little need for perspicacity in the observer. its standard so you never have to pass the turn.  Unfortunately, it menas you have two maindeck red cards with low early utilty. 

The question is: what shell best fits these cards?

There are basically only two options: Merchant Scroll or Thirst.  Thirst and Merchant Scroll basically do the same thing: they are early spells which you can play to help you eventually resolve Gifts.  One other option is INtuitoin /AK, but i eliminated that along time ago as poor for any deck with multiple Gifts Ungiven (see my original meandeck Gifts article where I debate all FOUR draw engines - the other at the time was the Thirst/Skrying mix.

If you go with 4 Thirsts, then it makes sense to not run 4 Gifts. Why?  Because Thirst is a slightly slower card than Scroll. As a result, you have more mid-late game cards.  If you run 4 Scrolls though, then I  think you def. want 4 Gifts. 

Lots of Americans prefer the multiple Thirst configuration - I think in part becuase Andy has popularized it.

Some time ago I was going to write a rebuttal article to Andy's article on Thirst in Gifts  - I started writing and then I realized that his entire article was nonsensical.  All he did was say that Thirst Draws 3 cards and it does this and that.  Well obviously it draws 3 cards, but the actuall relevant analysis is much closer:
the question is whether the advantages of Thirst outweight its drawbacks in comparison with any alternative configuration.  He doesn't compare Thirst to any other configuration in his article, and that is why it is a flawed piece.  It's a relational question, not something that can be abstractly analyzed.

Moreover, I think Andy made a huge stride in his Gencon/Richmond and most recent list by using THirst in comboination with X Pithing Needle.  The increase in the number of artifacts - the EE, the 2 needle, and the other artifacts like TIme Vault make Thirst not completely suck.

I think, frankly, that Time Vault and Belcher is horrible.  I don't understand how a thinking human being can justify additional kill conditions except by the strained argument that it doesn't suck because of Thirst.

The goal of Gifts design, and what made Meandeck Gifts an evolutionary leap off original SSB was one simple idea; efficiency:
HOw can I minimize the number of dead cards in my opening hand.

Meandeck Gifts was a focused attempt to do just that becuase it only had 4 dead cards in the opening hand: Colossus, Burning Wish, REcoup, adn Will - all four cards suck to draw in your opening hand.  Probasco's lsit and others have even more shite in the opening hand: Belcher, Vault, severance, etc all that shit.  And even Fusillade.

The only reason you can justify running crap in the maindeck is if you have Thirsts. 

I like my decks to be lean and extremely efficient. As a result, I absolutely, utterly and completely despise Thirst. 

I've said it once and I'll say it again: discarding a mox to thirst is unacceptable.  Discarding Sol Ring to Thirst is unacceptable.  Discarding two cards to Thirst is unacceptable.  I think Pithing Needle is an awesome card, and so I think Diceman made a good choice running three - but you know what?  I'd hate even discarding that.  I'd rather jus tplay it.

One suggestion peter: I would have run Tormod's Crypt maindeck.  Crypt is, in my view, increasingly a maindeckable card.  So much of the format relies on Yawg Will or Crucible that Crypt will do nasty things; it forces your opponent into the Tinker plan.  When they go for Tinker, then you should be ready with boucne to wreck them. 

I would have cut the two Duresses for 1 Tormod's Crypt and 1 more Merchant Scroll. 

EDIT: To summarize, there are natural congiruations which justify and support each other.  Thirsts require more artifacts and hence less Gifts overall.  2-3 Gifts makes sense with more Thirst.  No Thirst means you almost have to run 4 Gifts by default, but Scroll is probably a necessity. 

[MaxxMatt]

I look at the deck Dicemanx proposed here really satisfied, because we touched and used similar sinergies onto almost the same deck.

Some lines above here, Steve talked about playing with the minimum number of possible dead cards.
I have the same feelings but I reached different conclusions when talking about what a deck such as this one can do di minimize errors and maximize resources.

Dicemanx and me are almost playing the same deck but I chose to play a couple of different cards maindeck.

Swap Pithing Needles with Phyrexian Furnaces
Swap Duresses with Merchant and C. Wishes

While he play aggressive and proactive cards ( Needles and Duresses ), I choose to maximize the number of blue spells and reactive answers to add flexibiity.
This deck such as mine, add flexibility and solutions where MDGifts use brute power.

Going back to Steve's last post, I feel to run ONLY a dead card: Recoup.
The increased number of Artifacts let me play TFKs with overall better results and the "Cycling" ability of Furnaces and C. Wishes is the thing that I appreciate most: I have never regretted drawing one of them, because I can always check for other things into the deck/sideboard thanks to them.

The sideboard option proposed by Dicemanx is really intriguing.
It adds different gaming approaches especially during the control mirrors.
When playing with my GIfts.dec or MDGifts, I ALWAYS feared an Oath GOoD hand. Quick Akroma can be deadly if you managed to hold a not so explosive hand and mulliganing usually don't rise the statistic of being able to find another one

If the opponent isn't going to realize the "trick" that you are using against him, he would usually play with different cards and maybe, he could swap in wrong solutions and wrong spells.

Sideboarding badly would lose more games that anyone could ever think.
And, even if you are aware of his strategy, you cannot be sure about which ones would try to crush you in the current game.

On the other hand, I think that the sideboarding space needed to play Gifts-Oath is really too much.
You are going to lose answers and solutions against other good decks.

The lone Rebuild would not be enough against Staks.like.decs
The lone Purge would probabily not be enough against Gifts-Dragon.decs
The lone ReB would probabile not be enough against other control decks.

Have you tried to fit in other B. Wish targets?
Would be Meltdown the additional answer to Staks that could probabily sometimes save you? While it hurt your mana base too, it can be the "red-pernicious-deed" that would wreck ALL his board with a single shot.
Would be the Duress#3 too redundant? I usually B. Wish for it when I'm in a bad position, because B. Wish would otherwise grab ToA.
Would be the Orchard#4 really needed? You can search them thanks to Tutors and Gifts.
Would be B. Wish better than multiple C. Wishes? You can try to resolve them for Brainfreeze as well as you usually search for ToA. Why am I suggesting this change to you? Because, the perspective of playing a flexible deck that can change style and weapons, is usually well suited by those not restricted blue tutors. You would change a few things and you lose ONLY the possible recursion of one of the maindeck sorceries. What are you going to gain? You could play with instant speed solutions, with more blue cards, you can grab strong things during game one without thinking about losing your secondary winning condition, you can kick the opponent's ass from two different sides: you can munch his life AND consume his cards. I usually play with them and I cannot bless myself more for choosing to do it. You choose to lose a couple of strong recursions ( Walk, Y Will ) to gain a large number of medium-size instants recursions ( ReBs, Ancestral, Solutions, Gifts, Drawers, Bouncers ).
C.Wishes can grab things that usually help you protecting a resolved Oath too.

I suggest you to try 3 copies of it maindeck. Duress#1 and #2 plus B. Wish are the obvious cards to swap for them.

My 2 cents.
Maxx Matt

[dicemanx]

I want to begin my reply in saying that while I am happy with my deck configuration and wouldn't change anything for now, I would endorse Steve's and MaxxMatt's suggestions for changing the main deck. The Duresses main are not always a happy choice, so swapping them out for more tutoring power and getting rid of the Swamp is easily understandable. In addition, running a MD Tormod's Crypt to complement the Thirsts cannot be a bad idea if it would be potentailly useful against a few major archetypes. However, running Duresses has its own advantages - I consider myself "pre-boarded" against other control decks with the extra disruption, and the Duresses actually make Recoup useful - the sole card that MaxxMatt singled out as otherwise the only really useless card in the deck. Now this doesn't mean that automatically I rush to Recoup any Duress that might find its way into the graveyard, but at least I increase my options with the card if I do draw it early.

The lone Rebuild would not be enough against Staks.like.decs
The lone Purge would probabily not be enough against Gifts-Dragon.decs
The lone ReB would probabile not be enough against other control decks.

While I have lost a significant amount of SB space, as I said above I already consider myself "pre-boarded" against archetypes like WGD and control. The Needles are very powerful against WGD, usually enough to slow them down significantly and win the race, even if they manage to resolve a Xantid against me (which is often otherwise fatal, unless I can simply combo out faster). The Purge and REB are all that really need to be added post SB, and Purge works nicely with Gifts as an answer.

Against control I can side in the lone REB and Duress #3, which might not appear to be much, but again I'm already running the 2 Duresses main. I also really don't want to overSB. It's hard enough to squeeze in everything that you want into the main deck, so there's always a danger of overSBing and diluting your main strategy. Gifts is a deck that is fairly resilient against SB hate as it is, so it has to go with its strength games 2 and 3 rather than being so defensively oriented. This generalization doesn't always apply, but in general I've found that I rarely want to bring in much against any archetype to maintain the cohesiveness of the main deck.

Against Stax, that is correct, I do miss the additional bounce and/or the RnRs. However, the major post SB strategy against Stax is to focus on the Oath plan, something that they can be very vulnerable to. Additionally, it is actually possible to increase the number of *permanents* post SB, because you can conceivably bring in lands over certain business spells. This leaves you less vulnerable to their Null Rods/CotVs for 0/Shamans/Wedlers. CotV for 2 can hurt of course, however the odds are with you that you can find and cast Oath first before they find and cast CotV with 4 mana; failing that, you still have the lone Rebuild as an out, or even a quick Tinker with 3 Needles to shut down any Welders.

There are more points in both posts that I want to address, but that's all I have time for now. I'll add more later.

[vroman]

why not run darkblast over pithing needle?
a) welder is the most common thing to needle, dblast eliminates welder for good
b) dblast is recurable if countered
c) dredge has excellent synergy w gifts ungiven
d) dblast is not undone by artifact destruction
e) dblast rewards the inclusion of the basic swamp (secure black source) in your list
f) dredging fuels yawg will

[Dozer]

Needle negates much more threats than Darkblast can. Pithing Needle
- is additional Wasteland protection,
- stops Strip Mine-Crucible shenanigans,
- stops activated stuff like Belcher, Top, Mindslaver, Fetchlands, Vial,
- is useful against manlands (moreso than Darkblast),
- can be Tinkered away if need be,
- can be discarded to Thirst,
- stops Welder just as well,
- and can be cast with any mana, i.e. doesn't force you to fetch black.

It is likely a metagame thing, but I like Needle much better for its higher versatility. Darkblast is an additional measure, but Needle never lacks targets. Every deck has something you can needle, and it is never dead especially when you can discard it to Thirst. With the broad application, it deserves the slot over Darkblast.

Dozer

[dicemanx]

Apart from the benefits Needles give you that Dozer mentioned, there are a few others:

- it adds to the permanent count against Smokestack and Tangle Wire and for your Academy
- it stops the key card in WGD: Bazaar
- a single Needle can automatically negate up to 4 Welders, if that is the target

The most frequent card that I actually name with Needle has been Wasteland to this point.


Darkblast is actually very playable as a SB card in non-transformational builds in part due to the ability to tutor for one with Gifts Ungiven. Still, Needles pre-empt the need for it against WGD and CS/Stax, the two decks which have the problematic x/1 creatures (Xantids and Welders respectively, although Shaman is a potential target).

To address some previous questions:

Have you tried to fit in other B. Wish targets?

In a non-transformational SB, sure. I have used sorceries such as Pyroclasm and Mind Twist before. There are other good targets as have been mentioned in other threads, like Deep Analysis for instance.

In the transformational SB, I have the one Duress, although Gaea's Blessing could potentially have use as well (I even have the lone Tropical Island in the main deck). The Coffin Purge could potentially be swapped with a Pyroclasm, which is about the only change I would consider to the SB. It's always good to have additional ways of handling Meddling Mage and other problem creatures, and Recoup can also increase the mileage you get out of Pyroclasm.

Would be Meltdown the additional answer to Staks that could probabily sometimes save you? While it hurt your mana base too, it can be the "red-pernicious-deed" that would wreck ALL his board with a single shot.

I don't think that Meltdown is good in this deck as an answer to Stax/Stax variants, despite the fact that it's a target for Burning Wish. Reaching up to 5 mana (if you need to deal with Smokestacks and Uba Masks) for a sorcery that also requires you to have R is a tall order (and you need R *twice* on consecutive turns if you are Wishing for it!). I would much rather prefer another bounce spell (Rebuild most likely, as Hurkyl's Recall can get cut off by CotV for 2), or Rack and Ruin (but again, I don't like the reliance on R), or even a Gorilla Shaman or two.

The other thing to consider is that the plan against Stax here is to go with the Oaths game 2, so that their Null Rods and CotVs aimed at stopping your mana (for 0) have much less of an impact and diminish the need to find that emergency bounce spell or artifact removal. Even if Stax is aware of your SBing plan, you still have an edge even if its psychological. You don't *have* to SB in the Oath plan, but they pretty much have to SB in cards that are normally pretty useless against the Gifts plan - StP, Duplicants, Seals of Cleansing etc or risk getting pummeled without answers game 2. Not only that, they have to worry about assessing their starting hands from the point of view of surviving early Oaths, which could be an effective mulligan against you if you decide to proceed with a normal Gifts plan. Some Stax players might even do you an additional favor and SB *out* their Welders and Shamans so as to not have dead cards vs a resolved Oath.

Would be the Duress#3 too redundant? I usually B. Wish for it when I'm in a bad position, because B. Wish would otherwise grab ToA.

It keeps things more flexible for you game 1, but you of course have to be very cautious. I've been in situations where Wishing up a Duress to ensure that my Ancestral/other draw spell resolves was the key play so that I could get ahead and stay ahead. Game 2/3 I like the option of going up to 3 Duress against control and fast combo decks. I also add the third Duress against Fish, so that I can properly assess whether I can Oath creatures safely. I don't want to be running into StPs and Gilded Drakes.

Would be the Orchard#4 really needed? You can search them thanks to Tutors and Gifts.

This is a good question, but I think all 4 Orchards are mandatory for two reasons. The first is that it helps immensely against opposing Oath decks, an archetype that's certainly increasing in popularity. Secondly, every bit of redundancy helps, so in games 2 and 3 you need to maximize your chances of finding Orchard. For instance, when SBing in the oath plan against control decks, you might not get a chance to resolve your bombs because they might beat you to the punch in terms of card drawing/board control. However, if you managed to plant a very early Oath on the table before the initiative shifts their way, you have a much greater opportunity to negate this by just finding an Orchard and winning. The Oath plan always has inevitability, but you cannot afford to give the opposing control deck enough time for them to find their critical cards and combo you out.




On a slightly different note, another player, Sean, tried this build in a recent Seattle Vintage champs:

http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=26183.0

Of note, Sean made the swap of 1 Vampiric Tutor for 1 of the 3 Needles, and he went with another interesting idea of adding Platinum Angel to the SB as an additional tool to fight fast combo (you would of course add only Orchards, Oaths, Platinum Angel and Blessing to the deck game 2 and this might very well seal the game). This is an interesting meta call which appeared to be the right one as that event had quite a few Grimlong and TPS style decks. This plan is not without danger though - if they happen to have ways of dealing with the Angel, then it might be a strategic mistake to go with that plan - instead, it might be imperative to eithr keep Tinker DSC or bring in Oath and Akroma + Razia to increase your clock drastically (or keep both plans for that matter). If they have no answers though, or have no means of locating one when comboing off, then getting platinum into play could steal very easy wins.