Sideboarding with Gifts

[Kowal]

As for sideboarding, this is what I run:
2xRack and Ruin
4xDark Confidant
2xPyroclasm
3xRed Elemental Blast
2xDuress
2xTormod's Crypt
vs.
3 Chalice Of The Void
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Rack And Ruin
4 Red Elemental Blast
2 Rushing River
2 Pyroclasm

To me this seems best against a wide variety of decks. To me it seems that Chalice hurts more than it helps, because Gifts runs many 0cc and 1cc spells. Rushing River is a good card, and due to metagame choices I am sure he played it. To me Duress seems to be the more powerful choice overall. It is good against combo and Control, though less vs.CS. Ben ran Chalice as combo hate instead of Duress, and I feel that this may have been a mistake on his part. I personally hate seeing chalice on an opponent's side of the table, let alone my own side.

In regards to that sideboard:

Rushing River is my personal favorite solution to Oath of Druids fueled decks, which I expected to see in force.  I did see at least one, so I'm happy I took it.  I've found it's also good against Stax players who run Blue Elemental Blast in game two to prevent Rack/Mutation/Monkey/Heretic, since it dodges that plan and still allows me to win uncontested after I untap.

Chalice was selected because it hurts over the longterm.  Duress is fine, but against a threat-heavy/tutor-heavy deck like Grimlong or Belcher, it won't help me as much as a Chalice at zero or one.  Against IT Duress would have probably been a superior choice, but I was not and am not afraid of that deck having heard enough rumors from various folks about it before the event that I knew what to expect.  This decision also rewarded me:  see Klep's report for reasons why Chalice won when Duress would not have.

Dark Confidant seems to me to be a huge waste of sideboard space.  He does not improve any matchups.  If an effect like him isn't good enough for the maindeck, it isn't good enough period.

Conclusion:  My sideboard in the future will still look a lot like the one I used in Richmond, however you are right in that Duress IS a consideration.  However, I have not yet done sufficient testing to say with 100% certainty which solution is better, or indeed if other solutions are actually the way to go.

EDIT:  It should also be pointed out that Duress can be a maindeck consideration, and while it hasn't officially made it to my maindeck yet, it's a strong possibility given exactly how much combo has been showing up to New England events as of late.

[roberts91rom]

Versus Oath I have never had problems outracing them. GWS oath gets slowed down with countermagic, while ICBM oath can be out-raced with either a quick tinker-DSC or lethal tendrils, backed up with more counters. By no means is the match a bye, or even easy, but it is still in the favor of Gifts. You just need to keep enough pressure to stop oath in time for your win. I also opt for a Chain of Vapor maindeck in case I need time walk after oath resolves. I'm not dismissing Rushing River. It is still a great card. I'm just saying he is more or less overkill. Against Stax it also seems like too much. Since you are running flamevault, you don't run maindeck Rebuild, so I agree with Rushing River in that sense. Then again, I feel that Tendrils is a better back-up plan, and it allows MD Rebuild, and even Hurkyll's if you expect a lot of Stax.

As to Chalice, would you consider replacing it with anything? Did it ever hurt your own hand? Gifts is mostly 0-1cc spells, was this ever a problem? Would you run it again? I can't see dropping down chalice@1, because you should have a hand of other playable things early game when it really matters. Chalice@0 can only go so far, and is more or less useless if you are on the draw. What did you tend to side out for chalice? Was it worth it?

Dark Confidant is usually brought in against the control mirrors. These matches are usually down to the wire, as both decks will usually run a similar threat and counter density. I love having a big counter-war over a spell, only to drop Dark Confidant after all is said and done. 2 cards a turn usually ends the game pretty quickly. I always find that he is at least:
A) A must-counter spell.
or
B) Flat out wins with card-advantage.
In my meta there is quite a bit of control, so it's not really worth arguing over this guy. Should I expect a small amount of control I would probably replace him with Rushing River vs. big creatures or chalice if combo is expected. From what I hear however, control is growing and you will need to keep some game clinchers vs. mirrors. He isn't maindeck because he is dead versus random aggro, and helps Stax kill you. With all the lock pieces Stax is dropping, putting down a confidant just=life loss. You either quickly combo stax or control their lock pieces and combo after exhausting their resources. Either way Confidant is either useless or win-more with a risk attached..

In regards to Duress, I run the full set of 4, 2MD and 2SB. Once again, this is a meta choice. I do feel however, that everything is shifting toward combo and control in general on the Vintage scene. This would make Duress a strong card in many games IMO.

[PucktheCat]

The problem with Chain of Vapor against Oath is that you will frequently want to bounce their dude so you can race with DSC, but you obviously can't use Chain when you have Colossus on the board.

[roberts91rom]

Against oath I try to go for lethal tendrils. Each orchard token requires 0.5 less of storm PER TURN. With the control set I run pre-board, GWS oath is pretty screwed, in the sense that I can counter/duress most of their oaths. ICBM is obviously much harder to hate out. In that matchup however, I play it as the control mirror post-board. At that point I side out tinker-DSC for aggro-control Gifts. Orchard tokens+Dark Confidant+Tendrils can kill an oath deck pretty quickly. On top of that, the game plan costs little mana, thus leaving me open to use my Countermagic/Duress/Draw spells freely.

Racing with DSC can be a bad game plan as it takes up slots in your deck, and can be easily bounced. My understanding is that ICBM can side in a large amount of bounce if necessary. You also have a chance to bait out their sideboard if you get a kill game one with tinker-DSC. So in other words, the chain of vapor comment fizzles if you sideboard as I do. Not your fault however. Pretty soon I'll put up a primer for MBDI Gifts.
(ZOMG, no Merchant Scroll in Gifts? GG?)

[Special K]

Seeing as your board is 13/15 control hate I would to see how you side all that crap in against CS/BS and Gifts without pulling out combo pieces or anything good.

[Tha Gunslinga]

My understanding is that ICBM can side in a large amount of bounce if necessary.

I don't run any, but I suppose someone out there might.  I've found the Gifts matchup to be slightly in the favor of ICBM Oath.  Null Rod and Chalice just make Gifts scoop it up all too often.

[Hydra]

It's not so much Rod and Chalice in ICBM Oath, but more so the fact that you're backing Rod and Chalice up with one of the better clocks in the format and the ability to match Gifts counter for counter.  Gifts had a superior draw engine over ICBM Oath, but ICBM Oath has the tools to make sure that never becomes an issue.

[PucktheCat]

ICBM oath can be out-raced with ... a quick tinker-DSC

. . .


Gunslinga's and Hydra's posts match my experience.  The only thing I have to add is that siding out Tinker takes away one of your best trumps to Oath's gameplan.  If it resolves before they resolve an Oath you pretty much completely usurps their role for the matchup, making you into the beatdown deck AND the control deck.

[roberts91rom]

Seeing as your board is 13/15 control hate I would to see how you side all that crap in against CS/BS and Gifts without pulling out combo pieces or anything good.

I don't know what 13/15 your seeing. Unless Rack and Ruin and Pyroclasm are new tech vs. control, I see a maximum of 11. Duress does not come in versus CS, and neither does Tormod's Crypt. Should the graveyard of CS become a problem, then you have lost, and Duress helps dump their fatties if they get a good brainstorm in response. The Gifts mirror may see Tormod's crypt depending on how Gifts dependant they are. Against something like Smemmen's list I would bring them in, but against Brassman Gifts is a dead card because it can play around it.

You are also using tunnel-vision on my sideboard. Just because a card is good in one matchup, doesn't mean it is crap against everything else. Duress, REB and Tormod's Crypt are all good against at least 2 decks. That is why they are in my sideboard rather than tunnel-vision cards like I am now assuming you run.

It's not so much Rod and Chalice in ICBM Oath, but more so the fact that you're backing Rod and Chalice up with one of the better clocks in the format and the ability to match Gifts counter for counter. Gifts had a superior draw engine over ICBM Oath, but ICBM Oath has the tools to make sure that never becomes an issue.

Rod and Chalice are bitches to face against. They can both be played around however, rod being the harder of the two to do so against. In terms of stopping my draw-engine, I have no idea what you are talking about. Using mana-denial to stop me from using TfK? Spare Moxen in hand usually cry out for TfK to dump them. On top of that I bring in Dark Confidant. Two-mana isn't hard to reach in a proper Gifts deck. I go land turn 1, then land turn 2. Assuming you lost game one and are dropping chalice, I'm not complaining because I won game one. It takes 1 bounce spell to send that Chalice back to useless. Once again, these are all assumptions made on both sides, and we all know it isn't as easy as dropping Null Rod/Chalice turn 1 with me topdecking all lands and bounce spells.

Gunslinga's and Hydra's posts match my experience. The only thing I have to add is that siding out Tinker takes away one of your best trumps to Oath's gameplan. If it resolves before they resolve an Oath you pretty much completely usurps their role for the matchup, making you into the beatdown deck AND the control deck.

Once again, we are all basing things off experience. It's safe to assume that you haven't faced Gifts with Confidant, because he was immediately discarded as a bad idea when I posted him here. That guy is worse for you than Null Rod is for me. Should he resolve, then you had better drop oath that turn.

In regards to tinker. Once again, if I rely on a 1-of spell against a tight matchup, then I'm screwed. Imagine tutoring for tinker, only to find that your opponent has an extra counter in hand than you. That ends up being pretty game-breaking for the oath player. Game one is just a race. Game two they may be in race mode, while I am comfortable sitting back and playing control. This is how I see it. I haven't played against Oath 60000000 times. Maybe I got lucky in most of my matches. I don't know, but in my playtesting it's been much better without tinker than with it post-board. Facing a bounce-heavy ICBM oath is my dream matchup game 2, because they should all have a fear of tinker.

[Tha Gunslinga]

On top of that I bring in Dark Confidant.

Against OATH?

[Vegeta2711]

Playing Confidant against Oath is pretty much the ideal example of the 'One Step Forward, Two Steps Back' approach of sideboarding some people have adapted.

[PucktheCat]

I haven't faced Gifts with Confidant, but I have tested it.  I am a Gifts player, not an Oath player.  Confidant is just another way you are making your deck less likely to stop the early Oath.  Confidant puts you a card behind in any counterwars that happen before he resolves and spends a full turn in play.  After he spends one full turn in play he replaces himself.  A turn later he becomes a Night's Whispers.  If he stays in play three full turns he probably does win you the game, but that's turn 4 at the earliest.  Oath (esp. GWS Oath, but also ICBM) is designed to put put you in a position where you have to win a counterwar over Oath early in the game.  Confidant does nothing to help you towards that goal in the first two turns, and does very little to help you on the third turn, and that's presuming you resolve him first turn.

[roberts91rom]

Against GWS oath I leave in tinker-DSC as they run less control. Little changes happen in that matchup. Against ICBM my testing has shown it is the equivalent of a control mirror.

I haven't faced Gifts with Confidant, but I have tested it.  I am a Gifts player, not an Oath player.  Confidant is just another way you are making your deck less likely to stop the early Oath.  Confidant puts you a card behind in any counterwars that happen before he resolves and spends a full turn in play.  After he spends one full turn in play he replaces himself.  A turn later he becomes a Night's Whispers.  If he stays in play three full turns he probably does win you the game, but that's turn 4 at the earliest.  Oath (esp. GWS Oath, but also ICBM) is designed to put put you in a position where you have to win a counterwar over Oath early in the game.  Confidant does nothing to help you towards that goal in the first two turns, and does very little to help you on the third turn, and that's presuming you resolve him first turn.

If you have problems with stopping them from resolving an early oath, and you are playing Gifts Control...remake your deck/sideboard. In my experience the odds of you getting an early tinker-DSC is less than them resolving an early oath. Even if you drop a counter-war, how do you recover? Oath will get oath before you get another counter due to the strong digging power. They run 4xOath of Druids and they run just as many tutors/diggers. Your logic on confidant is that it takes turns to take effect. Lets examine the scenarios against ICBM oath.
1. They counter it, 1 for 1 card advantage, and you use one of their counters that would have been needed to resolve oath.
2. Let's say they have more counters and they resolve oath, but don't care about confidant. Next turn you "draw" a card. 1 for 1 card advantage.
3. You drop confidant, it's not countered and they don't drop oath. GG.

Once again, I DO NOT SIDE IN CONFIDANT AGAINST GWS OATH. I know they are about ASAP oath. This is why I leave in tinker-DSC. They can't stop it in the manner that ICBM oath can.

Oath (esp. GWS Oath, but also ICBM) is designed to put put you in a position where you have to win a counterwar over Oath early in the game.

Who says I don't side in things to stop early game oath? The problem is when they get 1 oath, and then use all their digging/tutoring spells to get counters. Late game against ICBM is where I have seen almost every Gifts deck fail. This is because ICBM oath just stalls until it gets 3-5 counters in hand to overwhelm Gifts. I am surprised to see ICBM oath players not know how to win the Gifts matchup. Early oath is suicide against any competant Gifts player, and so I have tuned my sideboard to deal with this problem. If you guys want to, you can leave in tinker-DSC, by all means. Dark Confidant has ended every game that he resolved against ICBM oath. Once again, maybe you guys are all right and I am all wrong. At this point it is all words against words. I'll play my way, and you play your way.