An analysis of potential transformational SB's...

[Nameless]

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately regarding my SB, and the success I've had in the past using a largely transformational SB.  Along those lines I started to look back and test certain theories and choices I've made, and then examine what has and has not worked.  To this end I've came up with a few SB's that I've been trying out.

I've really examined two versions here, one for my current version of Redux that utilizes Green heavily, and another for Paragon's Keeper that has the standard Red components.

Redux transformational SB:
3 Call of the Herd
1 Ebony Charm
1 Grim Monolith
1 Masticore
4 Oath of Druids
3 Phyrexian Negator
1 Power Artifact
1 Vampiric Tutor

This version is naturally specialized according to my own main deck, in that I've dedicated 6 slots in the SB for the combo kill to side in vs. Aggro.  So far this has worked perfectly for me resulting in a veritable 'Bye' against Aggro.

The most dramatic change I've tested has to do with the complete disregard for B2B, Blood Moon, and the like.  I've even gone so far as to drop Duress in favor of the aggresive Negators.  Basically, I side in the Calls, Negators, and Masticore; increasing my kill cards as high as 9 from serious threats.  I side out my situational cards like Krosan Reclamation, The Abyss, Zuran Orb, Swords, Dismantling Blow, and sometimes an X-Drawer or Mystical in favor of the increased Tempo and aggresive nature.  This method has worked on several occasions resulting in a deck that has effecient creatures that are in themselves card advantage to some extent (read Call of the Herd or Gigapede), or can simply be dropped fast enough with Counter backup to apply early pressure fast enough that my opponent is forced into reacting to me.

I've had a fairly good measure of success with this in my Redux more recently, especially in regards to archtypes such as Keeper and even the various Grow versions.  To that extent I simply try and keep a blocker off the board using counters and run it as far as I can.  That's actually why I ended up using Masticore, because resolving one against any version of Grow has helped me enough that I was able to snag a game from them they weren't expecting.

Keeper transformational SB:
1 Circle of Protection: Black
1 Circle of Protection: Red
1 Ebony Charm
1 Gush
3 Masticore
1 Morphling
3 Phyrexian Negator
3 Red Elemental Blast
1 Vampiric Tutor

This version hasn't had quite as much testing vs. Control, but has the inherent benefit of being able to side in 3x Masticore vs. several Aggro decks such as Sligh and Sui, where it really shines as not only a kill card, but incredible removal.  This same version though is assuming one is using the 2x Morphling kill in what one might call standard Keeper.  In the Control mirror I've gone so far as to side in Morphling #3, 3x Masticore, the Negators, and my REBs, to really throw a loop into thier own SB strategy.

I'd like to say I've had more opportunities to test either of these transformational SBs against the many Grow incarnations, but I've only been able to do so in about a dozen matches now, so I don't feel my testing is complete to this end.  I can however tell you that both of these have worked great when facing Mono-U, Keeper, and various other Control decks with less aggresive styles.

With all of this being said then, the question I pose simply is...  What would you consider a transformational SB with regards to your own Keeper-esq builds.  Rememer that our goal here is to decide what cards could be considered viable in this sort of SB, and even what an optimal transformational SB would be.  To a lesser extent I'm also curious as to how many of you think a transformational SB is even a viable strategy that can still work in either a random metagame or a well-known metagame.

As usual, the seemingly endless drivel that spews forth from me may well be a complete load of shit with no merit whatsoever, so take it or leave it as you choose.
 

[Rico Suave]

Quote (Nameless @ Feb. 09 2003,12:11)This version hasn't had quite as much testing vs. Control, but has the inherent benefit of being able to side in 3x Masticore vs. several Aggro decks such as Sligh and Sui, where it really shines as not only a kill card, but incredible removal.

Wouldn't Masticore be a BAD card to side in against suicide?

As far as the red version, if you really see so much control to warrant that much SB space, why not run Dwarven Miner?  It's not as aggressive, but it certainly does the job for a cheaper cc.

[Nameless]

Quote (Rico Suave @ Feb. 09 2003,16:09)

Quote (Nameless @ Feb. 09 2003,12:11)This version hasn't had quite as much testing vs. Control, but has the inherent benefit of being able to side in 3x Masticore vs. several Aggro decks such as Sligh and Sui, where it really shines as not only a kill card, but incredible removal.

Wouldn't Masticore be a BAD card to side in against suicide?

As far as the red version, if you really see so much control to warrant that much SB space, why not run Dwarven Miner?  It's not as aggressive, but it certainly does the job for a cheaper cc.

Actually, I've found that siding in Masticore vs. Sui works pretty well.  I learned this the hard way quite some time back when I had the same initial opinion, but honestly Masticore does so well against all of Sui's creatures that when it sticks on the board it's a machine.  To this end siding in Gush has worked well for me in this matchup not only to save from Strips/Sinkhole and the like, but to put 4 cards back in my hand for Masticore food.

I'm not really talking about my own metagame specifically, but rather as a whole how the idea of a transformational SB works.  While Dwarven Miner can be a force unto itself, I'm speaking more along the lines of highly aggresive card choices that put your opponent on a clock they have to deal with at the expense of everything else.  To this end I just don't think Dwarven Miner does that.  It can mess up your opponent, but it also gives them more time to find an answer.
 

[FeverDog]

@Nameless
In both your sideboards, you are running 3 Negators and 3 Call/Masticore, why not run 4 Negators? I assume you usually want to go the transformational route against other control decks, in which case Negators would seem better than the Calls, is there any reason for the 3/3 split? I understand that Call is better vs aggro, but i dont think you really want to transform for that matchup.

[BigChuck]

Have you run a normal(non-transformational) sideboard using your deck(and if you have, what did it look like?)? If so, how much has your winning percentage differed in relation to your sideboard? Also, since your maindeck is different then most keeper builds, it might be worthwhile to post in somewhere on this thread.\n\n

[Nameless]

@Feverdog:

While I do generally prefer the Negator I also realize that I don't want to overwhelm my colored cards vs. sources.  I use the 3/3 split to balance out my Black and Green reliance during a match.  I also happen to think they both are great vs. Control...

When considering Call we can look at the usual number of removal cards in Keeper, then we realize that they are likely to side out The Abyss as a dead card in favor of something more productive.  Meaning a single call can usually draw out a counter/removal spell from my opponent.  Even if they leave in Abyss I try and plan for that occasion by trying to hold a counter in reserve myself.  We are all well aware of the card advantage inherent in Call itself, so I really don't feel the need to explain that point any further.  I will add though that considering Keeper is a deck that counts on that same card advantage to win it seems like a perfect fit to me.

While the Negators themselves aren't exactly along the same lines of card advantage they are such a damned easily cast 4-turn clock that I can't help but use them.  I love it when I use the transformational SB and get those broken opening draws that produce things like 1st turn Negator with Walk/Ancestral as icing on the cake.

@BigChuck:

I actually posted my own decklist in the Vintage forum under the topic of the same name requesting other lists for Keeper, so you can find it over there I'm sure.

This is a very interesting question, and one of the reasons I decided to start this thread.  I've personally noticed that my overall win percentages have increased only slightly, but the increase in my control matchups has taken a huge jump.  The thing is, I can't really sit here and describe to accurately how it's worked for me just recently, as I used a very simular SB in classic OSE a couple of years back which sported Serendib's to great success.  While Serendib isn't in and of itself a real clock to speak of it very often drew out a removal spell or a counter, and sometimes did 3-6 damage before taking one for the team.  I then followed with a Negator/Masticore/Morphling for the finisher.

We're all well aware that the concept of a transformational SB isn't something new.  Many decks have been using it even as recently as the last 1.X season.  The stongest point I feel is determining what cards are large enough threats, while being mana base friendly.

To give you a quick answer as to my main deck though...  Suffice it to say that for the most part my Green version looks fairly standard, with the possible exception of Gigapede.  While only a recent discovery on my part, Gigapede is a machine in the control mirror.  Barring your opponent sporting some graveyard hate worth speaking of Gigapede is a threat that turns your useless land draws into problems for your opponent.  To me a Gigapede IS card advantage, in that suddenly you always have a threat every single turn, and until they deal with that they cannot beat you.  Simple logic, simple results.

I have in the past ran many decks using a 'standard' SB, sporting silver bullets and the like to provide me with answers to a more random metagame.  I've always liked the surprize value of the transformational SB though.  While it does narrow your options a great deal, to be sure, it also can result in the very significant advantage of throwing your opponent into a state of utter chaos, which I also think can only be described as 'greatly to your advantage'.

What I'm really after here are not just thoughts on the viability of this type of SB, but for those of you that feel it can work I'd like to hear thoughts on cards that you consider effective enough threats to merit a spot in that narrow margin we call a SB.
  

[Nameless]

While I'm thinking about it, let me ask you all this:  For those of you that actually have tried using a transformational SB strategy...  Did it work for you?  What did you use, and in what format?
 

[Freddie]

The only time I do an ACTUAL transitional SB is with "Academy-esque" Combo decks.

I will SB:

4 Negator
4 Flesh Reaver
4 REB
3 Pyroblast

So that it evolves (or devolves ) into an aggro contol stategy.

Against most forms of aggro, I will transition my keeper into a very more combo esque version, with Enlightened Tutor, Time Twist and Wheel of Fortune coming in from the Sb, at the cost of a Mophling and some other creatue control.

[Big Blue]

To your questions:

1. I did use a trafo-SB in Trinity Keeper
2. It did work excellent against aggro, not worse (but also not better) than my non-trafo SB against control and worse against aggro-control.
3. I used the standard KrOathan engine + Duress/Negator/CotH
(4/3/1) + a single Compost (metagame choice)

Eventually I gave it up because REBs and StoPs are too good against some of the most dangerous decks.

[Nameless]

I've been pondering over a good response to this, but I end up asking myself the same thing...  So, I'll ask you...

@ Big Blue:

While using a trans-SB may not work in a random metagame, it obviously has worked in the past.  The question then is...  What sort of metagame do you feel it works best in?  I mean you said you decided to switch back to REBs and StoPs, and obviously it was what you needed in your metagame, yet you still seemed to express a good measure of success at the same time with that trans-SB.  What made you change, and what would make you go back to it?

@ Freddie:

What kind of results did you have with your Negator/Reaver SB?  And again pretty much the same questions I asked Blue are also directed at you, in that what sort of metagame do you think calls for such a SB?