GroAtog – Well, it’s April 1st, Where are we Now

[Smmenen]

Two words: Change and Chaos.  Both words describe the last two months of the vintage scene.  Beginning with a coincidentally timed series of polls in December followed by the Forsythe Article (I was quoted longer than JP so pbbbt) followed quickly by the rise of GroAtog and a very aptly timed starcity article featuring GroAtog (Paul and myself!).  But it doesn’t even come close to ending there.  The article was published on a Friday and on Tuesday we have 5 bombs dropped on us: the new banned and restricted list changes.   You would think that this much activity would provide enough debate fodder for the next year in Vintage scene.   But that’s not the end of it.  Tog Hell began.  We had a Mana Drain Tournament with two tog decks in the top.  The Debate over Berserk began anew.  And finally, as the denouement, Stax emerges – the new Smokestack deck: the answer to GroAtog.  


Here is what the field is going to look like barring new stunning developments:

1) Old Friends Sticking Around:
Keeper (with minor modifications – and possibly the broken addition of Future Sight)
Ankh Sligh (here to stay)
Parfait (much worse – how can it get worse  you say?  j/k Rudy)

2) Annoying Cousins Who Won’t Take a Hint:
TnT
Mask

3) Popular in the 80s, On a Comeback Tour:
URphid

4) Just Moved into Town:
Stax (I refuse to call it Ducktape)

5) Oh Yeah, And those two Tog Decks (THE LACES WERE IN):
GroAtog
HulkSmash

This ladies and gentlemen is the future.  Enjoy this metagame because it isn’t going anywhere for a while.  Why?  Because Stax is hard as hell to build.  Trust me, I’m trying to pick up Workshops (if anyone wants to sell me four I can offer $250).  Moreover, people really want to play TnT if they own the property.  That leaves a very slim slice of the metagame to play the “answer deck” which means people, Tog is here to stay.

I had a really bizaare experience last night.  I was looking at the Miseting forum and I saw Randomizer playing an exact decklist that I posted from the Tog Hell thread *with the same friggen formatting too* - it was the 4 berserk build.  Let me tell you, when Random-miser starts playing the same deck as you, it’s time to ph3ar.  

Without further adieu:

GroAtog, Final Edition

4 Underground Sea
4 Tropical Island
5 Fetchlands
1 LoA
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Black Lotus

4 Psychatog
4 Quirion Dyrad

Broken Stuff:
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Yawgmoth’s Why Did They Print this Card??
1 Regrowth
1 Fastbond
1 Berserk

Draw
4 Gush
4 Brainstorm
3 Sleight of Hand

Tutors:
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
2 Merchant Scroll
1 Cunning Wish

Counterspell
4 Force of Wills
4 Misdirections
3 Counterspell*

SB:
1 Crumble**
2 Naturalize
1 Emerald Charm
1 Ebony Charm
1 Berserk
2 Submerge
2 Smother
1 Diabolic Edict
1 Island
1 Strip Mine
3 Duress

Yes I realize the SB is 16 cards.  Cut one according to your metagame.

•   Counterspell.  Have Extensive and I mean extensive playtesting I have come to the conclusion that Daze sucks.  

It’s like this.  It’s worthless after the first few turns.  And even in those first few turns, I rarely got to use it like I wanted – praying that the opponent would play a spell that I could daze but never did.   Oh sure, it *felt* nice to have it – but it isn’t practically useful.  But I’m sure there will be a lot of holdouts.  Well, guess what, you’re wrong.  But you are entitled to your opinion so just continue playing with it.

** Crumble – testing it as the 3rd Naturalize.  It may be important versus Stax (Smokestack - I refuse to call it Ducktape.

Well, there you have it.  The strip mine is there to play against Maze of Iths and the Island is to combat people who non basic hate.  I just don’t want it in the main because of the demand for Green and Black that this deck requires.

Stephen Menendian\n\n

[Mith]

Nice deck  I still fear the Blood Moon...so I run an Island maindeck over the 5th sackland as well as a BEB in the board to wish for, but that's a personal choice.

How's the strip in the board been for you?

[Smmenen]

Fear is the Mind Killer.  I too fear blood moon - but I have tested against it and I will know no fear.  Siding in the Naturalizes is key - you can float in response and then kill Blood Moon.  Counterspells help too  as does the basic Island.

As for Strip Mine.  I have only actually used it once against a deck that brough it Maze of Iths and it worked exactly as I wanted.  I was able to easily tutor it up and win quickly.

Stephen Menendian

[Mith]

I've been caught with my pants down by a blood moon before...with no naturalize in hand to float mana for

I agree completely with the counterspell vs. daze issue though. I think people are still impressed with the power of the first/second turn daze backup...but they fail to realize just how worthless the card is mid-late game. I've been experimenting with cutting the 4th misdirect to the board, where I can wish for it if necessary. It frees up a much needed spot in the maindeck for me

Has emerald charm been worth the spot in the board?

[Saucemaster]

Just to preach the virtues of the maindeck Island a little bit:

I've found that I use the Island far more frequently to oppose Wasteland than I use it to combat Blood Moon, even post-board.  Frankly, the one-Island plan is usually too little, too late against Blood Moon (though it's worth running anyway).  If that was the only reason to run one, I'd probably skip running it entirely.  Where it really shines, though, is in one-land hands facing a deck that could easily drop an early Wasteland against you.  Dropping a first-turn Fetchland and knowing that you can fetch a non-Wasteable land with which to play the Sleight/Brainstorm (which will hopefully find you the second land, getting Gush active) is golden.  Particularly against decks like Suicide or TnT, both of which can punish you heavily for stalling.

I've personally dropped a Tropical for the Island, because I almost never needed more than one green mana in a turn  except during a Yawgwill turn, and, well, the game's usually over regardless at that point.  This still feels wrong, and I'm not sure that it's correct, but in all my playtesting so far it has never once been an issue, so it has yet to prove itself wrong (for me).

EDIT: Mith posted as I was writing this.  I personally am dropping the Emerald Charm in the board, as it hasn't been useful for me, though I acknowledge that in theory it should be good.  Mostly I kept finding it inferior to the other options I wanted to side in in the matches in which I wanted it, and couldn't find enough slots to bring in everything I wanted without damaging the Gro engine.  However, as with all SB slots, this is a metagame thing for me, and what works (or doesn't) for me in my SB might have nothing to do with what works for you, or Smmenen, etc.

[Smmenen]

Yeah, the SB is and always will be a contested area becuase of, what you said, metagame considerations.

I rarely use Diabolic Edict.  But when I do, that's game boys.

STeve

[MoreFling]

The reason Daze is good is you can play a 2nd/3rd turn creature, and have extra backup for it. Also, it's a free +1/+1 for your Dryad if anything.

Also, I run 2 dazes, it's good enuff for me.

I also like the instant effect of Opt better then Sleight, but I guess that can be contributed to playing style.

8 creatures: Do you really feel you need 8? Here, we've been running 7 ever since, and some even run only 6. The deck doesn't seem to suffer from that at all.

[Fever]

@MoreFling

I like Daze too, in the right deck, but i dont believe GAT is it. I have been preaching Counterspell over Daze in GAT since the day it won Dulmen, and i still firmly believe it is the better choice. Being free is good, but the deck already packs 8 pitch-counters.

About the number of creatures, obviously the deck will still work with only 7, but i feel like you really need 8 to maintain that aggro-control feel. This is also something i have been preaching for months, even when most were running only 3 Togs. Maybe its just a psychological thing, i dont know, but i couldnt bring myself to run only 3 of either Tog or Dryad.


Also, about the Island issue, i think you definetly need one for the reasons that Saucemaster listed. I run 2 in my build and i find that even better, but certainly one is needed in my opinion.\n\n

[AliBaba]

Quote 1) I didn’t think a Tog answer would emerge – so props to the germans who found it.

Didn't they originally develop GroAtog?  Why does it surprise you that they would also find a solution?

Quote Stax (I refuse to call it Ducktape)

(Smokestack - I refuse to call it Ducktape.

You in a sense just called it Ducktape twice.

On a more serious note, I can see the inclusion of Crumble as a good compliment to Emerald Charm in the one mana answer department with regards to enchantments and artifacts.  Crumble/Emerald Charm are single purpose solutions versus Naturalize's dual purpose.  However when having to Wish for an answer, the one less mana requirement could mean the difference between casting it the same turn as opposed to having to wait.

AliBaba

[Smmenen]

Which is precisely why crumble is there (props to Cha1n5 for the suggestion).

Steve

[Radagast]

Why not maindeck the Duresses over the Drains/Counterspells? It fits the strategy of the deck much better, and there aren't many creatures that you're really that scared of (and you still have FoW for those).

[Smmenen]

Only testing bears out that kind of answer (and metagame of course).  

Some people do advocate duresses main - but given that this is an aggro control concept, it isn't as theoretcially sound as countermagic.  You want to protect your men reactively while playing proactively with your threats.

A turn one duress doesn't stop a 4th turn stp.

Steve

[Radagast]

Quote Only testing bears out that kind of answer

Which is sadly exactly what I have very, very little time for - in the games I have played, though, Duress has been incredible (more so than Drain/Counterspell). Basically, you steamroll aggro decks either way, and against control or the mirror you would probably side them in anyways. Against metagame reactions like Stax, it isn't so simple; both can get the various lock artifacts but I imagine being able to Duress their first turn play instead of having to wait for 2 mana to Drain/Counter could be valuable.

Quote You want to protect your men reactively while playing proactively with your threats.

This is not necessarily true. I've found it liberating to be able to Duress away their key threats and/or know that they don't have more threats than I have counters and then just go nuts without worrying, or having to keep UU open for a counter. Also, I believe it was determined that Legend Black is an aggro-control deck, so the point is mostly moot.

Quote A turn one duress doesn't stop a 4th turn stp.

This is true if they topdeck the StP. However, you can assume that they are going to have either removal or counters in their opening hand (if they don't, you win by default), meaning you get to Duress either the StP or the counter they would have used to back it up, which means you can use the counter you would have used to back up whatever you counter StP with to counter StP itself.
That last sentence confuses even me somewhat, so I guess an example would be appropriate. Say they draw a hand with Force of Will and six other cards, whereas you have a Duress and a Force. On the first turn you Duress the FoW. A few turns later you play a creature, which they draw an StP to deal with, which you then Force. If you had had a Counterspell and a Force, you would have used one on the StP and the other on the Force.
Basically to sum it up, if Duress finds neither a counter nor something you would otherwise counter, barring a highly improbable series of events I don't care to think up at the moment, you win. If it does find something, you've just saved a mana due to Duress being one cheaper, tempo due to not having to keep mana open for a counter, and learned the contents of their hand.

[Smmenen]

Quote (Radagast @ April 04 2003,11:58)[

Quote You want to protect your men reactively while playing proactively with your threats.

This is not necessarily true. I've found it liberating to be able to Duress away their key threats and/or know that they don't have more threats than I have counters and then just go nuts without worrying, or having to keep UU open for a counter. Also, I believe it was determined that Legend Black is an aggro-control deck, so the point is mostly moot.

This is an interesting point and there are two rebuttal point that automatically seem obvious to me.

1) Legend Black is not an aggro control deck anymore than it could be described as Suicide Black deck (although that is the accurate term).  I would not support the contention that Legend black is an aggro-control deck, although I can understand why that statement could be made.  Primarily becuase the disruption in Legend Black: Duress, Hymn, Sinkhole, Null Rod is there not so much to explictly protect the attackers, but to generally disrupt the opponents game - a distinction with a blurry line, but a distinction that does indeed exist.

2) If I concede that Legend Black is indeed an Aggro-Control deck, and then I say that is so becuase of its disruption which protects its threats, then I would counter by saying that legend black runs Duress over counterspells not becuase that is what makes it aggro-control but becuase it is far more synergistic and reasonable to run Duress over counterspells.  But that doesn't prove that counterspells aren't more optimal as a aggro-control concept as opposed to focused discard like duress.  

That said, I honestly do think the three vanillla counterspells are better than Duress in the maindeck - of that I do have little down.  The question that I reacted to is whether 2 duresses would fit nicely in addition - or maybe in combination with the counterspells, and that is a question I cannot answer at this time.  

Steve

[Cartman316 _420]

Well, something that might help versus tog would be Chains of Mephistopheles. Honestly, what do you think of it Smmenen? I know there are answers for it, but do you think it hurts you any?

Sorry for not a long response, I will put up more later, and I also agree with Counterspell over Daze, I was talking to someone running GAT today, and tried to explain to him how counter is better, daze is more situational, expecally with 8 pitch counters.

anyway, later

~Cartman

[Smmenen]

Chains can be devastating - there is no doubt.  The problem is fitting in the right deck.  The GroAtog deck is so flexible that it can easy win against a slow black deck using chains.  If I get a turn one Dryad on the table that you can't stop - how good is a chains if you rely on the Rack?  I'll win before you do.

Steve

[MoreFling]

Smmenen, that's a bit of a cheap way out, since you and me both know that the decks using chains as a measure against GAT and other decks relying on card-advantage alot, will not be Pox, and thus will not be relying on the rack.
Black usually is able to sport plenty of removal as well.

However, GAT still has FoW's and cunning wish --> naturalize to deal with the problem.

About Daze vs Counterspell, I run only 3 misdirections, so that's 7 pitchcounters, and I've found that vs mono-black, and to some extent Sligh (which i know is usually easy enough) Daze can be a really usefull counter, and is worth the tempo-loss. I'd rather take a land back then dump 2 to his Hymn when I'm not having a misD in hand, or counter an Ankh, which is not something to be happy about heh.
Especially in an 8 creature build, I would figure Daze would be optimal, since you can drop a dryad much safer, and make it grow easily.

Just my 2 cents.

[Smmenen]

Quote (MoreFling @ April 05 2003,12:42)Smmenen, that's a bit of a cheap way out, since you and me both know that the decks using chains as a measure against GAT and other decks relying on card-advantage alot, will not be Pox, and thus will not be relying on the rack.
Black usually is able to sport plenty of removal as well.

There are "chains" decks with Anvil, Rack, Underworld Dreams, etc that are not based around Pox.

[MoreFling]

I know that, and they are even LESS common.

[Master Tap]

Quote Two words: Change and Chaos.  

damn 3 words    sorry I had to do that. On the issue of gat though I feel parfait and smokestack decks are going to be the way to go to try and combat it though there are other random cards that do so. over all though all gat really got after april 1st was an auto win in a heavy TnT meta.

[Radagast]

Quote 2) If I concede that Legend Black is indeed an Aggro-Control deck, and then I say that is so becuase of its disruption which protects its threats, then I would counter by saying that legend black runs Duress over counterspells not becuase that is what makes it aggro-control but becuase it is far more synergistic and reasonable to run Duress over counterspells.  But that doesn't prove that counterspells aren't more optimal as a aggro-control concept as opposed to focused discard like duress.

First off, we need to decide the definition of aggro-control, because that is basically what we would be arguing about in conjunction with Legend Black. The definition I use is (obviously) derived from my definitions of Aggro and Control. Under my definition, Aggro is any deck that aims to achieve the victory condition of the deck as fast as possible while using minimal to no disruption (this would include Academy as well as Red Stompy), and Control is any deck that aims to prevent the opposing deck from ever achieving its victory condition , and achieving its own almost as an afterthought. Aggro-Control is then any deck that aims to achieve its victory condition and simultaneously to prevent the opposing deck from stopping it from doing so and from achieving its own victory condition.

I arrived at these definitions after contemplating the so-called "magic triangle" for a while, and deciding it to be complete and utter shit. It has the following faults:
1) This is the biggest one. It mixes up victory conditions with strategies; a combo is a victory condition while aggro and control are strategies. Even if we decide that certain strategies may have inherent advantages versus certain victory conditions, and vice versa, which may or may not be true, there is still the problem that it is quite possible for an aggro or control deck to use a combo as its victory condition, or even for a deck to be a blend of the aggro and control strategies. Indeed, it is also possible for an aggro-control deck to use a combo as its victory condition; old extended Trix is a good example of this. This one fault alone makes the entire triangle useless in all but a few cirumstances, and even there only by coincidence.
2) It confuses Control with a mono-blue deck that runs 36 counters and card-drawers, 24 lands, and no effective way to deal with creatures.
3) It confuses Combo with a deck that uses little to no disruption and a low number of threats that are only threatening if another specific threat has already resolved, but that is capable of getting its combo parts into play very quickly if it is unhindered.
4) It confuses Aggro with a creature-based deck that uses little to no disruption and tries to deal 20 damage as fast as it can.  
Under the latter three conditions the "magic triangle" is indeed true; Control beats Combo because Control's counterspells far outnumber anything Combo has that is worth countering, Combo beats Aggro because it kills faster and Aggro can't do a damn thing about it, and Aggro beats Control because Control has no effective way to deal with its threats (which is, incidentally, against the entire point of control: to have an answer to anything at any time). Under different conditions, the reverse could even be true: for example, Gro beats Trick (= mono-U version), Academy beats Enchantress, and Parfait beats Sligh.

From there, it is easy to recognize the two opposite strategies as Aggro and Control, and the one in between as Aggro-Control. Now, this isn't a boolean thing; its not quite clear-cut where on the scale from Aggro to Control does a deck turn from Aggro into Aggro-Control and from Aggro-Control into Control, and some Aggro-Control decks have more Aggro or Control elements than others. An example of a borderline deck is Hatred, which is just as happy to drop some creatures and ride its disruption to victory as it is to drop creatures the first two turns and then to Hatred the opponent out on the next. While these definitions of Aggro and Control may seem "radical", even "blasphemous" (agrgo isc r43tuer!!!!!1s111oen (translation: aggro is creatures!!!!!!)), they are really the only ones you can arrive at if you take care not to confuse victory conditions with overall strategies (otherwise whatever you arrive at will be mostly useless, as with the "magic triangle"). While the Aggro - Aggro-Control - Control "triangle" (in quotations because it is missing the second and third sides) is less convenient in that none of the strategies have inherent advantages against the others (Academy beats Parfait, but Parfait beats Sligh), it is far more correct, letting you instead focus on the individual card interactions that actually decide the advantage.

Now, after this rather long pseudo-aside, it is clear why I consider Legend Black an Aggro-Control deck: it plays out some creatures, and uses its disruption to prevent the opponent from getting rid of them or from winning before his/her life total is reduced to nonpositive amounts. Now after all this, I can say that you are indeed correct, and Legend Black being an Aggro-Control deck doesn't in any way prove that Duress is better than Counterspell for Gro-a-Tog. The opposite wasn't even what I was trying to say, rather that Counterspells being better because they are the Aggro-Control thing to do isn't true either.

Quote 1) Legend Black is not an aggro control deck anymore than it could be described as Suicide Black deck (although that is the accurate term).  I would not support the contention that Legend black is an aggro-control deck, although I can understand why that statement could be made.  Primarily becuase the disruption in Legend Black: Duress, Hymn, Sinkhole, Null Rod is there not so much to explictly protect the attackers, but to generally disrupt the opponents game - a distinction with a blurry line, but a distinction that does indeed exist.

This distinction doesn't really matter, since as Aggro-Control your goal is just as much to prevent your opponent from winning as it is to prevent him/her from stopping you achieving your victory condition (ie removing your threats).

Quote That said, I honestly do think the three vanillla counterspells are better than Duress in the maindeck - of that I do have little down.  The question that I reacted to is whether 2 duresses would fit nicely in addition - or maybe in combination with the counterspells, and that is a question I cannot answer at this time.

I agree that the only true way to decide this is to test it, which I right now don't have much time for (spring break is coming up though, when I hopefully will). Another interesting note is that old extended Trix, whose playstyle has a surprising amount in common with GAT's, used a disruption base of 4 Force of Will and 4 Duress as well; I'm not saying this decides anything, but it is worth thinking about. I have already stated my reasons and experiences for believing Duress to be the better choice above.

[theorigamist]

@Radagast:  I think that was extremely well written.  Good job.  But I think there is a flaw in your logic as well.  One of the things you said was that you consider the "combo" of a combo deck's title, as referred to by the triangle, to mean that the deck has a combo in it as its win condition, and that does not reflect its overall strategy.  I disagree.  I think "combo," as used in the triangle, is a strategy.  I think it's the strategy that says you set yourself up to use your win condition as early as possible while disregarding (to an extent) your opponent.

Obviously this isn't finite, but I think that's what separates aggro from combo.  I think of aggro as a deck that puts out threats for the opponent to react to, as opposed to reacting to opponent's threats (which is how I define control).

Given those definitions, I agree that the triangle doesn't work as it should.  With decks that are absolutely aggro, control, or combo, no deck should come out on top.  Aggro would put out threats, and control would have the answers for those threats.  Combo would set itself up quickly to use its win condition, but aggro would be putting pressure on at the same time.  Likewise, combo against control would be a stalemate as the combo deck sets up and the control deck gathers reactive answers to combos cards.

Having said all that, I don't think it really matters whether we call Legend Black aggro or aggro-control.  It's a matter of whose talking, and how that person defines the different strategies and win conditions.  I personally would call Legend Black aggro, as it doesn't have many reactive elements, and wants to put out early threats.

However, I fail to see how our definition of Legend Black really matters.

[Radagast]

I probably should have explicitly set apart engine combos from - don't know if there is a term for the other type - "finite" 2-3 card combos. The latter is a win condition, and what I meant when I used the word combo in my previous post; the former is card interaction you can build a strategy around if you like.

Quote I think it's the strategy that says you set yourself up to use your win condition as early as possible while disregarding (to an extent) your opponent.

This still falls under the category of Aggro - trying to achieve your victory condition as soon as possible while ignoring your opponent (= using minimal to no disruption). A goblin deck's victory condition is reducing its opponent life total to 0; thus, you could say it is beforehand setting itself up for using its win condition, which is dealing the last point of damage. An engine combo's win condition is drawing enough cards to achieve "critical mass" when it can use whatever mechanism it likes to kill the opponent; you could say it is beforehand setting itself up for using its victory condition as well. So, again, this is just a distinction between the kill mechanisms and victory conditions of the decks, and not their strategies.

Quote I think of aggro as a deck that puts out threats for the opponent to react to

Threats do not have to be permanents; a Draw-7 from Academy is just as much a threat as a Juggernaut or Survival from TnT.

Quote I personally would call Legend Black aggro, as it doesn't have many reactive elements, and wants to put out early threats.

Personally, I do not think the distinction between using disruption reactively or proactively matters; I'll have to consider this some more, but I predict that I'll decide it to be just a function of the cards used to achieve the goal, and not the cards themselves. As Smmenen pointed out, Legend Black doesn't use discard as opposed to countermagic because it's the best possible choice (it might be, it might not), but because the deck doesn't contain blue mana.

[Matt The Great]

Quote (Radagast @ April 07 2003,15:03)Personally, I do not think the distinction between using disruption reactively or proactively matters; I'll have to consider this some more, but I predict that I'll decide it to be just a function of the cards used to achieve the goal, and not the cards themselves.

This is completely correct. Discard is controlling just as counterspells are, just as land destruction is, just as spot removal is - they're just different kinds of control (discard and LD are proactive, dealing with threats before they enter play. counters and spot removal like StP are reactive, because they don't do anything until the opponent plays their threat). Too often, people confuse "control" with "permission".

The best archetype definition I have seen is the following:
Aggro decks have cards that 'aim' at the opponent, control cards aim at the opponent's cards, combo cards aim their own cards.

This classification system has been superior to others I've seen because not only does it describe known decks but it predicts other decks' place on the metagame clock.

Suicide Black is thus definitely an aggro-control deck. It's more controlling than sligh which is itself more controlling than Stompy. Suicide is also more aggro than Fish which in turn is more aggro than monoblue which is more 'aggro' than Keeper.

Archetypes aren't a set of boxes to put decks in, it's a three dimensional space where decks have varying degrees of control-ishness, aggressiveness, and combo-ness.

To wit: even among combo decks, some are more controlling than others. Dragon and Academy are the least controlling, Donate (monoblue) and Pandeburst among the most controlling.

I think that a good working knowledge of the metagame clock and Mike Flores' article, "Who's the beatdown?" should be required reading before discussing archetypes. Hell, they should be required reading before joining this site!

[David Hernandez]

Hi all,

I didn't see a current thread regarding GAT.  The discussion here started as a GroAtog thread asking where we were as of April 1st.  

well, now we are post Gush-restriction.  I wanted to start a new thread, but i don't have permission  

so, i'll put my thoughts here instead and see if anybody reads this.

in my opinion, and from my testing, GAT is NOT dead.  In fact, i think it's just as broken as ever.

test this deck out, and see if you really notice much of a difference in how the deck plays now, vs. how it played a few weeks ago.

DaveH GroAtog 7/9/2003

4 Force of Will
3 Counterspell
3 Misdirection

1 Ancestral Recall
1 Gush
1 Frantic Search
1 Fact or Fiction
4 Brainstorm
2 Opt
1 Mystical Tutor
2 Merchant Scroll
1 Time Walk
1 Cunning Wish
(25)

1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Vampiric Tutor
3 Duress
(6)

1 Regrowth
1 Berserk
1 Fastbond

4 Quirion Dryad
(7)

3 Psychatog
(3)

1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
4 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
1 Library of Alexandria
4 Polluted Delta
1 Flooded Strand
1 Island
(19)

(Total: 60)

Sideboard (mostly Zahlfirin’s):
1 Hurkyl's Recall
2 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Ebony Charm
1 Submerge
1 Energy Flux
1 Diabolic Edict
2 Ghastly Demise
3 Naturalize
1 Smother
1 Strip Mine
1 Duress

I've been testing against The Shining, Keeper, Ankh Sligh, Stax, Nether Void, Nether Void with Deed, Stoopid Madness, and TnT for the past 2-weeks.  I will test against Rector-Trix and Academy over the next week.

So far, GAT still rocks and i think it's still going to be a dominant deck.  Comments?

--Dave.

Edited to show the Cunning Wish that should have been in the list, and to show the sideboard..

[Fever]

Two things.

First, there are a few things wrong with your decklist. Namely, you only have 6 cantrips, which should definetly be 8 now that Gush is restricted. Then, there is the presence of Fastbond, which is now extrememly mediocre with the restriction of Gush. The lack of at least one Cunning Wish also puzzles me.

Second, and more importantly, is the existence of HULK. What reason do players have for playing watered-down GAT when HULK is the better deck? That is the main obstacle i see in the continued growth of GAT, the fact that there is a superior Tog-based deck out there.

[David Hernandez]

Hi Fever,

thanks for pointing out the Cunning Wish.  I've edited the post to show it (my bad--it is definitely in my deck/build).

Even with 6 vs. 8 Cantrips, this deck still goes off very early and has answers when you need them.  As for Fastbond, i find that it's still broken here, and i don't see it as being mediocre.  

i need to test vs. Hulk this week as well (there's only so much time in the day!) but i'm willing to bet that GAT will be strong enough to go 50/50.  

I wouldn't have posted it here if it weren't doing broken things consistently, and for those GAT players who want an option beyond playing Hulk, i think this may give it to them.

Dave

[Fever]

Well, since we are sharing decklists, i figured i might as well post mine. This is what i would run as of July 1st.

GAT
Spells (33)
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Gush
1 Mystical Tutor
2 Cunning Wish
2 Merchant Scroll
4 Brainstorm
4 Opt
4 Misdirection
4 Force of Will
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Yawgmoth's Will
4 Duress
1 Berserk
1 Regrowth

Creatures (7)
4 Quirion Dryad
3 Psychatog

Mana (20)
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Library of Alexandria
2 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
4 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
1 Island

Sideboard (15)
1 Berserk
3 Naturalize
1 Ebony Charm
2 Smother
2 Plaguebearer
1 Fact or Fiction
1 Mana Short
1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 Hurkyl's Recall
2 Energy Flux

[erik]

I like that list Fever, esp. the 4 Duress. As combo is on the rise, they become more and more of a necessity. I am missing some form of non-pitch counter though, not a full four but at least two. Duress can't stop a topdecked Balance :/

Also, what made you choose Opt over Sleight? Without Gush to keep you out of mana trouble I think the stability of Sleight would be the better option. And how's the Plaguebearers in the SB been? Are they only there for the mirror, or do you board them in against Sligh and friends as well?

[Smmenen]

I agree with Much of Fever's list.  However, I would also use Sleight over Opt.  I would consider trying to fit in Counterspells, and cut at least one more Tog.  I'm not at all sold on the value of Tog in a Gushlite world (for this deck of course).  I would think you'd want to make it just Gro 2003 (post july).  It seems a third Merchant Scroll wouldn't be a bad addition either.  

Steve