As Food Chain Goblins has been gaining increasing popularity in the last few months, more and more people have been making attempts at further optimizing the existing "best build". As part of the small group that was originally responsible for developing the deck into its current form (along with Vegeta2711, bebe, and TeenieBopper), I have the benefit of having thoroughly and rigorously tested a great many of the cards that are now being suggested publicly as options for addition to the deck.
Because there seems to be so much public interest in improving FCG these days, I feel it would be beneficial for a few basic ground rules to be set out and understood by those that intend to do so:
Rule 1: Understanding FCG's Strategies and the Balance ThereinThe rule: it is absolutely imperative that alterations to FCG do not upset the subtle balance between its aggro and combo elements.
The most fundamentally important thing to recognize about FCG is that it's not primarily a combo deck. Certainly its combo makes it robust and versatile, but it is its rock-solid aggro strategy which makes it fundamentally viable. This isn't to suggest that the combo element is unncessary; the point is that it is the combination of the two strategies, and their inherent synergy which make the deck so viable. The balance between the two is fragile in the extreme, making FCG perhaps one of the least customizable decks in the format.
One of the biggest mistakes I see being made by people attempting to alter FCG is that the proposed changes significantly upset the balance between the deck's combo and aggro strategies. Efforts to make the combo element faster almost invariably destabilize the aggro element. Examples include running Gamble or Skullclamp as search for Food Chain, running a high Matron count to search for Recruiters, running off-color moxen for combo accelleration, etc. In theory, these are all sound ideas, and in fact I've playtested all of them thoroughly, as well as many others. In all cases, however, the addition of these accellerants severely weakened the consistency of the deck's aggro approach, and were eventually abandoned.
Rule 2: FCG is not Good for Adaptation to Any MetagameThe rule: either FCG is the right choice for your meta or it isn't. It can't be forced.
One could draw a comparison between FCG and Gay/R, in that they both represent genuinely competitive "budget" decks in the format, and they both have an aggro element backed by a secondary strategy. They are both versatile, and have powerful draw engines. I would assert, however, that their similarities are outweighed by their differences.
Gay/R is defined by its ability to be adapted to specific metagames. Of the deck's basic architecture, roughly a third of the deck can be adapted to suit a specific meta. This is one of Gay/R's greatest strengths, and the source of its continued popularity. FCG, on the other hand, is Gay/R's polar opposite in this regard. Because its strategy is so fundamentally reliant upon a high goblin count, and because of the delicate nature of the balance between its strategies, there is a proportionally miniscule aspect of the deck which can be altered to meet meta demands. Realistically, it's safe to say that either FCG is a good meta choice or it isn't. There's very little that can be done to change this. On the up side, it's got a strong game in a wide variety of metas. In fact, the only meta where it would be a definitively poor choice is one which is dominated by combo like Draw7, Belcher, and Dragon. While the sideboard can strengthen some of these matchups to a degree, neither its aggro nor its combo element is fast enough to consistently beat the pure combo decks in the format.
Rule 3: (THE GOLDEN RULE) If it's not a Goblin, Mana, or Food Chain, it Doesn't Belong in FCGThe rule: Seriously, I'm not kidding. This isn't an exaggeration.
FCG is built purely upon synergy. Every card in the deck has beneficial interaction with every other card in the deck. This synergy is owed completely and totally to the fact that every non-mana source in the deck is a goblin. Literally every single non-goblin card added to the deak weakens its overall synergy. I can't stress this point enough. This rule is not an arbitrary one. This is derived from having tested a great many seemingly synergistic non-goblin cards and found that they are in fact a detriment.
I have yet to see a non-goblin card aside from Food Chain with the level of raw power that it deserves a spot in the deck. In the existing cardpool, see no exceptions to this rule. If Ancestral Recall were red, it would be an exception; that's the power level I'm talking about here. In all likelihood, if FCG is to be changed much from its current form, it will be by the printing in future sets of goblins which provide useful effects currently not present in the deck, broken mana sources, or by the printing of a miraculously better combo card than Food Chain. I certainly think that we're bound to see more cards fitting the first category than the second or third, but time will tell. In the meanwhile, we can only work with what we've got.
Rule 4: Basic Deck ArchitectureThe rule: There is very little room for alteration in FCG before making it worse than it was originally.
The following is a decklist including elements which are absolutely necessary for the deck's smooth functionality. Each card will be discussed below, as will open slots.
Essential FCG// Mana 5 Mountain
4 Taiga
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Crypt
2 ***
// Goblins 4 Goblin Lackey
1 Skirk Prospector
4 Goblin Recruiter
4 Goblin Piledriver
2 Gempalm Incinerator
2 Goblin Matron
1 Goblin Sharpshooter
3 Goblin Warchief
4 Goblin Ringleader
2 Siege-Gang Commander
4 ***
// Combo 4 Food Chain
Card Explanations:In-depth explanations for individual card choices have been done to death for FCG, and are well covered in Vegeta's
FCG Primer. I will be concentrating here on the reasoning behind the quantities of each card, working under the assumption that you know what they do and why they're there in at least a general sense. If you don't, I encourage you to read the official Primer.
5 MountainsWe want to keep a reasonably high basic land count, as the deck is very very mana-hungry, particularly for red. Resilience to Wasteland and other non-basic hate is a must. Going below 5 Mountains is highly unwise.
4 TaigaA given.
4 Wooded FoothillsAlso a given, although the number deserves some discussion. Unlike older aggro decks like Sligh, this deck actually doesn't benefit from the deck-thinning aspect of Fetchlands. If anything, it wants to be drawing more red sources in the early game. In the late game, Recruiter completely removes the necessity for deckthinning. Therefore, while it could support more than 4 Fetches, FCG actually only wants the bare minimum necessary for color-fixing.
StriplandsA point of great contention in the deck's infancy, it's now widely agreed that a full compliment of Striplands is an absolutely necessary inclusion in the deck. While they do in fact cause more mulligans than a Stripless build, the trade is more than worthwhile. It is really the deck's only control element, and a necessary one at that, particularly in a meta with so many Workshops. 5 is a must.
Lotus and on-color MoxenA given. Off-color moxen are a poor choice for the deck simply because it's already running on an unstable mana base. Further removal of colored sources for colorless ones would severely harm the deck's consistency.
Sol Ring and Mana CryptNecessary inclusions. Help accellerate out Food Chain, Ringleader, Matron, and Rack and Ruin. Note that 2 double-colorless mana sources is just about the maximum the deck can support. Any more than this, and you'll often be taking unnecessary burn. This is due in part to the lack of synergy with Warchief, which reduces the colorless cost of nearly the entire deck. 2 double-colorless sources is ideal.
2 Open Mana SlotsChrome Mox and Lotus Petal are almost certainly the best choices for these slots, and are the current standard. In an extremely Null Rod heavy meta, or a meta which requires you run your own Null Rods, though, you might consider running Bloodstained Mires or Mountains in their place.
4 Goblin LackeyThis shouldn't need to be said, except that I actually saw someone say in seriousness that Lackey has no place in FCG. So, just to reiterate the obvious: Lackeys. 4 of them. Removing them would be akin to removing Welders from Slaver. They are absolutely that important to the deck. If you disagree, please stop reading now, as I assure you I can't be of any help to you.
2 Skirk ProspectorThis number is actually rather variable. I've seen decks run anywhere from 1 to a full 4. As long as you're running at least 1, you're well off. I
strongly recommend 3-4, but 1 is the bare minimum. I've seen arguments against running any, but I can only assume that those people don't understand the synergy with Sharpshooter and SGC, allowing for a win condition not requiring the attack phase. This is yet another aspect of the deck's versatility and shouldn't be ignored.
4 Goblin RecruiterCombo piece, as well as one of the most broken goblins ever printed. 4 is a must.
4 Goblin PiledriverSee Goblin Lackey. Piledriver is equally important to the deck's aggro strategy, and are most potent in multiples. 4 is right.
2 Gempalm IncineratorUncounterable creature removal that cantrips. 2 is the bare minimum. In a field with so many Welders, as well as a fair showing of fat, 3 is probably a good idea. 4 may be overkill, as Incinerators are somewhat conditional. In an extremely aggro heavy meta, 4 could be acceptable.
2 Goblin MatronActually a rather large point of contention. I've seen people say that the deck shouldn't run any, as they're too slow, and I've seen people say any less than 4 is a sin. I could write an entire primer just on Matron, but I'll try to keep it to the basics. This ties in directly with what I was saying earlier about the fine balance inherent in the deck's construction. Those that argue that Matron is too slow are correct, to a degree. When in aggro mode, they are essentially an overcosted Demonic Tutor. In combo mode, with a Food Chain on the table, they are an unrestricted Time Walk. Because their role can shift so dramatically, the best road to take here is the middle ground. We don't want to be drawing multiples in the early game, so 4 is too many. They flat out win the game for you with a Food Chain on the board, though. They can also get you the exact goblin you need in the mid to late game, so we definitely want to run some. 1 is too few, 4 is definitely too many, and testing has shown that 3 is often too many. 2 appears to be the ideal number.
1 Goblin SharpshooterSee Prospector. It's a necessary combo element for the direct damage kill condition. Additionally, it handles opposing Welders and Fishies rather handily. Especially nasty when brought into play under a Warchief. 1 is the bare minimum, because it provides excellent utility, and can be searched for via Matron or Recruiter. Because they work so well in multiples, it wouldn't be unwise to run 2-3 of them, particularly in a creature-heavy meta. We don't want to be drawing them in the early game, however, so 4 is definitely a bad idea. 1-2 will likely be the best number.
3 Goblin Warchief3 is the minimum. Many builds run 4. They are an excellent accellerant for the deck, and we always want to see one by second or third turn. However, the double-red can at times be prohibitive, particularly when running less than 3 Prospectors. Furthermore, they aren't as useful in multiples as one might think. There are only 6 cards in the entire deck that can benefit from having more than 2 in play at the same time. I recommend 3, but 4 is reasonably common.
4 Goblin RingleaderSee Recruiter. 4 is a must.
2 Siege-Gang CommanderPart of the direct damage combo with Prospector and Sharpshooter. Also a gargantuan tempo shift when dropped via Lackey second turn. 2 is the ideal number. 4 is far too many, as its mana cost is far too prohibitive for consistent harcasting. 3 is too many for the same reason. We really only want to play them via Lackey, since they're a huge liablity when facing Mana Drain. 2 means there's a fair chance we'll get it opening draw along with a Lackey, but won't show up often enough to be truly dead. I've heard some argue that the deck should only run 1, but this is incorrect. This is because when comboing out with Food Chain, we want to use one SGC for mana generation (5 mana for SGC nets 9 under Food Chain), while we reserve the second for use in a direct damage capacity. 2 is the correct amount.
4 Open Goblin SlotsNo matter how much you want to, don't put non-goblins here. It
will negatively impact the deck's performance, I promise you. The only possible exception to this rule is Wheel of Fortune, but it is a liability in a meta with a lot of control, which is most of them.
Some possibilities include: 1-2 more Prospectors, a 3rd Incinerator, a 2nd Sharpshooter, a 4th Warchief, 3-4 Mogg Fanatics, or perhaps a Goblin Tinkerer or Goblin Vandal for maindeck artifact removal. It should be noted that Tinkerer and Vandal have performed rather poorly in testing.
Rule 5: Cards NOT to Run in FCGThe rule: some cards just don't fit.
I could spend a very long time going over cards that have been suggested for inclusion in FCG, and why they didn't pan out, but it will save me a lot of time to say simply that in most cases, the Golden Rule applied: they weren't goblins. I'll take some time to go over the more reasonable suggestions:
SkullclampIn theory, a perfectly sensible option for the deck. Certainly the deck often wants to find Food Chain as quickly as it can, and Clamp should facilitate this. To a degree it does, but the effect is not significant enough to outweigh the fact that it's not a goblin. Thorough testing has shown that the combo accelleration was minimal, but that the detriment to the aggro element was significant. One of the main problems is that FCG doesn't want to throw away its resources unless it's doing so to Food Chain for the win. Often, when Clamp was used to find Food Chain, there weren't enough remaining resources on the table to go off. In the end, the Golden Rule applies.
GambleSee Skullclamp. While it seems like a very good idea to accellerate the combo element of the deck as much as possible, in practice it only serves to destabilize the deck. In Gamble's case, the card is often dead in the late game, since it's most useful when cast with a full hand. In order to consistently draw it in the opening hand, though, you'd have to run 4, meaning that once again, we're dropping actual threats for theoretical combo speed. Thorough testing shows it just isn't worth it. Again, a victim of the Golden Rule.
Mirri's GuileIn theory the most viable option for combo accelleration I've seen suggested. It's 1cc, and isn't nearly as conditional as Gamble. The fact that it's green is a minor drawback, but not too significant. Testing has shown that the card falls to the same fate as the others, though. In most cases I would rather have been drawing a goblin when I draw the Guile. They don't call it the Golden Rule for nothin'.
Those are the main suggestions with any validity that come to mind. As I stated earlier, I have yet to see a non-goblin card with a power level that justifies its inclusion in FCG.
Conclusion:It is in many players' natures to want to improve upon a deck they're interested in, and to make it their own. This is in fact the source of a great many of the advances we see in many of the upper-tiered decks today. However, while it pains me to say it, I think it very unlikely that FCG can be significantly improved upon using the current cardpool. Because of its unique structure, there exist a great many limitations on viable alterations to FCG. The available goblin choices have been picked apart so thoroughly that I'm certain that those options have been explored to the point of exhaustion.
Barring the discovery of a combo piece that does what Food Chain does but faster or more efficiently, I see essentially no room for improvement of the deck at this time. Beyond perhaps minor tweaks to the manabase or to a few goblin choices, it is likely that the deck is currently at its most optimal. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I encourage people to continue looking for new ways to improve the deck, using the rules above as a guide.
