[Article] Meandeck Doomsday

[Vegeta2711]

and has no chance of randomly drawing crap and then dying...doomsday is like the "new" necro except even better because it is gaurenteed to give you the cards needed to go off

If this statement in anyway suggests Doomsday > Necro, you've essentially invalidated the value of your opinion on this and all other subjects.

Now if you mean purely in the context of the deck, maybe it's closer to true.

[jpmeyer]

While I agree that Doomsday is a great card, the fact of the matter is that this deck will never win on Turn 1 and is inferior to Doomsday Dragon, in consistancy and speed.

The deck kills on turn 1 really easily.  All you need is five mana, Doomsday, and either Brainstorm or Chromatic Sphere.  With 6 Rituals, 5 Moxes, Lotus, Crypt, and Petal, it is not difficult at all to get 5 mana in your other 5 cards.

Also, I fail to see how Doomsday Dragon could be more consistent when it runs less disruption (ESPECIALLY compared to Smmenen's version) and has more ways to randomly lose (disrupting Dragon losses as well as disrupting Doomsday losses.)  The fact that Doomsday needs to win with Doomsday really doesn't matter seeing how the deck is designed to maximize the ability to force through said card.

[bebe]

On Unmasks - I'm in no way an expert on the deck but I have been testing Doomsday builds. I have found that Defense Grids are in many cases better than Unmasks against a number of decks. I can get them out turn one or two usually and still go off turn three against decks holding alot of counters. If I draw into Force/Duress I can try to go off earlier. I found I often did not have Unmask and an extra black card when I needed it. I even went up to three Lim Dul's to help me find the extra sources of black and blue.  So I've stuck them in the side.

On Lim Dul's - I find them very good in the deck. Using them at EOT is almost always an I win next turn situation. They also toss to an Unmask or FoW so I feel they are needed.

On Chromatic Spheres - I've been using two and though sometimes they are a wasted spot as Brainstorm will suffice in many cases, I like the fact a few Rituals and Sphere can set me up without blue sources. I use Mana Crypt to power out the Spheres and Defense Grids early to increase my chances of a faster win.

On the speed of the combo - Having played Belcher and Dragon at large venues, I have a feel for fast combo wins. I find that Doomsday is a turn slower on average but it is very consistent. I get quite a few third turn kills with only the occcasional draw letting me go off quicker.  Have you found this to be true in your testing?

[jpmeyer]

On the combo continuum, I've found that Doomsday is slower than Belcher and Deathlong, but faster than TPS and Dragon.

[BreathWeapon]

While I agree that Doomsday is a great card, the fact of the matter is that this deck will never win on Turn 1 and is inferior to Doomsday Dragon, in consistancy and speed.

The deck kills on turn 1 really easily.  All you need is five mana, Doomsday, and either Brainstorm or Chromatic Sphere.  With 6 Rituals, 5 Moxes, Lotus, Crypt, and Petal, it is not difficult at all to get 5 mana in your other 5 cards.

Also, I fail to see how Doomsday Dragon could be more consistent when it runs less disruption (ESPECIALLY compared to Smmenen's version) and has more ways to randomly lose (disrupting Dragon losses as well as disrupting Doomsday losses.)  The fact that Doomsday needs to win with Doomsday really doesn't matter seeing how the deck is designed to maximize the ability to force through said card.

Ok, I'm willing to chalk up my points to being less experienced with Meandeck Doomsday than you are. However, how often do you see a hand of Land, Dark Ritual, Doomsday, Mox, Mox, Chromatic Sphere or any other sufficent variant for a Turn 1 win, and would you ever keep that hand vs a Deck with FoW, Mana Leak and Duress?

I say D-Day Dragon is more consistant because its Mulligans to 6 and 5 have better odds of a Turn 2 win, because the deck is not reliant on Doomsday.

[rvs]

I say D-Day Dragon is more consistant because its Mulligans to 6 and 5 have better odds of a Turn 2 win, because the deck is not reliant on Doomsday.

In the 30+ games I have so far played, half my wins didn't involve actually resolving doomsday. I'd say this doomsday deck is very, very similar to TPS in the way it plays out, and that doomsday is just a very good replacement for every non-twister draw-7, and being black and thus supporting unmask, which has also helped me to get to random tendril wins.
I agree with JP that I would think that Dday Dragon is a lot more dangerous since there are a lot more answers available.

[jpmeyer]

Also, Doomsday does not scoop to Null Rod.  Smmenen even played them in his sideboard (his SB IIRC was 3 Back to Basics, 3 Energy Flux, 3 Old Man of the Sea, 3 Defense Grid, 2 Null Rod, and 1 Chain of Vapor).  You just replace the Lotus and LED in your stack with a pair of Dark Rituals.

[Bulls on Parade]

Also, I fail to see how Doomsday Dragon could be more consistent when it runs less disruption (ESPECIALLY compared to Smmenen's version) and has more ways to randomly lose (disrupting Dragon losses as well as disrupting Doomsday losses.)  The fact that Doomsday needs to win with Doomsday really doesn't matter seeing how the deck is designed to maximize the ability to force through said card.

Dragon Combo based Doomsday decks do run 4 fewer disruption spells than current Doomsday, but not without good reason. I think you need to take a step back and examine the comparison on a broader scale- Doomsday Dragon can randomly win so much more than other Doomsday builds. The deck ("Meandeck" Doomsday) has 4 cards that say "I win" while Dragon has those 4 plus a 2 card combo that wins as easily and as arbitrarily as resolving a Doomsday itself. I think Doomsday Dragon is almost definitely a better deck than Belcher, and I make that comparison because Belcher and Dragon have the common factor that both archetypes are hated on more than the current Doomsday deck (artifact hate parallels creature hate for this example). I don't think I'd play Doomsday-Dragon over the current Doomsday deck unless I expected minimal control in the given field, but I do think it's a playable deck.

[Necrologia]

Does anyone know what Steve's build of Doomsday looked like at Starcity this weekend? Was it closer to the list in JP's article or like the list he posted in this thread?

Congrats to everybody who top 8'd btw.

[Moxlotus]

Does anyone know what Steve's build of Doomsday looked like at Starcity this weekend? Was it closer to the list in JP's article or like the list he posted in this thread?

Congrats to everybody who top 8'd btw.

It killed with Beacon, had Duress and Unmask.  I think it had FoW.  That's all I could gather from it.  And it used an abacus  

[jpmeyer]

The same list that he posted in this thread, I think (with Lim-Dul's Vault over Windfall)

[Smmenen]

Except only one Swamp and 6 fetch.

[The Atog Lord]

Steve, props for posting a list right before taking that list to a major event. (And props for a great finish, of course).

[Karn, Mox Golem]

Steve, good job on your finish.  I do feel like saying that doomsday with 1 land was Savage Tech.  I'm curious as to how often that list goes Long and how often it goes beacon?

[jpmeyer]

Often times, you'll go Beacon against control, because you'll be in a position where you need to sandbag discard/counters and you either need that one more card in hand OR you'll blow your load the turn where you cast all the discard and you'll only have the mana to Doomsday but not to go off.

[Smmenen]

Steve, good job on your finish.  I do feel like saying that doomsday with 1 land was Savage Tech.  I'm curious as to how often that list goes Long and how often it goes beacon?

Chris, congratulations to you too!!.  Two armenians in first and second after the swiss is probably a first in Magic history.

I go Beacon kill probably 50% of the time and Tendrils kill 50%.  But the way I win with Tendrils dramatically differs almost every single time.

[FreshIsOuttaTurn]

Yeah, Id like to give my congrats to the almighty Smmenen for being able to dominate yet again.  It seems like this tournament was another real test of some of the sheer broken factor many Meandeck produced decks seem to pack.

Im really interested in hearing about your quarters match, Stephen (reportedly against one Clarence Li). Clarence used to live way back here in VA before moving out to Wisconsin or the like and was always a horrible player and rather neurotic so Im really shocked, and quite congradulatory to him, on his apparent approvement and great finish.

I have been playing both DoomsdayDevice and ShortBusDoomsday and I prefer the random broken factor that Meandeck's build has to offer.  The shortbus one seems better at being able to win for sure but to get there it needs the upperhand and the cards in the first place.  I have had much more success with the build I got from here but I think it might be a lil weak against 3Sphere, le Resistance, and the like.  I think Hurkyl's or rebuild needs a place in the MD.

On a side note, ever notice how MeanDeck and Main deck are both MD while Short Bus and Sideboard are both SB?  Does it mean that Meandeck will always be the focus and heart of Vintage while Shortbus will be relegated to doing somethin important every now and then?  Are the mice really studying us?  Just because you arent paranoid doesnt mean they arent actually out to get you.

Cant wait to see the reports for this one.

[Alandovos]

From Saucemaster:

Black mana is much, much more important to the deck's functioning.

Steve, I'm curious why your 2 "extra" fetchlands are Flooded Strand instead of Bloodstained Mire based on the above quote. Did you ever have the Strand when you really needed your one lone basic swamp?

[Smmenen]

Saucemaster is right that black mana is more important, but you NEVEr cast doomsday with three lands.  The important black mana is almost always one of the six rituals or Lotus.

[Saucemaster]

Yeah, to clarify, black mana is absolutely essential to the deck's functioning, but you typically need only ONE black source (since one black source almost always = 3 black mana when it matters), whereas you frequently need more than one blue mana source to go off all in one turn.

If that sounds contradictory, it's not, but it *does* point to one of the deck's fundamental weaknesses: it needs land in play.  That's the reason for the basics and fetches, as opposed to a simple 5-color manabase (which would also let the deck run plenty of other cards that it would really like to run if it could).