Battle of the Sets VI - official tournament thread!

[Legend]

First of all, thanks for posting and I appreciate your interest in Battle of the Sets. So welcome. Now, to the issues...


I'm 100% opposed to sideboards in this format. Sideboards will continue to NOT be a part of this format and I don't anticipate ever using them - and for good reasons. Right from the start of the first BOTS tournament (six have been completed as of now over the course of a couple of years), I determined that sideboards were not going to be a part of this format, and I've staunchly stuck with that principle ever since.

I really want to emphasize that stance once again.

Sideboards would in fact have the opposite effect that you suggest; sideboards would actually tend to make matches more lopsided and less interesting rather than less lopsided and more interesting because it would:

1) Allow the larger sets (i.e. standalones like Tempest or Masques) to increase their already existing advantage (larger card pool) over smaller sets by giving the larger sets access to an even greater pool of options with which to nullify or hamper opposing strategies. I do not want to widen this gap, especially given the current state of affairs in which the smaller sets have done extremely well (the last three titles have been won by smaller sets - Antiquities twice, and Torment, not to mention Apocalypse winning the first title). Consider that many of the small sets would have little or no good or even viable sideboard options, while larger sets would suddenly have answers to a wide range of problems.

2) Lead to matches where one deck would just get completely hosed by some random sideboard card - obviously, I don't want hosings to be a part of this format, and I see no reason to fix an imaginary problem - that the matches need to be more interesting - they couldn't be more interesting than they currently are! (See the coverage of the last two or three tournaments, especially each of the Finals).

The fact of the matter is, lopsided matches will always be a part of this or any format for a variety of reasons, including bad matchups, and, GASP! because one deck may just be better than the other (especially in the early rounds).

So essentially sideboards would have the effect of replacing those few matches where one deck simply has no chance against another with many more of those types of matches. Not good.

And I have still another reason why sideboards have never been and almost certainly never will be a part of this format: I want each deck to head into the tournament with its best, and then see where that takes it.

No extra help. No crutches to aid weakness. Once the journey begins, each deck goes with what it has and nothing more - no safety nets when the going gets tough. I've always recognized that sideboards are a necessary part of Contructed tournament Magic, but I've never liked them.

Here, in this format, not only do I not like the idea, but sideboards are totally unnecessary and actually quite detrimental to the health of the format. Playing with no sideboards also makes deckbuilding much more interesting and challenging - for example, if a semi-sideboard card such as spot artifact removal (i.e. Primitive Justice in Alliances) is up for consideration in a decklist, we need to weigh the value of the improvement in certain matchups against the possibility of it being dead weight in other matchups.

Going further with the Alliances example, there are other considerations too - such as how likely Alliances is to face artifact heavy decks in the first round (fairly likely given Alliances's typically low seedings). Then ways to solve the problem or alleviate it are considered. In Alliances's case, Primitive Justice is never a truly dead card because it can be tossed to Pyrokinesis or Balduvian Horde. Similarly, with Judgment, Ray of Revelation is included because it is absolutely devastating against opponents that rely on enchantments, and allows Judgment to have a chance in or win matchups it otherwise would have had no chance in (see 3-2 Round two victory over Onslaught in the last tournament). Yet it makes no difference against decks without enchantments. But that problem is alleviated by the fact that the Rays can just turn into Brushhopper fodder if they are otherwise useless.

It is these deckbuilding and creative challenges that are lost or somewhat limited if sideboards are included. Indeed, the challenge of building a well-rounded deck is lost in some notable cases, since some decks would gain access to a ridiculous array of tools that others wouldn't have. A number of matchups would be completely distorted on this basis.

Each deck is made to be as versatile as is realistically possible - in some cases, that is not really feasible, but the idea remains the same:

Each set puts its best foot forward, its best possible deck, and then takes on all comers. The deck that wins 5 consecutive matches is the winner. Matchups will necessarily be a huge part of it. But each deck will also need to navigate through some unfavorable or even matchups at certain points if it hopes to win - and I would hate to throw this notion of competition out the window by artificially changing matchups with sideboards.

Let 'em play!


As for Odyssey, I again reiterate that I am always open to changing decks provided I see a suggestion that is clearly better than an existing list, or at least as good and worthwhile for some other reason. Moreover, I can see why you two have questioned Odyssey. I am open to changing Odyssey. But I need a good reason to, which I don't really have at this point.

I'll also add that all of the ideas that you have suggested have, at the very least, been considered. Not all have actually gotten to the decklist point or into serious testing. I did come up with an UZI (Upheaval/Zombie Infestation) list at one point (which I no longer have) and I recall that it suffered from a couple of major problems related to losing Infiltrator and Tog:

1) Infiltrator is Odyssey's best card-drawer in a number of matchups, where it really helps win games. On the other hand, when its bad, it tends to be horrible.

2) You lose the ability to block. Sure, Odyssey has a decent amount of removal and bounce, but once you lose the ability to also defend with a blocking Tog (or perhaps an Infiltrator if need be), the deck's chances of getting into position for a favorable Upheaval decrease dramatically, simply because the removal, bounce, and board control, while strong, is not overwhelming, and creature decks can sometimes navigate through it. As it is, with Tog to play defense, Odyssey can have trouble with the best aggro decks (and loses to the best of them). Without Tog on defense, the deck's staying power decreases.

3) You lose the ability to win without Upheaval. Odyssey is at its best when it can Upheaval for the win. But with the current Tog deck, it can, and often does win without Upheaval, simply by building up dominant position and then winning with Tog once the board is clear (or the opponent concedes). But the UZI deck does not have that ability. It needs to get an Upheaval off, or else it can't win. That is another fatal flaw.

4) Zombie Infestation does nothing on its own without Upheaval. Sure, you can make a Zombie or two, but thats not going to get the job done. Contrast Infestation with Tog, which, as already mentioned, is useful on its own.


As for the other deck ideas, U/G Threshold has actually been tested in the past. I remember being unimpressed with it. Without Mental Note (Judgment), threshold is not achieved as easily as you might think. Aside from Mongrel and Study, the deck really misses that third great discard/graveyard-enabling outlet, such as Mental Note, Breakthrough (Torment), or Aquamoeba (Torment). What you end up with is an unexciting aggro deck that doesn't compare favorably to the top aggro decks in the format, and lacks the punch or versatility to take on the top control decks. You end up with a kind of middle-of-the road to above average deck that won't make any serious waves in the tournament pool.

Reanimator and Balancing Tings are other ideas I have considered, but not tested save for some limited goldfishing. I'm always willing to see any proposed lists, but both strike me as underpowered and scattered with only the Odyssey card pool to work with.

Hence, my stance favoring the current Tog deck. Again, though, if anybody wants to make a serious proposal, I'll take a look.

[Matt]

How happy have you been with Planeshift? I would suspect there to be a better deck in there somewhere - FTK is awesome and all but a lot of the cards in the b/r archetype seem junky (lava zombie, maggot carrier).\

The same can be said of Invasion, come to think of it.

[Legend]

Actually, we have new 3 new decklists to announce for next time, including Planeshift. I wasn't planning on revealing them until the next tournament, but since there is a renewed interest in revising some of the decks, I see no reason to wait.

PLANESHIFT

4 Phyrexian Scuta
4 Voice of All
4 Sunscape Battlemage
4 Dromar's Charm
4 Bog Down
4 Rushing River
4 Meddling Mage
4 Stormscape Familiar
4 Mana Cylix
2 Dromar's Cavern
6 Swamp
8 Plains
8 Island


WEATHERLIGHT

4 Buried Alive
3 Gallowbraid
4 Morinfen
4 Hidden Horror
4 Razortooth Rats
4 Serrated Biskelion
4 Barrow Ghoul
4 Fledgling Djinn
4 Circling Vultures
4 Straw Golem
21 Swamp


THE DARK

4 Wormwood Treefolk
4 Lurker
4 Tracker
4 Scavenger Folk
4 Witch Hunter
4 Preacher
4 Exorcist
3 Barl's Cage
4 Maze of Ith
11 Forest
14 Plains

[parallelflux]

Its such a shame invasion got ousted in the first round. If it had a better matchup, I think it would have gone fairly deep in the tournament. I'm not saying it would win the whole thing, but the deck is just really solid.

Has it ever gotten t8? t4?

I would like to say that while I don't think the invasion deck can be improved significantly, I think it can be changed for the better.

The first thing I notice is the lack of Yawgmoth's Agenda. While it may not have synergy with Pyre zombie, it is clearly a bomb for the deck regardless. The invasion deck sports both Skizzik and blazing specter, both creatures are prime targets for removal as if either cards are not dealt with, they can possibly cripple the opponent's game. Playing with 2 agendas MD will allow you to recur these creatures plus re-use any burn you may have used.

Secondly, Shivan zombie is a weak card for the deck. Its fighting plays with 2 often superior cards: Ravenous rats, and Addle. Furthermore, the deck doesn't have any great turn 3 plays. I assume a lot of times, you don't need to play a rage on turn 3, so I think its safe to assume Cinder Giant will make the deck play out better. Its an efficient shade that can easily make 2 for 1. Furthermore, its a beating in the late game.

Onto the land base, another look at casting cost reveals that the deck has no one drop. It certainly will not hurt to play urborg volcano over 3-4 of your basic lands.

Furthermore, playing another keldon necropolis as your 26th land would not hurt. With rage/ghitu fire/cinder giant as filters, it would not at all hinder you from having 1 less spell in the deck. Plus, with a bunch of 5cc cards as bombs, namely skizzik and void, you want to be dropping a land every single turn for at least 5 turns. Pyre Zombie contributes to the need for mana due to its mana intensive nature.

To add some of these proposed cards (the 26th land, 2 agendas, and  3cinder giant) I suggest replacing all 4 shivan zombies and 2 ghitu fire.

Edit: After taking a look at the weatherlight deck, i think it will be quite a strong deck. However, it just seems wrong to play 7 5cc creatures in a deck with 21 lands...there are a few cards that could be played over them although it might not be superior:

Coils of the medusa: I remember when twisted experiment was used in extended suicide black to double as pump and removal. This could be used in the same manner

Spinning darkness: This puts a lot of burden on your already over utilized graveyard. But hey, its spinning darkness, its been a staple for black decks in the old days.

Tendrils of despair: There's no card advantage or quality here, but it fills the disruption role this deck is missing. Its also a sac outlet if you need to pay the upkeep cost of a few of your creatures. Furthermore, its solid against control while against aggro, you can sacrifice straw golem to it.

[Das_Boot]

On the subject of the decks, do you have any problems with mana flood?  So many of the decks are running 24 or more lands that I would think that might be an issue.  Also, why not FTK in the Planeshift list?  I think he is worth cutting a color or splahing red for, because he is just so good.  It gives you access to Terminate too.

[Machinus]

My take on Invasion:

4 Skizzik
4 Blazing Specter
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Recoil
4 Repulse
4 Urza's Rage
4 Ravenous Rats
4 Addle
4 Chromatic Sphere
8 Swamp
6 Island
6 Mountain
2 Urborg Volcano
2 Salt Marsh

The spheres and tap-lands make three colors feasible. FoF is really good with all the removal in the deck. One possible change is to take the rages out and put in another land and 3 ghitus, but the deck wants to win quickly, so rages are probably better.

[Legend]

I'm extremely busy right now, so I will have to try and make my replies brief and will not be able to provide the usual level of detail. Until I get get some obligations and work off my back, I won't be able to add that much more to this discussion. So here goes:


@parallelflux:

I don't share your optimism about Invasion's quality (regardless of deck) and ability to go deep into the tournament with any regularity. Having played and tested this format extensively over a couple of years, it really pales in comparison to the elite decks. And no, it has never gotten Top 8.

In general, I don't agree with your suggestions for the current deck, largely because some of them are impossibilities - you need to check your facts a bit more. You state that

"Cinder Giant will make the deck play out better. Its an efficient shade that can easily make 2 for 1. Furthermore, its a beating in the late game."

You also mention it as a three drop.

I'm really not sure what you mean, especially considering that it is a giant, it costs four mana not three, and is not even in Invasion - its a Weatherlight card!

You also state that:

"It certainly will not hurt to play urborg volcano over 3-4 of your basic lands."

Look again - the Volcanoes are there, and have always been there!


I think if Invasion is going to be changed, it needs a whole new deck.

As for Weatherlight, you suggest:

"However, it just seems wrong to play 7 5cc creatures in a deck with 21 lands...there are a few cards that could be played over them although it might not be superior:"

This deck really does not need to be drawing land after the first few turns - even moreso than a lot of other decks. Playing a low land count minimizes this risk - a very real risk considering that Buried Alive essentially increases the land count with its deck thinning. The only consideration to the contrary that I have had is to play 22 lands instead of 21, which I originally had. I may do that, cutting 1 Gallowbraid, but other than that I have no inclination to change the deck. As for the other suggestions (Coils of the Medusa, Spinning Darkness etc), I want to emphasize is that this deck needs to maximize its creature count, and can't afford to lose creature slots to questionable spells. Spinning Darkness, for example, overall a good card, has absolutely no business in a deck that RELIES on its graveyard.




@Das_Boot


No, mana flood is not a problem. All of the decks have ideal or close to ideal mana bases. Some decks require a ton of mana to operate properly.
Torment, for example, has 29 lands. Yet it has a win and a finals appearance in the last two tournaments. That should tell you all you need to know. As for FTK, unfortunately, it was in the deck that was just replaced. Running it in the new deck would be impracticable because none of the three colors are candidates for removal. You also suggested running Terminate. Unfortunately, in order to run Terminate and FTK, that would require either the removal or blue or white, and the axing of either of those means no Meddling Mage. It would also mean the removal of Dromar's Charm. Plus, it would destroy a lot of the synergy of the deck (i.e. Stormscape Familiar, Sunscape Battlemage). Planeshift's dismal record with FTK and Terminate in it for many tournaments has shown that those cards are not the answer in this format. Planeshift just needs a new deck, period.





@ Machinus

Thanks for the suggestions. As I indicated to you in PM, I will do my best to consider them and get back to you as soon as possible.




Again, I really want to emphasize that I just don't have enough time right now to devote proper attention to this topic. I'm absolutely flooded with work. Its just the way my schedule has broken for this month or two. In a couple of weeks (or a bit more) I might. For now, though, you all might be best served by letting this topic fall a bit. When I'm ready, I'll bump it up and reopen it to suggestions. I just don't like the idea of not being able to give these suggestions full and proper consideration and commentary.

[Shahrazad]

The Alliances deck just seems really weak. How about a Browse/Digger deck, something like this:

4 Force of Will
4 Arcane Denial
4 Browse
4 Lat-Nam's Legacy
4 Exile
3 Reprisal
1 Errand of Duty (possible kill card with Digger/Browse)
2 Soldevi Digger
3 Spiny Starfish (Bad, I know, but you need a steady blocker)
3 Lodestone Bauble/Foresight

4 Thawing Glaciers
3 Kjeldoran Outpost (main kill card)
1 Soldevi Excavations
11 Island
9 Plains

Plan of the deck is to thin the deck out by Thawing out lands and Browsing until you have a Digger and an empty library. Then you just recycle whatever you need (counters, Errand, Reprisal) for the kill.

[Matt]

I think he plainly meant Cinder Shade, not Cinder Giant. Cinder Shade still isn't a very good card though, and it sucks up mana in an extremely mana-hungry deck.

[Legend]

Yep, I guess he meant Cinder Shade.



@EVERYBODY

I really appreciate the suggestions and all, but again, I just don't have the time right now to properly answer the questions/suggestions.

Also, I did not want this to become a free-for-all, a referendum on any and all decks. This is startinng to fly a bit off the rails, with people beginning to make suggestions about a wide variety of decks when in fact it was only a couple of decks that were really up for change to begin with.
I really want rein the dicussion back in.

Now, I could spend my time repeatedly explaining why a certain build is optimal for a certain set, but I have done that ad nauseum over the last couple of years for a lot of the decks (everytime someone new comes along) and it is extremely time consuming. I will do my best to consider some of the suggestions when I have the time. Understand though that since this discussion was revived a week or so ago, this has become a sort of open season on any deck, which it is not.

For example, Alliances is not up for change. Blue/White has been tested in the past, and it just doesn't measure up in any way to the Red/Green deck. I'm not sure where the reasoning is there - look at some of the matchups for either deck and you'll find that a slow Blue/White deck (especially with Spiny Starfish) has worse matchups against almost every deck. This is the kind of thing I am talking about that I would really like to keep tp a minimum - hairtrigger reactions to well-established decks without very much testing or reasoning behind the suggestions. I don't think it is reasonable to say "X deck seems really weak,  this is better" without seeing how a deck's matches have gone over several tournaments or without at least trying to visualize some of the matchups.


So let's just keep the dicussion to Invasion and Odyssey, since those seem to be the main candidates for at least some change at this point.

I am eager to change Invasion, so all suggestions are welcome, and Odyssey will probably get some kind of alteration.

[Legend]

OK, as I said, I am not thrilled with Odyssey UG Threshold for the most part, but I have had an idea for quite some time that might just put Threshold over the top, and I'm going to post it here to see what people think - Traumatize!

Yes, that's right, guaranteed threshold for five mana, all of a sudden your Mongeese and Werebears shoot up to 3/3 and 4/4, and hopefully the graveyard is filled with some Roar and Call tokens ready to come into battle.

Here is the list:

4 Traumatize
4 Thought Devourer
4 Standstill
4 Careful Study
4 Roar of the Wurm
4 Call of the Herd
4 Wild Mongrel
4 Werebear
4 Nimble Mongoose

11 Island
13 Forest

or

12 Island
12 Forest

[parallelflux]

I did a couple matches on Balancing tings the other day. The deck did not test as well as I had hoped. However, Traumatize/Haunting Echoes did better than I had imagined. Basically, you can traumatize turn 4/5, followed by echoes, followed by upheaval, and then win. The deck's curve seems quite good and it has ran smoothly for the few times I was playing with it.

Here's the deck that might be worth checking out although I'm convinced you are going to be playing the UG threshold/traumatize build:

3X Ghastly Demise
3X Innocent Blood
4X Aether Burst
4X Milikin
3X Tainted Pact
4X Shadowmage Infiltrator
4X Concentrate
4X Traumatize
4X Haunting Echoes
3X Upheaval
4X Darkwater Catacomb
10X Island
10X Swamp

It would be interesting to put in 2-3 psychatogs then use traumatize as tog food.

Anyway, on your UG build, I love it. May I suggest skycloud expanse/sungrass praire so you can allow yourself to play Mystic Enforcer. With filter lands, splashing white might not hinder your mana base so much. Of course, t2 ug madness ran city of brass to smooth up its supposedly horrid mana base, so splashing white might be too much. I suggest testing to see how it would run.

For the invasion deck, I still stick to my suggestion. I admit Cinder shade is hardly an improvement over shivan zombie. It might even turn out worse. The deck is mana intensive and it will only get more mana intensive if you play the shade. However, thats why I also suggested adding an extra land. I've testing the build several times against several random decks and Cinder shade definitely served as a good 3 drop that once you untap on your 4th turn, he's a force to be reckoned with.

Furthermore, to stress the importance of mana curve again, if you choose shivan zombie over cinder shade, you'd be sporting 12 two-drops and no 3 drops excluding the Urza's rages. that just won't play out as nicely when there's that many cards competing to be played on turn 2.

Also, I didn't hear any argument against Yawgmoth's Agenda. Will you include it?

[Legend]

Right now UG Threshold is the frontrunner, but I'm still going to discuss a couple of other ideas with Alfred.

As for the Traumatize/Echoes build you present, I understand what you are trying to do, but obviously the UG Threshold deck is much better.

Yawgmoth's Agenda has a place in an Invasion control deck, and I would consider one or two if that sort of deck was adopted. At six mana, it might be a bit expensive for an aggro deck. But yeah, I'd consider it in the right deck.

Also, Cinder Shade is not a good creature, but I think you now realize that. Way too mana-intensive, and including it simply because it fits a curve is not alone nearly enough of a reason to consider it. You also mentioned that adding a 26th land (Necropolis) helps, but Shade needs either black or red mana, so that wouldn't really do much.


So the search for new decks stands like this as of now:

ODYSSEY: UG Threshold is the frontrunner, with modified Tog and a few
                others still as considerations

INVASION: Still searching.....


Anyway, thanks for the continued thoughts and suggestions. Feel free to keep it coming if you have anything else you want to add.

[Nazdakka]

OK, as I said, I am not thrilled with Odyssey UG Threshold for the most part, but I have had an idea for quite some time that might just put Threshold over the top, and I'm going to post it here to see what people think - Traumatize!

Yes, that's right, guaranteed threshold for five mana, all of a sudden your Mongeese and Werebears shoot up to 3/3 and 4/4, and hopefully the graveyard is filled with some Roar and Call tokens ready to come into battle.

Here is the list:

4 Traumatize
4 Thought Devourer
4 Standstill
4 Careful Study
4 Roar of the Wurm
4 Call of the Herd
4 Wild Mongrel
4 Werebear
4 Nimble Mongoose

11 Island
13 Forest

or

12 Island
12 Forest

Where is Upheaval? It's one of U/G Threshold's best cards, letting it deal with a stalled board position or an entrenched control deck by simply starting the game again, except with 1 mana 3/3s, 2 mana 4/4s, and lots of flashback fodder. It gives you threshold just like Traumatize, but with what I think is a better side effect (resetting the board as opposed to giving tons of flashback fodder)

So, given that, I would make these changes to your list:

+3 Upheaval
-3 Traumatize (Upheaval does the same thing, but Traumatize's mega Quiet Speculation thing be useful)
-1 Thought Devourer (Sucky in multiples)
+1 Cephalid Looter (Extra digging)

[parallelflux]

Also, Cinder Shade is not a good creature, but I think you now realize that. Way too mana-intensive, and including it simply because it fits a curve is not alone nearly enough of a reason to consider it. You also mentioned that adding a 26th land (Necropolis) helps, but Shade needs either black or red mana, so that wouldn't really do much.

This came across to me appearing like not much thought was put into it. Hopefully, you just didn't have enough time to put more thoughts into it, but that statement is weak at best. I respect that you've put a lot of time into testing for Battle of the Sets, but that just didn't cut it for me.

So, with all due respect, here's my rebuttal:

On shivan zombie vs cinder shade:

Suppose turn 2 you play rats or addle over zombie since they are both usually superior plays (perhaps you would play the zombie first against white, but even then, its arguable). Turn 3, you play the zombie, basically a 2/2 that only has good matchups against things like ww. (are there any ww decks out there?) Against any white based control, your opponent will want to target bigger threats anyway and a 2/2 is a slow clock.

If you play the shade turn 3, yes, he is unlikely to block your opponents creatures, but once you untap for your 4th turn, your opponent probably won't block him when he swings. If he does, he's probably doing a unfavorable trade. Against control, he grows bigger than the zombie can ever hope to be.
The only dis-synergy, if you can call it that is playing it alongside blazing specter and skizzik, both would tap you out if you played them on their respective earliest turn. Then the shade would just be a 1/1 idiot for that turn. However, here's where a decent player can draw the distinction between what is the right play. Against aggro, play out more stuff and develop board position, or if you aren't really under a lot of pressure, poke with specter for disruption. The shade will largely remain unimpressive until several turns later provided you tap out to play things on turn 4 and 5.

Against permission control, it will hardly matter because you have an insane arsenal of disruption and threat. Furthermore, Necropolis is uncounterable damage and pyre zombie keeps coming back for more. If the control player has some random efficient weenies that are played alongside his control strategy (things like mother of runes, silver night, exalted angel, meddling mage, maybe even walls), shivan zombie may have a slight edge over the shade, but in the long run, the shade will still be more potent than the zombie.

Against control that can develop superior board position like masticore, crater hellion, scuta, baloth, and any other efficient fatties or board control creature, shivan zombie is not superior to the shade. Consider if you were running the shade over the zombie versus legacy, you could have topdecked rage as well as the shade to deal with the masticore when your opponent tapped out to machine gun with the masticore. Furthermore, you have a reasonable chance to win the race to protect the shade if a masticore do try to gun it down. If he succeeds and taps out, you can just fling the shade somewhere, most likely at the core. Against any other fattie.dec, zombie most likely will just sit there and chump block once and die (there isn't many white fatties aside from empyrial armor, also, white creatures will likely just fly over your head anyway) while the shade can go toe to toe with things like scuta or a 6/6 wurm token.

On the mana issue, you could simply make the 26th land a swamp instead of a necropolis and any uncertainty with the mana base can be resolved. Aside from color mana being used for the cinder shade, most of your other spells cost some kind of colorless mana, hence why I suggested necropolis over a basic land. It would require testing to see if the deck is indeed very color intensive and need that extra basic land instead of a good land that can do something else in addition to providing mana.

Agenda cost 5 and can fit nicely in both aggro and control decks. It is really that good. But 2 is probably the magic number.

The point is to try to make the deck better and its because of that that I'm more adamantly trying to convince you to run Cinder Shade. Hopefully, you will see that Cinder shade will be more likely better than the zombie in a lot of matches.

I feel assinine for repeatedly focusing on only the machinehead archetype. So here's another invasion deck that can be really strong, again reiterating making invasion a potential candidate for going deep in the tournament the next time instead of scrubbing out.

Go-Mar:

3X Dromar
4X Absorb
4X Undermine
4X Opt
4X Fact or Fiction
4X Repulse
2X Lobotomy
4X Addle
4X Recoil
3X Washout

3X Salt marsh
3X Coastal Tower
3X Plains
5X Swamp
10X Island

The numbers need to probably be tweaked. There are other good candidates for this deck: Prohibit, Exclude, Spite/Malice, Probe, Collective Restraint, chromatic sphere, and Rout.

Compared to Machinus's build, which one do you think is better?

[Legend]

@parallelflux


No, I don't write anything without putting thought into it. I just respond to what I see. So that is not the correct inference to draw.

Now, while I appreciate your detailed argument about Cinder Shade, I will just reply with two brief points:

1) Its going to be a moot point since we are changing the deck to a different build anyway

2) I don't like the fact that Cinder Shade only grows when fed with black mana. To me that alone is a fatal flaw in a deck that utilizes a roughly equal quantity of Swamps and Mountains, even allowing for Urborg Volcano.  I'll use Nantuko Shade for a baseline comparison here, since Shade is the standard for mana-intensive pump creatures (granted, Shade is one of the best creatures in Magic, but it helps illustrate my point) .

Nantuko Shade is highly effective in Torment because all of Torment's mana is black. Moreover, it requires one fewer mana to cast and starts out with an extra point of power. Cinder Shade, on the other hand, cannot pump with any land in Invasion, only some of the lands. Also, you pay one more mana than Nantuko Shade, but get one fewer point of base power.

The bottom line: I don't think Cinder Shade is particularly efficient - especially since Invasion B/R will want to tap out for several turns after turn three. Shivan Zombie can go into battle as a 2/2 independent of any further mana investment. Yeah, Shivan Zombie is not a card of earth-shattering quality - however, I played enough Invasion Block Constructed to tell you that I saw plenty of Shivan Zombies during that PTQ Season, but zero Cinder Shades.

With all that said, I can assure you that I have read your arguments, so don't think I didn't. But I do remain in strong disagreement with you about Cinder Shade. Nevertheless, I appreciate the effort you've put into your arguments. Feel free to throw out any further suggestions.

As for the control lists that you and Machinus have posted, I'll have to get back to you on that. Maybe between now and then I'll come up with a different list.


@Nazdakka

Yeah, Upheaval is no doubt a strong card in Threshold. Its definitely a major consideration. I've actually had it in an alternative list in my Apprentice files for awhile now.

But I kind of like the "mega Quiet Speculation" (as you termed it) effect of Traumatize, filling the graveyard with Calls and Roars, plus Traumatize is essentially two mana less (at worst) than Upheaval, as an effective Upheaval requires at least seven total mana for Upheaval + Mongoose or eight total for Upheaval + Werebear/Mongrel.

I do agree though that Upheaval is damn good. It can get this deck out of impossible situations where the assault has been stalled. I'll try and build an Upheaval list.

On Thought Devourer, I've goldfished the deck a little and I like the Devourers as this deck can empty its hand pretty fast and if not, you can get down to the limit by chucking Roars, Calls, or an extra land or extra Traumatize.  Also, given the aggressive nature of this deck, I'd much rather have a 4/4 flyer for 4 than a 2/1 searcher for 3, so I'm not inclined to use Cephalid Looter. However, a full four Thought Devourers may be a bit much since the effect is cumulative. Still, though I like them. We'll see.

[Matt]

Invasion is a deep set. Here's a rough sketch of a possible Domain deck:

//Win Conditions
  1 Dromar, the Banisher
  1 Treva, the Renewer

//Counters
  4 Absorb
  2 Prohibit

//Board Control
  4 Collective Restraint
  3 Rout
  1 Global Ruin

//Draw
  4 Worldly Counsel
  3 Fact or Fiction
  2 Restock


//Manabase
  4 Chromatic Sphere
  4 Fertile Ground
  4 Harrow

  9 Forest
  4 Plains
  4 Island
  1 Swamp
  1 Mountain
  2 Coastal Tower
  2 Elfhame Palace

There's a lot of little tweaks that can be done - the manabase feels a little off (mostly it's the Palaces I suspect) and the win conditions are totally up in the air (Ordered Migration is possible, but so is Collapsing Borders).

The one thing to note is that Restraint is going to gum up the works - they'll have a lot of guys sitting around doing nothing, so some kind of evasion is key.

Speaking of Collective Restraint, if you want to ensure you find them, you could go with Sterling Grove.

Fertile Ground is a necessary evil - the deck doesn't really get going til it hits 4 mana so acceleration is key. These could be Utopia Trees or Quirion Elves if you prefer, but those die to Rout.

3 Rout seems right. Prohibit is unspectacular but it's solid enough. Absorb is kind of hard to get off so I am thinking maybe 3 Absorb 3 Prohibit would be the best counterbase.

Possibly there should be some kind of maindeck disenchant effect - Dismantling Blow comes to mind but there's also Aura Mutation in the primary colors and Artifact Mutation in red, as well as something I'm probably forgetting.

Restock is quite good and at least one, possibly 2 belong. I don't know if there should there be a fourth FoF or even where you'd put it.


The other build of Domain I should mention drops the Routs for Sterling Groves and uses Collapsing Borders or Smoldering Tar as a kill card. The Groves give you more consistent Restraints, so you don't need the Routs as much. Plus they can fetch one of the aforementioned kill cards. Ironically those kill cards live through Rout, so maybe they should be left after all.

Cards I didn't include: Tangle could buy a lot of time, and Exclude I felt wasn't needed with all the Restraints and Routs.

[Matt]

And here's a U/B/R control deck.

//Win Condition
  1 Crosis, the Purger
  2 Yawgmoth's Agenda

//Counters
  4 Undermine
  3 Exclude
  3 Prohibit

//Draw
  4 Fact or Fiction
  3 Probe
  4 Opt

//Removal
  3 Void
  4 Urza's Rage
  4 Scorching Lava


And add an appropriate manabase - something like 4 Salt Marsh, 4 Urborg Volcano, 4 Swamp, 4 Mountain, 9 Island.

The primary win is to play out 12 lands, then drop Agenda and double-Rage for the win. Crosis is a backup plan.

Lobotomy, Spite/Malice, Recoil, Do or Die, Addle, and Plague Spitter could each also be included. DoD and Spitter are my personaly picks.

[Legend]

Thanks for more ideas and decklists. I appreciate the effort. I will continue to consider everything that gets tossed out here for consideration. Invasion and Odyssey are both still quite wide open.

However, I do want to remind you all of something very important which i think has been lost here - and that is:

Don't confuse depth, or size of card pool, with success, or think that a "deep" set should be doing better. I'm getting this vibe from some people that Invasion should have been doing better all along based on its large card pool and wide array of options. Having a large card pool certainly increases a set's chances of success, but guarantees nothing. For example, take the following three sets, all three among the true elite of the format, and all three with at least one title under their belt:

Antiquities (84 cards)
Torment (143 cards)
Apocalypse (143 cards)

Compare to Invasion (335 cards) - obviously, Invasion can't hold a candle to any of the above three, despite its overwhelming card pool advantage. Why? Because above all its about being able to field a powerful deck, and failing brute power, a synergistic deck that just works for whatever reason. Some smaller sets just happen to have the required cards to form brutally powerful decks (such as the above three, which have a high percentage of powerful cards in the appropriate colors despite a small card pool), while others, (such as Visions) possess a fortuitous synergy (i.e. Sands of Time and Equipoise) despite a small card pool.

On the other hand, you have some large sets that have failed miserably, not because of any failure in deckbuilding, but just because the elements of a winning deck are not present, or maybe because a number of elements are present, but a few crucial ones are missing. Ice Age and Mirage stand out as examples of big sets that just don't win. Invasion has done a little better, but has also been for the most part a loser. Then again, you have big sets like Tempest and Masques that have been big winners.

The point is that depth is absolutely anything but a guarantee or barometer for success. Antiquities is the best proof of that on one end, as it is the only two-time champion despite ranking 33rd out of 34 in card pool size, ahead of only Arabian Nights. In contrast, Ice Age, with a beefy 373 card pool, has yet to win a match.

It just comes down to what a set has to work with - and Invasion, for all the respect it seems to get from some people, just doesn't deserve it. It really has a great deal less raw power than some would think, and it doesn't have any one great deck option to turn to. Hence, its lack of success, and the difficulty we are having finding a new deck for it.

Essentially, Invasion suffers from having a lot of decent options, but no standouts. In contrast, many of the most successful decks in this format have only one (maybe two) deck options, but that one option is a home run. Which set is going to do better in this format - the unfocused set that can field a wide array of decent decks, or the focused set that has very limited deck options, but can field that one killer deck from those limited options? Obviously, the latter is going to be the winning set more often than not, while the former will be left behind to wallow in mediocrity.

So don't be looking for things that aren't there - we can do our best to maximize Invasion's resources - but those resources, when it comes to this format at least, are actually mediocre, especially considering the size of the card pool. For a variety of reasons, those 335 cards just don't come together to hit a home run.

Finally, I understand that a lot of people are just referencing the "depth" to point out the wide array of options we have. That said, I don't think I like any of the slower control decks, like the UBW, or UBR decks. I've tested them in the past, and while they have some powerful individual cards, they are very slow and plodding, and have difficulty closing games out. Remember, this format is filled with punishing aggro decks. A control deck better be damn good to withstand such unforgiving tests. I'm not convinced that Invasion would be able to do that in control form.

Maybe something a little more unconventional.

[Matt]

The UBR deck probably couldn't do as you say but Collective Restraint is indeed a wonderful foil for "punishing aggro decks". Getting two in play is essentially a hard lock.

[Legend]

Domain is not bad, but the major reason I don't like it that much is the cards it doesn't have, rather than those it does have. Here's Kai Budde's winning decklist from GP London 2001 (IBC):

7 Forest
5 Island
2 Llanowar Wastes
2 Mountain
1 Plains
3 Swamp
1 Yavimaya Coast
 
4 Allied Strategies
4 Chromatic Sphere
4 Collective Restraint
2 Destructive Flow
4 Evasive Action
1 Goblin Trenches
4 Harrow
4 Lay of the Land
1 Legacy Weapon
1 Ordered Migration
1 Overgrown Estate
2 Pernicious Deed
2 Void
4 Worldly Counsel
1 Yawgmoth's Agenda


To me, an Invasion-only Domain deck's lack of Allied Strategies, Evasive Action, and Lay of the Land is pretty damaging. Lay of the Land especially, since the mana really suffers without that extra mana fixing. It would also be nice to have Pernicious Deed and Legacy Weapon, but unfortunately those too are not in Invasion, nor are the Trenches and Estate.

[Matt]

I'd appreciate it if you'd at least goldfish the thing for a bit. It really isn't as bad as you seem to think. The lands really aren't that hard to assemble, between FoF, Worldly Council, and of course Harrow. Partly this is because opposing decks won't be attacking the manabase very hard - Ice Age and Antiquities are the only ones that spring immediately to mind (and I guess Alliances' Pillages).

FoF partially replaces Allied Strategies, Prohibit partially replaces Evasive Action, and so on. No, it won't be as good as the true block deck, but that's something you just accept in this format (otherwise you'd hear me bemoaning the fate of Exodus a lot more - what I could do with Wall of Blossoms!).

Actually, between the blue cards, Domain could very easily see more of its deck, faster, than any other entry except Exodus. It's also important to remember that you don't NEED all five lands for the domain spells to be effective - a Worldly Council for four is perfectly good, and even three is serviceable.

Again, just give it a whirl. All I'm asking is that you give the deck a fair shot, and not write off a potentially vastly improved deck just because, on paper, it seems to lack tools it had in Block. No, it won't be a top deck like Torment, but I do think it would be an improvement.

And, if you choose to do so, please remember that it's still a rough sketch and can be tweaked in many ways. Don't write it off because the lands are off by two cards or something silly like that.

[Legend]

I'm not writing anything off. I'll give Domain the fair look it deserves, just as I would with any other legitimate idea. But its my job to maintain some skepticism with any deck ideas (including my own) so ultimately, I can critically evaluate what the proper deck choice is. This has been the process for all of the decks and all of the card choices.

And my skepticism arises not "because the lands are off by two cards or something silly like that" as you indicated, but because of the crucial missing ingredients such as Lay of the Land and Allied Strategies. I thought I made that point pretty clear.

BTW, you can also throw Torment (Rancid Earth) and Apocalypse (Vindicate) onto the list of decks with LD capabilities.

[parallelflux]

I don't think the lack of Deed, legacy weapon, trenches and estate is something to lament over. Invasion itself has strong enough win conditions/ removal.

What I do see is the lack of lay of the land which is probably one of the cards making domain good. Harrow, fertile land, and utopia tree all seems fairly weak to replace it. Allied strategy however, can be replaced by fof. Although strategy is definitely far superior in domain, replacing it with fof doesn't make it that horrible either.

The one card you should probably as a 4 of, changing the primary color to blue instead of green, is Opt. One of invasions weakness, to my knowledge is lacking the ability to find whatever it needs at the right time. Opt doesn't solve that completely, but shores up that weakness. Furthermore, its comparable to lay of the land in the same manner. I'm sure you realize the comparison to brainstorm and impulse as well.

The shifting to blue allows Invasion to run 8 very good counterspells as well as others like prohibit, exclude or spite/malice, the raw power of counterspells can not be forgotten. It stops bombs like mind sludge, a big fat aggro creature, or a combo piece. The ability to use absorb consistently would be a major boon over the green-based counterpart as I believe the life gaining is important. Thus, I think the UWB build will play better than Domain or 4cc.

[Legend]

I agree with you that UWB will play better than Domain.

But ironically, as one of your main criticisms of the B/R deck involved mana-curve issues, that same problem exists with your proposed UWB.

It really doesn't have very much game early on, as it comes out of the gates really slowly, not able to do much until turn three. Sure, it can cast Opt, or Addle, but those first two turns are a dangerous time for Invasion during which it can fall behind.

A number of its key spells are bunched into the three mana range (i.e. Absorb, Undermine, Repulse, Recoil) - 16 in fact, a bad casting cost distribution - so Invasion is for the most part limited to one spell per turn until it reaches six mana.

[Legend]

Here is my proposed Invasion list. I've tried my best to minimize what I think are the biggest weaknesses of the decktype:



2 Yawgmoth's Agenda
3 Dromar, the Banisher
3 Rout
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Lobotomy
4 Recoil
4 Absorb
4 Prohibit
4 Opt
4 Chromatic Sphere
4 Salt Marsh
4 Coastal Tower
6 Island
5 Plains
5 Swamp



I feel Rout is needed to avoid being swarmed under by certain aggro decks. Lobotomy seems like the right choice, but that's up for debate. Recoil over Repulse because Recoil is more versatile. Absorb over Undermine because you'd rather gain life than cause the opponent to lose it in this sort of deck. Prohibit is in because I'm unwilling to have the deck just sit there until turn three with no defensive options for the first two turns. Opt adds some nice cheap search, while Chromatic Sphere further smooths out the mana.


Here are some possible issues:

3 Routs or 4? I kind of wanted 4, but how to fit it, and is 4 even necessary? I'm leaning towards 4, but how?

The mana - what do you think the correct configuation is? After adding up the spells and adjusting for other factors (like how early certain mana is needed, and how many spells of each color there are) I have 14 Blue sources, 9 Black, and 9 White, plus the 4 Spheres.

Or do you think this deck needs 25 lands instead of 24? Or perhaps 23 instead of 24?

Other concerns, suggestions, or objections?



Also, here is a modified proposal for Odyssey, UG but with both Upheaval and Traumatize.

3 Upheaval
3 Traumatize
2 Thought Devourer
4 Careful Study
4 Standstill
4 Roar of the Wurm
4 Call of the Herd
4 Wild Mongrel
4 Werebear
4 Nimble Mongoose
13/12 Forest
11/12 Island

[parallelflux]

Since you said the field is mostly aggro, I think you definitely need to run 4 routs. Against something like Antiquities that lay down 4-5 beat sticks before you get 5 mana, you definitely want to have a rout very early in the game.

I think you are safe at 24 lands right now since you run both sphere and opt. If anything though, you should add more, not less.

For which card to take out, my gut instinct is to take out a lobotomy. That card is kind of clumsy. Perhaps my perception is a bit skewed since disruption like duress and therapy exist. Perhaps its better to compare it to Cranial Extraction. Otherwise, an agenda. I'm not really sure how limiting yourself to playing one spell a turn will do to the deck. Everything else seems fairly un-cuttable.

Also, I'm not entirely sure if you want to play 8 CIPT lands. hopefully, you can just put more strain on the chromatic sphere and play around 5 CIPT lands (3 tower, 2 marsh?) so you wouldn't have to play them later in the game.

[Nazdakka]

Also, here is a modified proposal for Odyssey, UG but with both Upheaval and Traumatize.

3 Upheaval
3 Traumatize
2 Thought Devourer
4 Careful Study
4 Standstill
4 Roar of the Wurm
4 Call of the Herd
4 Wild Mongrel
4 Werebear
4 Nimble Mongoose
13/12 Forest
11/12 Island

I'm not keen on Traumatize as a 3-of, mainly because it's a very expensive spell which does nothing to the board. I guess it depends on how agressively the deck plays out - my gut reaction would be to a lose 1-2 Traumatize,  1-2 lands and 0-2 of something else to make way for a playset of Aether Bursts (combo with Standstill and with Traumatize). I might be biased by my experiance of standard and extended UG Threshold though, those decks play very aggressively and don't have this deck's higher-end creatures. If this deck plays in a more controlling way, then Traumatize is a better card and perhaps deserves 3 copies.

Another thought: I think perhaps you've got a bit too much mana - 28 sources including the Werebears. I think you could probably go down to 23 or maybe 22 lands plus 4 Werebears, as the curve tops out at 4 (Upheaval will not usually be cast on turn 6). You might also want to consider a singleton Tarnished Citadel to help smooth the mana - U/G was notable for its bad mana base in block, and this deck has the same problem of needing both its colours ASAP.

[Legend]

@parallelflux

Yes, I'd like that 4th Rout. One thing I'm discovering is that Chromatic Sphere is really a waste and not necessary with the 8 multilands and Opt to help make 3 colors work. and yes, all 8 are necessary). Between Chromatic Sphere and the multilands, Sphere loses out. Its unnecessary and takes up slots. If anything, I still think this deck needs more actual land. Lobotomy could go, but it deals with problems once and for all and I kind of like that. Maybe keep three. Agenda could be cut down to a one of, but one Agenda is kind of random. I think either none or two.  I'm really not sure Agenda is necessary.

I'm thinking:

-4 Chromatic Sphere
-1 Lobotomy
-2 Yawgmoth's Agenda
+1 Rout
+4 Undermine
+ 1 Swamp
+ 1 Plains

Which gives us:


3 Dromar, the Banisher
3 Lobotomy
4 Rout
4 Fact or Fiction
4 Recoil
4 Undermine
4 Absorb
4 Prohibit
4 Opt
4 Salt Marsh
4 Coastal Tower
6 Island
6 Plains
6 Swamp



@Nazdakka


What we need to decide is whether this is going to be an Upheaval deck or a Traumatize deck. I am quite familiar with Upheaval's use in UG Threshold, but what needs to be decided is whether Upheaval is better than Traumatize in this format. Also, on the lands, I've found that this deck needs 24 lands, especially since there is no dual to fix the mana. Unfortunately, the deck needs green early, but also a little blue, but then double blue later. Just because Werebear can produce mana does not mean we should have fewer lands, especially given the mana requirements. I've found 24 to be perfectly fine so far. I have also considered adding a lone Citadel - that is definitely a possibility. We'll see.

[parallelflux]

For the invasion deck, I think its a matter of preference. With sphere you get to sift your deck slightly more efficiently, without it, you have more options instead of cutting out spells entirely or make 3 ofs. I don't see it altering the deck drastically. With that said, I do like the current version better.

For the Oddysey deck, I am with Naz here. Upheaval just seems stronger than traumatize. Threshold or not, Upheaval is a gamebreaking play. Traumatize..is a bad quiet spec. 24 land seems a bit high and 22 seems a bit risky, so probably 23lands? What about 4 upheavals? Also, have you tested with 4 cephalid looters? The ability is good enough that you are willing to pay 3 mana to cast it i think. Maybe its not aggro enough. Just a thought.

Here's my list for Oddysey, only slightly different than yours:

4X Upheaval
4X Wild Mongrel
4X Nimble Mongoose
4X Werebear
4X Call of the Herd
4X Roar of the Wurm
4X Aether Burst
4X Standstill
4X Careful Study
1X Bearscape
10X Island
12X Forest
1X Citadel

Base on what I see, there's about 2-6 slots that are debatable. Namely that 24th land/bearscape slot, an upheaval slot, and the aether burst slots. Perhaps even a roar of the wurm slot. Probably not though. These slots can be interchangeable with 1-2 ofs of cards like: Overrun, Thought Devourer, or if you're me, Mystic Enforcer.

That build above is emphasizing more aggressiveness and consistency, since the deck is rather aggro, based on aggressiveness, I'm pretty sure the burst should never get cut. However, they are absolutely dead against control/combo; at least, it would be of minimal importance. But for now, its fairly safe to say that they will be for the most part, good. I chose 4 upheavals because thats just 1 friggin powerful card and 4 seems to make the deck that much stronger. Bearscape replaced the devourers because playing green spells first seems most likely the better play over the blue ones making green slightly more important than blue. Hence, there's some slight consistency issue with the devourer. The evasion is quite awesome but hopefully bearscape provides another kind of aggro-ness by making lots of bears. Overrun kind of fills that same purpose by providing yet another finisher. But again, some consistency issues. To be honest, I like all 3 of them.

For a slightly more controllish build, I would either ditch the bursts or the standstills for 4 looters and play slightly more evasive creatures. Looters will primarily find you the answers you need fast enough. Opponent just played a random 5/5 like Morifen, scuta, or Balduvian Horde? Find that Roar of the Wurm. Don't like the board position? Upheaval. This is where Thought Devourers can show its ability. You can have combatical superiority either by huge wurms or choking the ground, then flying over the air.