[Discussion] Belcher optimization

[Dante]

At the last SCG Chicago, JDizzle top 8'd with his 2-land Belcher sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=14159.

He had argued in the past that blue did NOT belong in this deck.

Recently, Kyle Leith won this 34-person event www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=25717.0 with a version featuring blue and some other new choices like Gamble.

I had asked them to keep that discussion to a new topic, so below are some quotes from that thread:

I thought Jdizzle and I had already put this to bed.  Blue in Belcher is terrible, as is Gamble, because of the needless instability they add to the deck.  Not to mention the fact that this guy did the unthinkable and added another land.  Congratulations on your win Kyle, but let's all remember that just because a deck wins doesn't make it optimal, particularly a deck like Belcher.

As much as I love to see Belcher do well, why can't people just let go of blue?  It doesn't go in every deck, like seriously.

I admit that my build is not optimal. Honestly, right after the tournement I changed a couple maindeck cards (-1 Tropical Island +1 Tolarian Academy, and something else). HOWEVER, I didnt know Jdizzle put the topic to rest, because frankly I really didnt like his version that much. I cant see how anyone can ever argue that any version of belcher is/isnt in anyway optimal, because up until ummm never has belcher done anything that has been very impressive.

Jdizzle got 7th. If thats the best a so called "optimal" list can produce at a tournement then it clearly isnt optimal (but dont get me wrong I dont think there is a deck in the format that is truly optimal). The deck can still make a lot of progress, and even if you think I took a step in the wrong direction i still took a step.

Also, the version that got 3rd at Gencon (when 4 trinisphere was legal) ran blue. So its not like blue has never put up results.

Why did I run 3 lands?

Umm... Consistency... My deck was extremely consistent. 3 land rarely affected/prevented me from combo'ing off. If I had 1 land left in the deck it was almost always taiga anyway... And with 3 lands I mulligan MUCH Less...

Why did I run Blue?

Because, it didnt affect my consistency in testing at all. The biggest problem with the deck is threat density. Alot of players will let everything resolve and just stop the big cards... and then your left with limited ammounts of mana to some how scrape yourself some win off topdecks.

Blue gives:
Ancestral Recall
Tinker
Timetwister

3 of the most broken cards in the game.

I didnt run brainstorm so I have no idea why people keep bringing that up...

If I can run these 3 cards without affecting my decks consistency, and increasing the ammount of broken cards in my deck why not include them???

Also... Why is gamble terrible? or more importantly how do you know if its terrible? Without explaining some untested theory answer these 3 questions:
1.) Have you tested it? 
2.) Is it even the slightest chance possible that when you tested gamble that perhaps you played it in a completely different way then I might have in a similar game situation?
3.) Is it possible that I used gamble as a card primarily to win game 1, and then board it out? Could it be that I am using it to abuse welder by getting Jar, or maybe I always get lotus... Or maybe I get a welder with it. OR A LAND.. I dont know what you would get, but your experience must have been completely different from mine.

And I am happy you put to bed the issue that Blue Belcher is horrible, because honestly I would be scared shitless If I was matched up against it regardless of what I am playing.

It was a well run tournement, and as always everyone there was friendly! It has the feel of the original waterbury tournements that only had about 40 to 70 people, and thats a great feeling to have.

Kyle L

For reference, here's Kyle's decklist

Kyle leith:  3 land gamble belcher !

4 goblin charlbelcher
4 chromatic sphere
4 dark ritual
4 land grant
4 elvish spirit guide
4 tinder wall
2 living wish
2 gamble
3 goblin welders
1 taiga
1 bayou
1 tropical island
1 oxidize
1 yawgmoths will
1 windfall
1 ancestral recall
1 imperial seal
1 wheel of fortune
1 vampiric tutor
1 channel
1 demonic consultation
1 tinker
1 memory jar
1 crop rotation
1 demonic tutor
5 mox
1 lotus petal
1 black lotus
1 sol ring
1 mana crypt
1 mana vault
1 lion eye diamond
1 grim monolith

sb:
2 overload
1 echoing truth
1 eternal witness
1 tormod crypt
1 naturalize
1 oxidize
1 goblin welder
1 uktabi orangutan
2 dark confidant
2 xantid swarm
1 city of brass
1 tolarian academy

[Smmenen]

This is a very interesting discussion. 

I want to remind Kyle though, that the non-blue belcher lists originate with Ray Robillard, to my knowledge.

Michael Simister first played Belcher (Simister invented this deck) at a Columbus Ohio tournament in Feb of 2004.   The Germans saw the decklist and won a Duelmen with it a month or two later.   

Simister went on to pwn people at Origins and gencon that year playing it.  He dissappeared from Type one shortly thereafter.  He is Lucenspirit on these boards if someone cares to find his old posts on the deck (he wrote quite long posts on it, so they are worth digging up). 

Ray Robillard was the one who started performing with Belcher in the Northeast and he did so eventually without blue. 

I think there should be a presumption that Blue is correct in belcher, and it is incumbant upon the person arguing that it is not to prove so.  I think JD's individual arguments are pretty persuasive.  In particular, it seems very intuitive that Tinker would be a natural inclusion.  His argument in the post above is pretty good at refuting its inclusion.

I think JD is on weakest ground in arguing against Ancestral Recall.  Given that you have so many potential blue sources, I think the argument that you may draw Ancestral off a Chromatic Sphere after popping a Sphere for black or red is pretty weak.  I think that even if I were playing a no Tropical Island version of this deck, I would extensively test with Ancestral Recall before cutting it, given its power. 

[MoxMonkey]

Blue adds more Bombs something I find your builds lacking and Brainstorming also lets you see the top 3 cards to fix your hand for the better.  I played both versions and without blue I always had a problem with Mulliganing because you have to much disruption.  Maybe you can draw well from your deck or I just get shitty hands but Duress is bad in 2 Land belcher.  What does it do take 1 counter for 1 mana and most likely not get casted before a Dark Ritual.  I have seen so many people counter a Ritual cause they don't want me to get up on mana so Duress's were always bad.  3 lands I agree with are bad but Gamble is worth testing its just anyother tutor to help set up the lock and if your running 2-3 Welders main then having an Artifact which what 70% the deck is how could you go wrong.
Tinker is Belcher #5 for 3 Mana.  Its doesn't matter what it cost to play at that time run a Tropical SB and bring it Tinker will stop peoples dreams and it also gives you a somewhat game against all that cool hate people bring in these days.  Tinker DSC is stupid and takes no skill but wins through that Null Rod this deck Rolls to.  I for one don't want to roll to a card and having the Tropical and Tinker allow you not to.  I like a couple Draw 7s in the deck as they refill your hand and let you stabilize and it makes Stax and aggro matchups even better cause you just go off faster since you go through your deck more.
EVER FINSH is relevent no matter when it was.  Keeper ran different cards but it still have the 4 drains and 4 force this deck can just roll over to.  I understand you have taken that into account by playing duress but counting bombs for duress just doesn't work.  I like my build and you like yours but for general your finish is more based on your playskill with Combo more than your build.  Even you must know if you had blue or no blue you would have got 7th and also getting super lucky playing Food Chain Goblins Twice in 8 rounds is not something to bring a 120 something event in Chicago Home of the we bend over to Turn 1 kills.
With blue or without Belcher DESTROYS Goblins, and Workshops at least 80% of the time no matter the build but I like having bombs and cards that can help my control match up which is just terrible..

[MoxMonkey]

Even Without Brainstorm your agrument for cutting Blue is terrible.  I dont like a 5th belcher that cost 1 less and I dont like getting 3 cards for 1 mana.  With all the mana fixing your deck does why not run Ancestral.  Its a bad top deck when you have no gas and no hand?  What isn't by that time? its bad in your opening hand?  I didn't want to have to flame but I run belcher the way I like it after Ive tested it and cutting blue is stupid.  Twister is retarded good in the deck and can deal with a stupid will a control player has been setting up and it deals with other welders by cutting them off.  Draw 7s help Belcher alot since you tend to dump your hand and casting 1 doesn't hurt that much since your probably going to win 60% of the time after.  Those 3 Blue cards make running anything in their place a not Optimal Decklist no matter what your running in my view.  No matter if you make top 8 5 more times before another Blue Belcher makes top 8 I will still say its based on playskill not your deck list being optimal.  Ancestral and Tinker BELONG in Belcher.  Their are no Arguments that can be said to defend the no.  Ru na Trop throw taiga in the Sideboard.  Tinker wins the game and gets around Null Rod Via DSC.  That right there gives you no reason to not run it at least SB.     

[Komatteru]

I'm glad to see that your argument for them is "well, these belong in the deck because these cards are good."  Great insight.  Care to enlighten us anymore on your amazing deckbuilding skills that have won you oh so many victories?

[MoxMonkey]

Clearly I have hit JDs spot, as he is pissed off, so let's keep it up. Everyone else who's brought up my lack of victories  I have told to meet me at a tournament and I'd play 10-20 games with them to show them I know what I'm talking about, but since you're not coming to NY I guess we will have to find some other way.  I don't do Magic Workstation as I don't like it and don't want to deal with it.

Tinker gets around Null rod.  Your build auto-loses to Null Rod even if you can savagely play around Chalice all day.   As I said before Tinker-DSC is Belcher's best answer to Null Rod.  If you have to stick the Tinker and Tropical in your SB that could have allowed you to make top 4 or even win the SCG.  I also can play through Chalice and I know it takes skill but thats what testing against Stax can do for you.  Tinker is a 5th belcher and the answer to null Rod.  Its a two-card sideboard solution, and in testing its been all I've needed.

Ancestral also should be tested even without Tropical since you do have Lotus petal, 4 Chromatic and Sapphire. 

Thats my Argument for why Tinker should be in the deck, despite my lack of any savage wins. I have playtested against everyone I know and have played in some little tournaments to show me that it was worth it.

EDIT: Unless you have something different that I over looked that was the best answer to Null Rod for me.

Edited for Readability. Please try harder in the future to make your posts understandable Mox Monkey.
- Klep

[AmbivalentDuck]

I did consider Gamble at some point.  I decided it was generally inferior to Entomb because of the small number of cards kept in hand, and the precise nature of how hands often need one more card to be good.  Randomly taking out a card destroys that balance.  Since Entomb didn't prove itself strong enough in testing, Gamble never even made it to testing, since it seemed very inferior to a card not already strong enough.  Entomb was amazing when you had a Welder, but that came back to the "conditional cards" I just described above.  The deck just cannot afford to play conditional cards.

Gamble is almost strictly better than Entomb here:
Both
- pull land
- Net you -1 cards.
- Let you Weld
Gamble
- Gets Lotus
- Gets Welder
- Gets Yawg Will
- Gets Belcher

I'm not saying that Gamble belongs in the deck, just that the comparison is extremely unfair.

[Vegeta2711]

Even Without Brainstorm your agrument for cutting Blue is terrible.  I dont like a 5th belcher that cost 1 less and I dont like getting 3 cards for 1 mana.  With all the mana fixing your deck does why not run Ancestral.  Its a bad top deck when you have no gas and no hand?  What isn't by that time? its bad in your opening hand?  I didn't want to have to flame but I run belcher the way I like it after Ive tested it and cutting blue is stupid.  Twister is retarded good in the deck and can deal with a stupid will a control player has been setting up and it deals with other welders by cutting them off.  Draw 7s help Belcher alot since you tend to dump your hand and casting 1 doesn't hurt that much since your probably going to win 60% of the time after.  Those 3 Blue cards make running anything in their place a not Optimal Decklist no matter what your running in my view.  No matter if you make top 8 5 more times before another Blue Belcher makes top 8 I will still say its based on playskill not your deck list being optimal.  Ancestral and Tinker BELONG in Belcher.  Their are no Arguments that can be said to defend the no.  Ru na Trop throw taiga in the Sideboard.  Tinker wins the game and gets around Null Rod Via DSC.  That right there gives you no reason to not run it at least SB.     

Perhaps you missed JD's mentioning of AR.

Ancestral Recall is a great card, but it is not enough to add blue just for it.  When you use Chromatic Sphere, you're often taking a guess at what you might draw.  Many times, you guess wrong.  However, with my deck, you will almost always guess black or red, since green mana is pretty easy to come by (and the only green card to cast preboard is Tinder Wall).  Sometimes you get it wrong and draw a Welder that you would have liked to play when you named black, but that's how it goes.  What really sucks is to name black or red and draw Ancestral Recall or another blue card you can't cast.  Now, Chromatic Sphere has cost you a card, which makes it awful.

Obviously Ancestral is an awesome card. Regardless though, it basically forces you to take guesses with your few multi-colored sources or run Tropical Island as either your 2nd land (Worse than Taiga) or a 3rd land (Worse than not running it at all).

As for Timetwister, I personally hate casting Draw-7's in any combo deck (save High Tide) except as a last resort. It's obvious why, but I guess it bears repeating. Whenever you cast a Draw-7 your effectively wasting most of your colored mana (If not most of it period) for the turn and giving your opponent a brand-new hand. Under most circumstances that's pretty terrible for you, since you now have to resolve a 4cc permenant past a newly refreshed counterwall. And of course this assumes you don't have to pass the turn, which could very well mean the end of you.

No matter if you make top 8 5 more times before another Blue Belcher makes top 8 I will still say its based on playskill not your deck list being optimal.

This has to be one of the worst arguments I've ever heard against a list. It is true that a winning decklist could be unoptimal, but if you were to argue against multiple high end finishes you better have a more compelling argument than, 'I think it's wrong, just cause blue cards are broken'. Typically this requires doing well somewhere and a good / logical argument one way or the other.

Ancestral and Tinker BELONG in Belcher.  Their are no Arguments that can be said to defend the no

You've been presented with oppising arguments. You just choose to ignore them, until you directly answer them with a rebuttal that goes past the 'it's broken' theory, this dicussion won't progress.

P.S.

As I said before Tinker-DSC is Belcher's best answer to Null Rod. 

The decks that play Null Rod can either race (FCG) or answer (Fish w/ STP or bounce) a turn 1 or 2 DSC with little protection behind it. Trying to rely on Tinker as your answer to Null Rod in such a build seems rather lacking.

[And11]

I play Ancestral Recall in the deck without the Tropical Island. My friend I borrowed the last cards for the deck from, told me not to play Ancestral since it would be stuck in my hand doing nothing, because of the low number of blue sources. However, in round 1, game 1 at a recent tournament, I removed ESG, played and sacced Tinder Wall, cast Sphere, filtered blue and drew 4 cards. From that moment, I knew Ancestral belonged in the deck. I think JD did like 20 games of testing with Ancestral, in which a situiation like the above never occured. Maybe he drew it and was unable to play it and there for discarded it to make the deck more stable. That would explain his dislike for the the card's inclusion, while the above made me love it. It's all about personal preferences, people.

I must admit, I hate the idea of running a total of 3 lands, since I've fizzled out with a 40 card library containing Taiga a lot of times. To me, Twister and Tinker aren't that savage and the sideboard possibilities doesn't seem superior to what a Taiga/Bayou configuration can support. In my book, stability > random brokeness/more frequent fizzling out. Again, the inclusion of blue is not a yes or no question, I just wanted to contribute to this nice discussion.

Tinker->DSC as an answer to Null Rod? That's one friggin' card in a deck with little tutoring. I'd rather combat the Rod with Oxidize.

I hope my English gets the job done.

/Andreas Petersen, Denmark.

[Klep]

Honestly, "A couple dozen games of testing never showed card X to be worth including" is a stronger argument  than "This one time card X was totally awesome for me."  It's not really about personal preferences in a deck that doesn't have the room for random metagame slots.  It's about what cards are going to be consistently good.

[Whatever Works]

Honestly, "A couple dozen games of testing never showed card X to be worth including" is a stronger argument  than "This one time card X was totally awesome for me."  It's not really about personal preferences in a deck that doesn't have the room for random metagame slots.  It's about what cards are going to be consistently good.

I will post much more on this topic in a little bit, but during the tournement here are a few notes on the # of times I cast each of the following cards. ( I take pretty detailed notes during/after games )

21 Games:
Timetwister Cast 5 Times
Ancestral Recall Cast 6 Times
Windfall Cast 3 Times (boarded out for 6 games)
Tinker Cast 4 Times (3 Times for Memory Jar, 1 Time for Belcher)

Out of these 21 Games I won 15 games. 7 Of those games I won on the 1st turn.

I cant emphasize ennough that the 3rd land had little to no impact on the game when it comes to belching for the kill.

Kyle

[Imsomniac101]

Yes. We all know that AR and Tinker are huge bombs. However the main reason why blue isn't included in Belcher lists is because of the mana requirements. I think that's the part most people are missing. The extra colour doesn't gel well with the rest of the deck.

Even Without Brainstorm your agrument for cutting Blue is terrible. I dont like a 5th belcher that cost 1 less and I dont like getting 3 cards for 1 mana. With all the mana fixing your deck does why not run Ancestral. Its a bad top deck when you have no gas and no hand? What isn't by that time? its bad in your opening hand? I didn't want to have to flame but I run belcher the way I like it after Ive tested it and cutting blue is stupid. Twister is retarded good in the deck and can deal with a stupid will a control player has been setting up and it deals with other welders by cutting them off. Draw 7s help Belcher alot since you tend to dump your hand and casting 1 doesn't hurt that much since your probably going to win 60% of the time after. Those 3 Blue cards make running anything in their place a not Optimal Decklist no matter what your running in my view. No matter if you make top 8 5 more times before another Blue Belcher makes top 8 I will still say its based on playskill not your deck list being optimal. Ancestral and Tinker BELONG in Belcher. Their are no Arguments that can be said to defend the no. Ru na Trop throw taiga in the Sideboard. Tinker wins the game and gets around Null Rod Via DSC. That right there gives you no reason to not run it at least SB.

Perhaps you missed JD's mentioning of AR.

Ancestral Recall is a great card, but it is not enough to add blue just for it. When you use Chromatic Sphere, you're often taking a guess at what you might draw. Many times, you guess wrong. However, with my deck, you will almost always guess black or red, since green mana is pretty easy to come by (and the only green card to cast preboard is Tinder Wall). Sometimes you get it wrong and draw a Welder that you would have liked to play when you named black, but that's how it goes. What really sucks is to name black or red and draw Ancestral Recall or another blue card you can't cast. Now, Chromatic Sphere has cost you a card, which makes it awful.

Obviously Ancestral is an awesome card. Regardless though, it basically forces you to take guesses with your few multi-colored sources or run Tropical Island as either your 2nd land (Worse than Taiga) or a 3rd land (Worse than not running it at all).

As for Timetwister, I personally hate casting Draw-7's in any combo deck (save High Tide) except as a last resort. It's obvious why, but I guess it bears repeating. Whenever you cast a Draw-7 your effectively wasting most of your colored mana (If not most of it period) for the turn and giving your opponent a brand-new hand. Under most circumstances that's pretty terrible for you, since you now have to resolve a 4cc permenant past a newly refreshed counterwall. And of course this assumes you don't have to pass the turn, which could very well mean the end of you.

Adding blue to belcher is like trying to add blue to FCG. I mean sure, AR and TimeWalk are freaking huge, but is it worth the extra inconsistency in mana?

[Whatever Works]

BRAINSTORM IS NOT IN KYLE'S DECK!!!  STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!

Brainstorm is fucking awful, as if your Brainstorm is bad, you just double time walked your opponent.  I sure as hell like to give my opponents two free turns to beat me.

I didnt run brainstorm for those very reasons so I agree 100% on that.

Imsoniac101

Yes. We all know that AR and Tinker are huge bombs. However the main reason why blue isn't included in Belcher lists is because of the mana requirements. I think that's the part most people are missing. The extra colour doesn't gel well with the rest of the deck.

Based on #'s I posted up above the color does gel with the deck, and my testing only supports this.

Jdizzle

6) Lack of Cabal Ritual

This is one of the best cards to have against Chalice.  I've looked at multiple Chalices for 1 and said "Ok, I have Cabal Ritual, Thanks for playing."  Not having this card is a big loss of resiliancy vs. Chalice of the Fucking Void. In the midwest here, it seems every round features Chalices coming down at various numbers

Wait Let me read that part I had in bold again...

Jdizzle

In the midwest here

As far as I recall the location of the tournement was...
632 Kings Highway, West Springfield. Massachusetts... In New England...

Comparing New England to the crappy midwest game is like comparing cheese cake to cow dung (Take this with a little bit of sarcasm btw... However, I do find your metagame to be rather boring and err... awful --- I cant even imagine what I would call it without the presence of meandeck, reflection, and the colorado crew)...

The overall purpose of that completely pointless mini rant is that New England doesnt run chalice of the void in large #'s... I had no fear of chalice at all, and my board shows that. However, living in NE I am very concerned with null rod, and with pithing needle. Both of which my board deal with very well.

JDizzle

I would not include this card even if I were including blue.  Belcher mulligans a lot of hands because it has all mana or the wrong colored mana to cast the business in hand.  The problem with Twister is that it gives you a hand with all the temporary mana sources you just used.

I cant disagree more with this. Your arguement basically says that 3 mana doesnt equal 7 cards. WHAT??? Ok, it is POSSIBLE that you could get a hand with no business, but looking over MY decklist the deck runs 12 Bombs, and 8 tutors. That is 20 cards that do something... I like your chances of drawing them...

Timetwister usually sets up the Belcher player... Usually as the belcher player you drop a few moxes maybe a land grant... Your belcher/welder (first initial threat is countered)... Your hand size is about 2-3 cards... Your opponents is generally 4-5 from FoW or whatever. You cast timetwister with mana on the board, or often mana floating... Trying drawing a 7 card hand with belcher, but do it imagining you have 2 black mana floating (or colorless), and you will find that with any kind of decent hand the game is OVER.

Windfall generally does the same thing. It can come out of nowhere, and it generally nets you cirtual card advantage, and has synergy with welder. 2 colorless and a blue mana is not difficult to achieve at all.

Jdizzle

Gamble never even made it to testing, since it seemed very inferior to a card not already strong enough.  Entomb was amazing when you had a Welder, but that came back to the "conditional cards" I just described above.  The deck just cannot afford to play conditional cards.

I dont believe gamble is conditional at all. You just have to be able to know how/when to use it. Its a card that requires alot of creativity to use properly, but I am not going to say that it spectacular. I ran it mainly to win game 1, and then sideboarded it out against control matchups. Gamble can be used to get black lotus to do crazy things, and if you discard lotus then it sucks, but its still a good weldable target. If you get belcher you can either cast it and win, or have a win condition thats weldable. It can be used to get lands to thin the deck. It is truly versitile, and I hate that you could give anybody the notion otherwise.

Is Gamble a Gamble? Dur! Its definetly a risk, but if done properly its a calculated risk (like going all in with a pair of 10's... only 3 hands beat that pre-flop, and in most cases Its the play)!

The Current list posted of mine is really up to date. Changes I have made are -1 Tropical Island for Tolarian Academy (a true bomb in the deck that adds a minimum of 3 mana it always seems)... Other changes I am considering is just cutting living wish completely. I found that it really was just uneeded, and I would have had a card that just won the game. I never needed an extra land (it was easily findable within the deck), and spending 5 mana total to cast orangatan or witness is just redicules. I would much rather of ran a maindeck collossos, or a 2nd oxidize, or naturalize.

Kyle L

[Komatteru]

Adding a land that you cannot fetch out with Land Grant is just plain awful.

[Klep]

I dont believe gamble is conditional at all. You just have to be able to know how/when to use it. Its a card that requires alot of creativity to use properly, but I am not going to say that it spectacular. I ran it mainly to win game 1, and then sideboarded it out against control matchups. Gamble can be used to get black lotus to do crazy things, and if you discard lotus then it sucks, but its still a good weldable target. If you get belcher you can either cast it and win, or have a win condition thats weldable. It can be used to get lands to thin the deck. It is truly versitile, and I hate that you could give anybody the notion otherwise.

You say that Gamble isn't conditional, then say that you have to be careful when you play it and put conditions on when you like to use it.  That's rather self-contradictory.  Also, it may be versatile, but versatile doesn't inherently  mean good.

[Whatever Works]

Adding a land that you cannot fetch out with Land Grant is just plain awful.

The deck runs 7 Tutors to get it, and I havent had problems finding it. Is it better then tropical island? I dont know, but its currently what I am testing, and if it is the right choice or not I am not sure yet. You could be very right about academy, but that doesnt mean testing the most broken land in type 1 in the most broken deck isnt worth it.

Klep

Whatever Works

I dont believe gamble is conditional at all. You just have to be able to know how/when to use it. Its a card that requires alot of creativity to use properly, but I am not going to say that it spectacular. I ran it mainly to win game 1, and then sideboarded it out against control matchups. Gamble can be used to get black lotus to do crazy things, and if you discard lotus then it sucks, but its still a good weldable target. If you get belcher you can either cast it and win, or have a win condition thats weldable. It can be used to get lands to thin the deck. It is truly versitile, and I hate that you could give anybody the notion otherwise.

You say that Gamble isn't conditional, then say that you have to be careful when you play it and put conditions on when you like to use it.  That's rather self-contradictory.  Also, it may be versatile, but versatile doesn't inherently  mean good.

When I mean conditional I was reffering to using it properly. That doesnt mean that you have to wait for the perfect time to cast it. What it does mean however is making sure not to drop you hand then cast it (because thats plain stupid... but I have seen it happen before)... A demonic tutor for 1 with a discard drawback (that with welder out is not even a drawback)...

Also note that I admit that game 2/3 it generally it is narrow especially vs. control. It is usually cut for Oxidize etc. when I am not on the play, but game 1 I want to play as agressive as possible, and gamble fills the role extremely well.

Kyle L

[Vegeta2711]

(like going all in with a pair of 10's... only 3 hands beat that pre-flop, and in most cases Its the play)!

First off that's really simplfiying things down to the ''duh'' level and really ignoring a lot of what poker is.

Secondly, it's 4 hands.   

In conclusion: Friends don't let friends throw in poker references into posts.

[Whatever Works]

Adding Land does go against the synergy of the deck. That brings up this conflict however.

Synergy vs. Consistency

You can say running more land hurts the efficiency post belcher activation, because... well it does... Its not huge but it exists. I am not arguing with you about this fact!

However, running a 3rd land increases your chances of drawing a permanent mana source that isnt shut down by chalice or null rod. It helps decrease the chances of mulliganning slightly, and it allows you to run extremely broken blue cards, and increase THREAT DENSITY... which is a problem with the deck.

Kyle L

[Klep]

Adding Land does go against the synergy of the deck. That brings up this conflict however.

Synergy vs. Consistency

This is not necessarily a conflict.  An increase in synergies is, in fact, often marked by an increase in consistency and vice versa.  On the other hand, adding colors to a deck inherently weakens its consistency.  Thus, by adding blue and a land you have damaged both aspects of the deck.

[nataz]

I think that it is extremely fair to say that you see less chalice, and more null rod in the NE meta-game.

NE lacks ICBM and GWS, which = less oath, which generally = less chalice.
We also lack vroman, which = less uba stax, "                                    ".

I'm not saying this individuals singularly themselves add to the number of chalice at events, but I think their influence is much larger west of the eastern seaboard states. (I'm actually really curious what kind of a meta-game a Boston SCG event would show, but shh, thats off topic.)

Assuming that there are less chalice players in NE, could it be said that Cabal Rituals are similar in function to ESG in grimlong, in that they help in a particular match-up, but are not needed for the deck to function correctly?

 
@ kelp,

what if you change the word synergy to explosiveness

[Whatever Works]

Adding Land does go against the synergy of the deck. That brings up this conflict however.

Synergy vs. Consistency

This is not necessarily a conflict.  An increase in synergies is, in fact, often marked by an increase in consistency and vice versa.  On the other hand, adding colors to a deck inherently weakens its consistency.  Thus, by adding blue and a land you have damaged both aspects of the deck.

I have trouble seeing how adding a 3rd color that gives me extremely broken cards can be considered weakening the deck. Especially when in my testing has proven to be very easy to support. I guess running 3 lands could theoretically make comboing more difficult as well, but giving the perception that it makes killing ALOT less inneficient is just wrong. I still have around a 35%-40% turn 1 kill while still running Living Wish's, and Welders maindeck.

Nataz

I think that it is extremely fair to say that you see less chalice, and more null rod in the NE meta-game.
NE lacks ICBM and GWS, which = less oath, which generally = less chalice.
We also lack vroman, which = less uba stax, "       

This is exactly what I am trying to say!

Kyle L

[orgcandman]

Adding Land does go against the synergy of the deck. That brings up this conflict however.

Synergy vs. Consistency

This is not necessarily a conflict.  An increase in synergies is, in fact, often marked by an increase in consistency and vice versa.  On the other hand, adding colors to a deck inherently weakens its consistency.  Thus, by adding blue and a land you have damaged both aspects of the deck.

I have trouble seeing how adding a 3rd color that gives me extremely broken cards can be considered weakening the deck. Especially when in my testing has proven to be very easy to support. I guess running 3 lands could theoretically make comboing more difficult as well, but giving the perception that it makes killing ALOT less inneficient is just wrong. I still have around a 35%-40% turn 1 kill while still running Living Wish's, and Welders maindeck.

Maybe I can elucidate better by example:

We can all agree that yawgmoth's will is abso-friggin-insane. Like batshit insane.
We can also all agree that any deck running time walk, ancestral recall, and some power would really have to show WHY it can't run black for yawgmoth's will.

And yet, a strong metagame contender last year (U/R fish) which took home MULTIPLE top place finishes would NEVER run black, even though it ran mox sapphire, time walk, and ancestral.

Why?
Adding black (another color) decreased the overall chances of being able to cast either a blue, red, or black (if added) card that the fish player drew. Along the same lines, when adding new colors to decks, it weakens the consistency because the deck now has certain percentages of not being able to cast spells it draws.

I think that was Klep's point.

[PipOC]

The deck runs lots of mana, but there's no land in the way, so the threat density is misleading.  For instance, everything that's not one of the 38 mana sources is a threat, excepting Duress.  In my deck, that is:
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Demonic Consultation
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Imperial Seal
2 Living Wish
1 Memory Jar
1 Wheel of Fortune
1 Necropotence
1 Yawgmoth's Bargain
1 Yawgmoth's Will
4 Joblin Welder
4 Joblin Charbelcher

That's 19 cards. 

But 6 of those are conditional threats, 4 welders, and 2 living wish(which is a real threat, rarely at best), leaving you with only 13 cards that are consistent threats.

[Klep]

This is not necessarily a conflict.  An increase in synergies is, in fact, often marked by an increase in consistency and vice versa.  On the other hand, adding colors to a deck inherently weakens its consistency.  Thus, by adding blue and a land you have damaged both aspects of the deck.

I have trouble seeing how adding a 3rd color that gives me extremely broken cards can be considered weakening the deck. Especially when in my testing has proven to be very easy to support. I guess running 3 lands could theoretically make comboing more difficult as well, but giving the perception that it makes killing ALOT less inneficient is just wrong. I still have around a 35%-40% turn 1 kill while still running Living Wish's, and Welders maindeck.

You totally missed the point.  I said that adding colors to a deck inherently weakens its consistency, and thus by adding blue (a color) to Belcher (a deck) you have weakened the deck's (Belcher's) consistency.

One of the reasons that this is a bad idea in this case despite the cards blue offers, is that Belcher is already one of the most unstable decks the format has ever seen (as demonstrated by the very high mulligan rate).  Anything which adds unnecessary inconsistency to the deck is something that should be avoided. 

Furthermore, the way you make up for the increased mana inconsistency is to add a land, working against the synergistic aspects of the deck and making it even less consistent by increasing the probability that a belch fizzles.  Making the land you add Academy is even worse because now you can't even get it out of the deck with the cards that are in the deck for that very purpose (the Land Grants).  Having to waste a tutor to pull Academy out of your deck when you could be using that tutor to grab Belcher and win the game is just awful.

[Joblin Velder]

I've really enjoyed the blue in my belcher deck. I've never really had it be a huge problem. Sometimes, I'd need to land grant for tropical instead of bayou, but I generally either brainstormed or ancestralled into a black source. Here are the cards I've been using and why:

2 Brainstorm - I disliked any more, but sometime digging for extra accelerants on turn one is pretty awesome. I feel I mulligan less with these included.

Tinker - Man, I love this card. It acts as both a draw 7 and another tutor for belcher. Post board, it gets Collossus. I know a lot of you think he's easy to deal with, but most decks I've played against end up boarding out a lot of their removal and bounce.

Ancestral - Most combo decks like it, right?

[Whatever Works]

Well I dont think grimlong is nearly as good as belcher, because though it has more threats it cant cast them as quick and it takes a series of these threats to win the game. Belcher on the other hand (regardless of version) only needs a welder to resolve, or a belcher to resolve and the game in most cases is over.

Stax was actually heavily played at the beenie exchange suprisingly, and the same goes for oath. I saw a bunch of horrible UB fish builds that ran FoW, but thats just a whole different story.

We can also all agree that any deck running time walk, ancestral recall, and some power would really have to show WHY it can't run black for yawgmoth's will.

The difference is that yawgmoth's will would suck in fish. While all the blue cards I run in belcher are still insane.


Klep

You totally missed the point.  I said that adding colors to a deck inherently weakens its consistency, and thus by adding blue (a color) to Belcher (a deck) you have weakened the deck's (Belcher's) consistency.

How does it affect consistency if I can consistently cast all of the blue cards? The whole arguement that adding colors to decks makes them less consistent is because of wasteland. This is why decks like 4cc are not playable. However, Belcher runs 2-3 lands. Not 20.

Also I am just testing Academy. The version that won the tournement ran tropical island. If I went to a tournement tommorrow I would run tropical island over Academy to make that clear.

Kyle L

[tidal kraken]

I've really enjoyed the blue in my belcher deck. I've never really had it be a huge problem. Sometimes, I'd need to land grant for tropical instead of bayou, but I generally either brainstormed or ancestralled into a black source. Here are the cards I've been using and why:

2 Brainstorm - I disliked any more, but sometime digging for extra accelerants on turn one is pretty awesome. I feel I mulligan less with these included.

Tinker - Man, I love this card. It acts as both a draw 7 and another tutor for belcher. Post board, it gets Collossus. I know a lot of you think he's easy to deal with, but most decks I've played against end up boarding out a lot of their removal and bounce.

Ancestral - Most combo decks like it, right?

I agree with these except for brainstorms. I've never really  been a fan of them in belcher.

I feel you made a really good point about them boarding out their removal (stp, edict) in favor of other things.
Ancestral has been worth it in my testing. Other than those two, I run no blue in my build. Twister is just aweful as it shuffles away [potential] welder targets. Also the reasons JDizzle listed. Windfall, as JD already covered, hasn't really been worth it IMO.

[Whatever Works]

So you shuffle your library with Timetwister? Who cares? It basically says the game starts over (with you generally having mana on the board).

How often does this deck win on turn 1 again??? Ummm... How often does this deck win with a hand of 7, and mana on the board???

Its not like your going to suffer from the dreaded thought of drawing all land, or drawing a hand where you already played your land for the turn. The scariest turn vs. Belcher is turn 1! Why? They have a full hand, and honestly its almost ALWAYS more broken then your hand. Mana cost is irrelevent, because if it resolves your new hand generally can make just as much mana (if not more then your last hand anyway.

Kyle L

[Komatteru]

How often does this deck win on turn 1 again??? Ummm... How often does this deck win with a hand of 7, and mana on the board???

And how often does the deck mulligan because it gets a hand that just doesn't do anything?  More often than it wins on turn 1!

[Whatever Works]

How often does this deck win on turn 1 again??? Ummm... How often does this deck win with a hand of 7, and mana on the board???

And how often does the deck mulligan because it gets a hand that just doesn't do anything?  More often than it wins on turn 1!

I only mulliganed 3 times in the entire tournement. Maybe I am just a lucksack, or maybe my versionallows me to mulligan less.