Is Keeper Viable?

[dicemanx]

Brian's deck is different in that it has multiple other targets for the tinker, such as scepter or crux. The advantages that these two decks can supply far outweigh their downsides, but again, that isn't to say they are neccesarily the best. More that, because of them you include the best tutor for them in tinker, and because you have tinker, you can now justify DSC.

It's really justifying the inclusion of tinker into your deck first. Once you can realistically say "Yes, tinker belongs here" then justifying DSC becomes cake. Since my multi-color list is more traditional, I can't justify tinker, and as such, can't justify DSC.

So if I have this right, you would include Tinker in Keeper, but possibly not DSC, because Tinker is the "best tutor" for your other artifacts like Scepter or Crux? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. I can accept arguments against DSC (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), but if we're not going to include DSC then Tinker doesn't belong either. The fact that Tinker has alternate targets is great for the 1% of the time you'd consider grabbing them, but lets not kid ourselves - the Tinker is primarily there to serve as a game ending bomb and the deck should be played accordingly to make this a possibility if such a route to victory presents itself.

Also, its not a sufficient argument in my opinion to flag certain scenarios where DSC is not good (removal, or drawing DSC etc). You can make similar arguments *against* other broken cards like Moxes for instance, where you can argue that they are vulerable to Null Rod/CotV/Shaman/Kataki/Energy Flux etc and could come to an errenous conclusion that a Mox is too weak in todays environment. In fact, I've already faced such arguments regarding Lotus in Fish some years ago. You even indicate that Keeper has "amazing amounts of board control" and yet apparently DSC is still so vulnerable to your opponent's very limited(!) number of removal spells.

I play and steal games with Tinker-DSC in Gifts, which has far fewer answers to opponent's removal, NOT because Tinker DSC is part of game ending combos with Gifts/Time Walk/Recoup, but because it gives me a very good path to victory outside of comboing out - it gives me flexibility. Likewise it would very much make sense to take advantage of Tinker DSC in a deck like Keeper which doesn't rely on this kill, but is a great way to steal many victories. I've played my share of Keeper with Tinker DSC, and while I did have other targets (CoWs particularly), most of the games involving Tinker were geared towards letting it fetch DSC after I had some measure of control or if I had to make a more of a desperation play when under some pressure from aggro/aggro-control.

[forests failed you]

Actually, as hard as this is to believe out of the three Tinker targets: Scepter, Crucible of Worlds, and DSC;  I tended to get DSC the least with the first Tinker.  However in the games where I felt comfortable enough to grab him, I almost always won.  or, I had no business even being the game and tried to steel it with the big man.

I even Tinkered for Top a couple of times, when I was dead on board and had to look for Balance, Walk or Yawg Will to not lose...  And it actually won me a game or two.  Not that that is the optimal situation or anything, but it does come up every once in a blue moon.  Clearly Sensei Top is not an ideal target, but sometimes you have to make strange plays to win games.

I agree with Diceman, if you are going to play Tinker; there is no reason not to play a big man to find with it.  DSC just so happens to be the biggest of the big guys.  However, I don't think that it would be completely unreasonable to play with Pentavus either.  He is pretty big, easier to cast, a great blocker, and he makes permanents and beats down against Stax.  However, the list I play already has good enough Synergy to play COW, so I'm not sure Pentavus would be ideal there.

However there are other options available; but DSC would appear to be a very, very good choice.  In fact, it was the guy I opted for, and I am a vehement hater of DSC, and for the most part believe Tinker / Colossos to be a bad combo because it involves you paying mana to put a guy into the attack step. 

I understand how broken DSC is for three mana and a Mox, but my playstyle does not enjoy playing a guy who doesn't do anything but attack.  I'm just clarifying so that five people do not immediately jump down my throat saying "Why don't you think Tinker DSC is good newb?"  It is broken, I just don't like playing with it; except in this deck.

[orgcandman]

Brian's deck is different in that it has multiple other targets for the tinker, such as scepter or crux. The advantages that these two decks can supply far outweigh their downsides, but again, that isn't to say they are neccesarily the best. More that, because of them you include the best tutor for them in tinker, and because you have tinker, you can now justify DSC.

It's really justifying the inclusion of tinker into your deck first. Once you can realistically say "Yes, tinker belongs here" then justifying DSC becomes cake. Since my multi-color list is more traditional, I can't justify tinker, and as such, can't justify DSC.

So if I have this right, you would include Tinker in Keeper, but possibly not DSC, because Tinker is the "best tutor" for your other artifacts like Scepter or Crux? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. I can accept arguments against DSC (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), but if we're not going to include DSC then Tinker doesn't belong either. The fact that Tinker has alternate targets is great for the 1% of the time you'd consider grabbing them, but lets not kid ourselves - the Tinker is primarily there to serve as a game ending bomb and the deck should be played accordingly to make this a possibility if such a route to victory presents itself.

My whole argument is that while 99% of the time, yes you'll go for DSC, the inclusion of tinker hinges on that other 1%. Once you have that other 1%, since your targets, and cards to sacrifice are up, there's no reason NOT to include tinker.

However, without that 1%, there's no reason to include tinker apart from DSC, and there's no reason to include DSC apart from tinker, since they are, as you've said, a package.

Also, its not a sufficient argument in my opinion to flag certain scenarios where DSC is not good (removal, or drawing DSC etc). You can make similar arguments *against* other broken cards like Moxes for instance, where you can argue that they are vulerable to Null Rod/CotV/Shaman/Kataki/Energy Flux etc and could come to an errenous conclusion that a Mox is too weak in todays environment. In fact, I've already faced such arguments regarding Lotus in Fish some years ago. You even indicate that Keeper has "amazing amounts of board control" and yet apparently DSC is still so vulnerable to your opponent's very limited(!) number of removal spells.

The difference though is that a mox will come down, theoretically, before null rod/shaman/kataki/flux, etc.. DSC won't come online until you have an artifact to sacrifice, AND a tinker. Moxes are always online, unless your opponent spends some resource to turn it on.

Board control also is not the same as spell control. Board control is control of game state as it relates to the board, which means cards in hand, and relevant permanents on the board. Keeper can deal with cards in hand, and permanents on the board. It can't deal with "Yeah, I just spent the game developing, squeaked out a tinker for dsc, but you got the duress + bounce spell" At that point, keeper lost 2 cards, as well as 1 more with the dsc in hand.

I play and steal games with Tinker-DSC in Gifts, which has far fewer answers to opponent's removal, NOT because Tinker DSC is part of game ending combos with Gifts/Time Walk/Recoup, but because it gives me a very good path to victory outside of comboing out - it gives me flexibility. Likewise it would very much make sense to take advantage of Tinker DSC in a deck like Keeper which doesn't rely on this kill, but is a great way to steal many victories. I've played my share of Keeper with Tinker DSC, and while I did have other targets (CoWs particularly), most of the games involving Tinker were geared towards letting it fetch DSC after I had some measure of control or if I had to make a more of a desperation play when under some pressure from aggro/aggro-control.

Winning is a good thing, and if you're winning with tinker->dsc then by all means, awesome. Tinker->dsc requires a ton of committment beyond just 2 maindeck cards, and 3 mana in the mainphase. If it didn't require more committment, we would have long ago decided that tinker->colossus instantly belonged in every deck.

[PucktheCat]

Tinker->dsc requires a ton of committment beyond just 2 maindeck cards, and 3 mana in the mainphase.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, but you haven't show what that 'ton' of other commitment is.  If you are already running a full complement of artifact mana, Brainstorms, and Force of Will you seem to have about as much support for Tinker as any other deck in the format.  What other support would you like?

Basically, you need to make an argument that distinguishes Keeper from Gifts decks in a way relevant to Tinker.  The only alternative is to argue that Tinker shouldn't be included in Gifts or 4cc/Keeper, which I think is a lost cause.  One argument along these lines has been introduced:

[In] a deck that can combo-win (Gifts/combo) obviously, tinkering out DSC [has] merit

This is something that distinguishes Gifts from Keeper, but it isn't relevant to whether you should include Tinker.  In fact, it seems to cut the other way.  Because Keeper can't combo win it needs a fast alternative kill even more that Gifts does.  Gifts can combo out with Tendrils even if it loses Tinker somehow.  Keeper without Tinker has no ability to end the game quickly at all.

Leo

[orgcandman]

Tinker->dsc requires a ton of committment beyond just 2 maindeck cards, and 3 mana in the mainphase.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, but you haven't show what that 'ton' of other commitment is.  If you are already running a full complement of artifact mana, Brainstorms, and Force of Will you seem to have about as much support for Tinker as any other deck in the format.  What other support would you like?

Actually, those other decks are running 4x thirst, or 4x merchant scroll to find brainstorm to shuffle away the colossus. If I had 2938472 ways of cheaply and easily getting brainstorm, or ditching colossus, then by all means, I'd run tinker colossus. As it is, my artifacts are 7 solomoxen, and maybe 3 more in the forms of lotus petal, and 2 needle. Terrible things to waste a tinker on. Committing to colossus means committing to a deck designed to abuse tinker. Even fish could do that by tinkering into null rod, or colossus, making it not as terrible.

If I add tinker, then I'm forced to add colossus, and I'm forced to have ways of dealing with having him at suboptimal times. Decks running ways of ditching suboptimal cards (such as those running thirst or the ones running tons of ways of getting a brainstorm immediately, and who can afford to crack a fetch immediately) are better able to support colossus because he IS suboptimal everytime except when you're about to win.

Basically, you need to make an argument that distinguishes Keeper from Gifts decks in a way relevant to Tinker.  The only alternative is to argue that Tinker shouldn't be included in Gifts or 4cc/Keeper, which I think is a lost cause.  One argument along these lines has been introduced:

Huh!? Gifts and keeper are distinguished by the fact that one is a proactive deck attempting to combo off, and the other is a deck full of reactive solutions. Tinker/no is irrelevant.

Because Keeper can't combo win it needs a fast alternative kill even more that Gifts does.  Gifts can combo out with Tendrils even if it loses Tinker somehow.  Keeper without Tinker has no ability to end the game quickly at all.

Keeper isn't supposed to try and end the game quickly. It doesn't have the backup to support that kind of play. Keeper is aiming to answer the opponent, and force interaction. Because it can't combo-win, it needs to focus on being a much better solution deck, not trying to fit in awkward win conditions.

[Godder]

Tinker->DSC has been extensively used in the past by almost every deck with Blue and Moxen/Sol Ring, and whether or not it's considered "good" at any given time seems to be more a matter of fashion than any useful theoretical concept.

For 3CC, Tinker->Colossus looks like the latest edition of Serra Angel/Morphling/Tog/Decree, with the bonus that Tinker can also be a useful tutor as well, and Colossus can be Brainstormed back and shuffled away if it's accidentally drawn. While that's a negative, drawing win conditions early was rarely useful at any stage of 3CC's development, and an unanswered Colossus ends the game in two additional turns of yours, which gets things things done more quickly than any of the other classic options. DSC can also block for a turn and is usefully difficult to deal with. The fact that it can "combo out" with Will + Time Walk is also some nice gravy.

The concept of initiative was mentioned earlier, and 3CC is a slow board control deck that will often only have fleeting moments of actually having the initiative, so having a powerful method of pressing the attack is important so that those fleeting moments are taken advantage of.

The other thing is that humans don't play perfectly, and the stronger and quicker the win condition is, the fewer opportunities we have for , and the more opportunities the opponent has for making critical errors, or, the more dangerous errors become as the punishment gets that much more powerful. This article by Mike Flores, courtesy of SCG Premium (NB: it has been "set free" after its requisite three months) explains the importance of tight play and one of the examples is the awesomeness of Jon Finkel (even compared to Chris Pikula).

Jon constricted time. He was the absolute master of the long game because of his ability to eke opponent mistakes into favorable positions, but would never give the opponent a spare turn if he had the chance to win immediately. Not one for draws, Jon would almost characteristically switch gears into an Alpha Strike or seemingly low percentage — but measured — creature play in order to rob the opponent of even one draw step.

In any case, all win methods have their problems, because in Vintage any resource (e.g. Graveyard), spell or permanent can be answered by the most efficient means possible, whether it's Tormod's Crypt, StP, FoW, Strip Mine/Wasteland or whatever. The appropriate win condition for a given deck can sometimes be found by choosing the most synergistic option, and sometimes by examining the expected environment and adjusting accordingly i.e. not using the most synergistic option because some feature of the environment makes it a bad choice. Because 3CC is largely a metagame total control deck, there isn't really a synergistic option to choose from, so we turn to the metagame to help us out.

Also, since the question of "why play 3CC over Gifts" has come up a bit, I think the answer, in terms of "initiative", is that 3CC denies other decks "the initiative" better than any other deck, with the exception of "the enigma" (a Flores term for a totally broken deck e.g. Academy, Jar, Bargain etc. - these decks deny other decks "the initiative" by starting with it and rarely giving it up), and 3CC fights for the initiative remarkably well, even if it doesn't necessarily retain it for any length of time. A feature of 3CC games vs other decks is that there will be periods where neither deck really has "the initiative", or "the initiative" moves rapidly back and forth from deck to deck. Being able to seize upon that fleeting opportunity is important for 3CC, and having a powerful win condition like Tinker->Colossus is one means of doing that.

[PucktheCat]

Actually, those other decks are running 4x thirst, or 4x merchant scroll to find brainstorm to shuffle away the colossus. If I had 2938472 ways of cheaply and easily getting brainstorm, or ditching colossus, then by all means, I'd run tinker colossus. As it is, my artifacts are 7 solomoxen, and maybe 3 more in the forms of lotus petal, and 2 needle. Terrible things to waste a tinker on. Committing to colossus means committing to a deck designed to abuse tinker. Even fish could do that by tinkering into null rod, or colossus, making it not as terrible.

I can honestly say that I can never remember Merchant Scrolling for Brainstorm to reshuffle a Colossus in 4x Scroll Gifts.  Maybe other players have had different experiences.

The versions of Fish that first ran Tinker didn't have Null Rod.  In fact, Null Rod Fish seems pretty unlikely to ever run Tinker because you need more than 3-4 artifacts to support it.  Tinker for Chalice or Aether Vial seems pretty bad.  I guess Jitte is a option though.

At any rate, the alternatives you are considering (Decree for 4-7) cost 7-10 mana.  For close to that you could hardcast Colossus.  For a good deal less than that (5 mana or so) Gifts Ungiven will almost always win you the game next turn.  In addition to the difference in cost there is the difference in power.  4 1/1s will take 5 turns to win the game and can be stopped entirely by any 1/2 or greater blocker.  7 1/1s will win the game fairly quickly (3 turns, but since they appear EOT it is about the same as DSC's 2 turns + the turn it comes into play), but again Decree for 7 costs only one less than hardcasting Colossus, and it can stopped by some prevalent cards including Triskelion recursion and Pyroclasm.

I expect you will point out that Decree can't be countered.  This is true, but how significant is it?  If you can't out-counter your control playing opponent to resolve your win condition, what are you going to do three turns later when, having taken 12 from your men he casts his larger, faster win condition?  If you can't fight the engine of an opposing control deck and you are trying to win with something as slow as Decree you have already lost.  Some situations will arise when both decks are stalled with a hand full of countermagic.  In those cases Decree amounts to a trump.  But those situtations will be relatively rare.  Certainly much more rare than the situation where you have more than three mana (Tinker's cc) but less than ten (the cost of an equivilent Decree).

Tinker also has excellent synergy with Yawg. Will, but what doesn't?  Well, Decree doesn't, but besides that?

My point isn't that I have tested Tinker in 4cc and it is good.  I haven't.  But if I were seriously trying to revamp this deck to compete in a current metagame I most definately would.  It seems insane to reject such an obviously powerful option on purely theoretical grounds, without testing.

Leo

[Harkius]

I expect you will point out that Decree can't be countered.  This is true, but how significant is it?  If you can't out-counter your control playing opponent to resolve your win condition, what are you going to do three turns later when, having taken 12 from your men he casts his larger, faster win condition?  If you can't fight the engine of an opposing control deck and you are trying to win with something as slow as Decree you have already lost. 

You may be missing a salient point here...if you don't need to get involved in the first counter war (for your Decree), then you don't have as high a chance of losing the second (for his combo or Colossus). Ergo, this is still a very relevant reason to run Decree instead.

Harkius

[orgcandman]

My point isn't that I have tested Tinker in 4cc and it is good.  I haven't.  But if I were seriously trying to revamp this deck to compete in a current metagame I most definately would.  It seems insane to reject such an obviously powerful option on purely theoretical grounds, without testing.

From my team boards after testing over the past 6 months:

I would think that it's a little unreliable as a win condition I have liked plat over DSC in the past but I think I really like the deck as it is right now, I think that the tinker plan kinda dilutes the way the deck has run and thats been my problem for the past like 6 months.

yeah, I tested tinker and came to realize why I didn't like it to begin with:
it's a HUGE resource drain.

...You need to be setup to win immediately afterwards, or not resolve it at all...

my thoughts exactly

TJWhoopy -tyler- [8:21 AM]: and I hate tinker now
TJWhoopy -tyler- [8:21 AM]: decree all the way
TJWhoopy -tyler- [8:22 AM]: we've been trying t othink of a good way to deal with fish thouhg
FatherHell -Zherbus- [8:22 AM]: old man?
FatherHell -Zherbus- [8:22 AM]: hell, morphling

I'm not just talking pure theory here, I have 6 months of testing, both a teammate and myself to back this up.

Tinker is something you have to setup. Decree is something that just goes "Oops, deal with a clock eot"
Tinker requires committal during your own turn. Decree can wait till your opponent is resolving thinker in their 2nd mainphase.
Tinker requires that you run a card which is always dead in-hand. Decree is never really dead in hand.
Tinker requires sac'ing artifacts (in 3/4cc you'll be sac'ing mana artifacts in a deck that desperately needs lots of mana over a long period of time). Decree just requires tapping mana.
Tinker is hit by a ton more hate than decree, and needs to be protected, since both it and the card it fetches are 1-of. Decree is run as at least a 2-of, and usually a 3-of meaning not a lot of committment.

Again, if it's been working for you, in your metagame, great. Around here, it's not worth the risk.

[Vegeta2711]

Main issue I've always had with DoJ is it's slow as all hell.

Tinker is something you have to setup. Decree is something that just goes "Oops, deal with a clock eot"

One problem with this sentiment. Your clock sucks. It costs 7 mana for the average clock FISH uses. (i.e. 4 damage a turn). I constantly wonder how anyone could finish the game with the card in any situation where they -don't- destroy the other guy with a resolved Will first or they're completely mana screwed.

Also Tinker vs. Fish decks is actually a game-breaking play. DoJ vs. Bears or Old Man of the Sea? Not so much. I'm curious if the evolution of Fish decks into more streamlined mana denial and higher toughness critters has influenced your testing at all. It seems like Keeper would have major issues with the deck. Which actually brings up, are you running red / Pyroclasm?

[PucktheCat]

I expect you will point out that Decree can't be countered.  This is true, but how significant is it?  If you can't out-counter your control playing opponent to resolve your win condition, what are you going to do three turns later when, having taken 12 from your men he casts his larger, faster win condition?  If you can't fight the engine of an opposing control deck and you are trying to win with something as slow as Decree you have already lost. 

You may be missing a salient point here...if you don't need to get involved in the first counter war (for your Decree), then you don't have as high a chance of losing the second (for his combo or Colossus). Ergo, this is still a very relevant reason to run Decree instead.

Harkius

Counters trade with one another.  When you don't use your counters EOT your oppoent also keeps his.  If you each have a Force then those Forces are almost certainly going to trade, now or later.  Fighting a counterwar EOT over your own spell doesn't decrease your chances of winning a later counterwar at all.  If you win the counterwar you and your opponent have played an equal number of counterspells.  If you lose it your opponent will have played one more counterspell than you.  In neither case are you in a worse position to fight a later counterwar with your opponent.  So here is my point:

1. If you have the advantage, if you can win a counterwar, Decree's advantage is mostly irrelevant (well, it may be relevant in a narrow way because Decree's absurdly high cost would make it impossible to protect as a spell).  A counterable finisher with a reasonable casting cost would resolve just as well as Decree.  You might expend counterspells forcing it through, but your opponent would expend the same number, so you would have the same marginal advantage after the war as before.

2. If you are behind on counters you will get the Decree tokens when you otherwise would not have gotten them.  But you won't change the fact that you are behind.  If you can't force through your finisher EOT there is no reason to think that you will be able to fight a Gifts or Thirst cast in response, or whatever else they have available to advance their gameplan.  In fact, when you are behind it might be better if Decree could be countered.  At least then it might bleed off one of your opponents counters, perhaps giving you the advantage when you want to resolve a more potent spell.

I'm not just talking pure theory here, I have 6 months of testing, both a teammate and myself to back this up.

I won't waste your time then.  Theory isn't much good for anything but guiding testing, so I can't ask anything more.  I have always found Decree lacking when I tested it in the past, but if you have tested both I am not going to change your mind with words or old testing.

Also Tinker vs. Fish decks is actually a game-breaking play.

On a related note, I am pretty close to convinced that Tinker/Colossus was the piece of tech that was missing from Hulk 2k4 during "Gay summer."  I remember distinctly discussing whether Plague Spitter, Tsabo's Web, or a split between the two was correct to beat Gay/r.  So far as I know, no one suggested Tinker.  But maindeck Tinker would probably have done more to win that matchup for Hulk than any combination of Spitters and Webs.

Leo

[orgcandman]

One problem with this sentiment. Your clock sucks. It costs 7 mana for the average clock FISH uses. (i.e. 4 damage a turn). I constantly wonder how anyone could finish the game with the card in any situation where they -don't- destroy the other guy with a resolved Will first or they're completely mana screwed.

I'll admit, decree is slow. In fact, I'll concede that Decree is PAINFULLY slow. But here's the thing, cycling a decree for 2-3 (5-6 mana) is good enough. The reason is much of the game is going to be draw-go. Most decks, during the draw-go period don't have threats, and don't do dick. With decree, I can put a 7 turn clock up. And after 5 turns of draw-go, combined with fetch damage, they're reduced to 1-2 turns of trying to execute their gameplan. With duress, counters, and other answers in the form of permanent control, I can keep them off their game long enough for 2-3 damage per turn to matter.

It's funny that you bring up fish, because that's exactly how fish does it's thing. I don't see how it is so different that fish pays 1U, 1U, 1U for 3 damage per turn, the only difference being at the end he'll have 2 untapped lands in his mainphase if he didn't see a counter, whereas, I'll do the same thing like 3 turns later, and during my opponents end step.

Anyway, until more empyrical evidence shows up, we'll have to agree to disagree, since there's plenty of theory going both ways.

[Harkius]

Counters trade with one another.  When you don't use your counters EOT your oppoent also keeps his.  If you each have a Force then those Forces are almost certainly going to trade, now or later.  Fighting a counterwar EOT over your own spell doesn't decrease your chances of winning a later counterwar at all.  If you win the counterwar you and your opponent have played an equal number of counterspells.  If you lose it your opponent will have played one more counterspell than you.  In neither case are you in a worse position to fight a later counterwar with your opponent.  So here is my point:

Yes, this is true. The cards don't go away. However, mana is a less tangible resource. If you have to cast your threat first, you have spent mana to do so. Not all countermagic is free, after all. If you need to cast a few Drains, then the difference between casting Tinker on your main phase and casting Decree at the end of your opponent's turn can be a very significant difference, indeed. Therefore, there are definatdefinitelywhere the DoJ would be a better idea. Granted, the clock is probably going to be slower, but it could likely be more stable as well. The people who have playtested this for months probably have the upper hand in information compared with the rest of us, though.

Harkius

[Whatever Works]

This thread is full of theory on why keeper should be able to compete. However, I find it all incredibly irrellevent considering none of these theories/ideas/concepts will ever be put to test at a tournement.

Why? Because, deep down (even if you dont want to admit it) everybody knows that keeper is dead, and whenever you try to get the guts together to play it a tournement you will quickly change you mind in favor of a deck that you know will succeed. When 4cc came out most people declaired keeper dead... Then 4cc left because of a faster format + mirroden... and I didnt think I would ever have to hear about keeper again.

Can keeper be good again? Yes... Will people search for optimal builds? Probably... Will the best T1 players play refined lists and win tournements? No...

Kyle L

[PucktheCat]

Yes, this is true. The cards don't go away. However, mana is a less tangible resource. If you have to cast your threat first, you have spent mana to do so.

If you have 7-10 mana to start an effective Decree it hardly seems like mana is likely to be the limiting factor.  Most good threats in Drain decks aren't a liability in a counterwar anyway.  The U2 or B2 of Tinker or Yawg. Will is probably 'cheaper' for a typical Vintage deck than Drain's UU.  Welder is obviously even cheaper.  U2 or U3 or BX is a bit unwieldy, but Thirst, Gifts, and Scrying are instants, so you untap before your opponent.

Leo

[zeus-online]

.

[orgcandman]

Actually will seems to be the most expensive spell in vintage... Cause if you just cast will and say go, you didnt really get anything out of that, you know?  :lol:

Have any of you considered Mana vault instead of an off-color mox? (or right next to)

It boosts:
Skeletal scrying (If you are playing duress, the cards in graveyard will hardly be a problem)
Mind twist (Though i dont like it...)
DoJ
Partly Yawgmoth's will

Tried Grim monolith.....those 2 mana it takes to cast it is usually just too much when you are triyng to keep drains online.

In a deck like keeper, tapping mana vault is awful, as you have no real way of removing it, other than using up your removal slots. The reason welder based decks, and gifts based decks, and actually most other decks run it is because the lifeloss from it won't amount to anything. In keeper, it will.

[zeus-online]

.

[Harkius]

No, generally it wont amount to anything significant unless you are already loosing.

Actually, it would be rather difficult to count the number of times that I have played Keeper decks in local tournaments, and stabilized at less than five life to come back and win the game. Losing is a more tenuous concept with Keeper than with most decks; while it is generally true in Type I that you haven't lost until you are dead, this is even more true with a Keeper deck, because it generally doesn't have a clear-cut goal until it has stabilized the board position. Yes, before I hear a barrage of arguments about losing control of the board, I am aware that having an opponent with several blue sources of mana, a Mindslaver, and a Goblin Welder on the table and a Pentavus in the 'yard qualifies as "losing." But, at that point, you may as well consider yourself lost, and trying to dig your way back out of the pit. This can result in a few games where you manage to do so, but the majority of games like that, you have basically lost already. You just want to see if your opponent can actually manage to finish the job. So, while it is true that the damage is little, it can be too much for a Keeper deck to accept. This is why I don't use Adarkar Wastes in my Keeper decks, although I may use the Azorius Shockland from Dissension. Two life, one time, is more acceptable than the inevitable damage over the course of the game. And, if so desired, I could simply play it as a Coastal Tower.

This is kind of an important point with Keeper, though. Are Fetchlands worthwhile? Instead of running a few more basics? I know that mana stability is generally a very good thing, but I don't know that I like the idea of the fetches. I am pretty sure that I wouldn't run the G/W fetch just to go get more Plains, which I have seen some decks do, nor would I likely run the U/B fetch to go get more Islands (although that seems a bit wiser, to power a Drain).

What does everyone else think? Are Fetchlands worthwhile in Keeper?
Harkius

[orgcandman]

No, generally it wont amount to anything significant unless you are already loosing.

Yes it will. You do realize that your primary draw engine says "Lose X life" right? Like, that's not just relevant, that's the whole REASON that cities, and vamp have not made their way back in. Plenty of times, you'll resolve a few scryings coupled with some fetches, and sprinkle in even one force, and you're now between 6 and 10 life. Add in even 2 turns of mana vault (and that's not even worst case scenario) and you just lost the game without even having an opponent. (4 life vs. flame fusillade == dead, 4 life vs. any aggro == dead, 4 life vs. mirror == dead)

You also realize that while mana vault is technically "fast mana," it takes a full turn to return to the state you would be in if it were a mox. Sure, it adds a short burst of more mana, but dark ritual does the same without having the "lose 1 life" clause, AND to boot, it can be re-cast with will (or can cast a will all by itself). No one is pretending that ritual belongs.

This is kind of an important point with Keeper, though. Are Fetchlands worthwhile? Instead of running a few more basics? I know that mana stability is generally a very good thing, but I don't know that I like the idea of the fetches. I am pretty sure that I wouldn't run the G/W fetch just to go get more Plains, which I have seen some decks do, nor would I likely run the U/B fetch to go get more Islands (although that seems a bit wiser, to power a Drain).

What does everyone else think? Are Fetchlands worthwhile in Keeper?
Harkius

I'm sorry, but this debate was solved in 2002-2003, when we determined, "YES, fetches belong." The reasons are Brainstorm, mana stability, and synnergy with the draw engine as front runners, and no city following behind with some other reasons that I can't even remember anymore.

[Milton]

One problem with this sentiment. Your clock sucks. It costs 7 mana for the average clock FISH uses. (i.e. 4 damage a turn). I constantly wonder how anyone could finish the game with the card in any situation where they -don't- destroy the other guy with a resolved Will first or they're completely mana screwed.

I'll admit, decree is slow. In fact, I'll concede that Decree is PAINFULLY slow. But here's the thing, cycling a decree for 2-3 (5-6 mana) is good enough. The reason is much of the game is going to be draw-go. Most decks, during the draw-go period don't have threats, and don't do dick. With decree, I can put a 7 turn clock up. And after 5 turns of draw-go, combined with fetch damage, they're reduced to 1-2 turns of trying to execute their gameplan. With duress, counters, and other answers in the form of permanent control, I can keep them off their game long enough for 2-3 damage per turn to matter.

After I read this, I thought for a day or two about the notion of draw-go.  I haven't played a game that was draw-go, in the traditional (1998) sense in a long, long time.  Untap, draw a card, play a land, end turn.  How many times do we see that?  It's pretty damn rare now.  Perhaps this is why Keeper is dead.

I've stayed with Keeper much longer than I should have, and with pretty disasterous results in my local tournaments.  Other people are winning with Slaver, Fish variants, Oath, Dragon, Gifts, Gifts, more Gifts.  Hell, even FCG is making T8 from time to time.  Keeper, though, isn't doing a damn thing.  And I've tried it all, be it 3cc with white, 3cc with red, 4cc with white and red  (I suppose I haven't tried 5cc n a few years...  I'm not totally retarded, though). 

Draw-go isn't how the game is played anymore.  Draw-go, if anything, is "draw-go... then at the end of your turn I'll Brainstorm, Vamp, Mystical, Impulse, Gifts, Fetch, activate Welder... whatever".   Assuming a non-broken first turn mainphase, The EOT phase in the mid-game is far more important than any other phase in control v. control right now.  That's where Keeper is losing the game.  Your opponent is casting spells or activating abilities that are inexpensive, powerful and game altering.  Keeper can't do much in response other than counter.  Consider this: what is the best EOT play?  Casts Gifts OR cycle Decree for one token and one card?  Both cost four.  One drastically alters the game and is a must counter.  The other is a punchline from an old joke.

The best way to win with Keeper was to deny resources.  Remember, early Keeper was combo control!  Deny mana or cards in hand.  Deny creatures.  Lock an opponent out.  Then win the game.  This was possible 6 or 7 years ago.  Moat and Abyss were bombs.  Serra Angel or Morphling were bombs.  Disrupting Scepter or Jamdae Tome were bombs.  Bloodmoon and COP Red were a bombs.  Those cards, in combination, served as powerful combo-control elements.  Swords and Disenchant, along with counters, served as spot removal to keep you alive until you could find a bomb. 

Combo control has evolved.

What changed?  Bombs stayed expensive, but combo-control elements got much less expensive and far more effective.  Oath is a very inexpensive two card combo.  Gifts is basically a one card combo for one blue and three colorless.  Welder/Thrist is a teriffic two card combo.  All of these "combos" couple extremely well with other control elements, mainly drawing, tutoring and permission spells.  These cards make decks far more efficient AND resiliant.  They have extremely fast clocks.  If anything, they will draw-go for a few turns while tutoring, then they will go off in one big turn.  This one big turn almost always follows a major EOT play.  Keeper can't compete with that.   

Simply put, Keeper is obsolete because your combo-control opponent will build-up with inexpensive, highly effective tutors and draw spells EOT.  Your combo-control opponent can opperate successfully on one or two mana and is able to easily survive early mana denial.  Your combo-control opponent doesn't need creatures to beat you down.  Decks are far more resiliant... so much so that one bomb doesn't do much.  (note: Keeper players aren't doing a good enough job of finding bombs.  Why isn't modern Keeper running Null Rod, for example?  Why are Keeper players still relying on Cunning Wish for versitile, yet very expensive, solutions, when most other control decks have moved on to more focused efficiency?  Why why why).

Keeper is less efficient, less powerful, has a much slower clock, a much less broken potential first turn and doesn't have the powerful EOT phase of other control decks.  If you accept these facts, then why the hell would you play Keeper?

[zeus-online]

.

[orgcandman]

...a lot of relevant text that I'll address...
Keeper is less efficient, less powerful, has a much slower clock, a much less broken potential first turn and doesn't have the powerful EOT phase of other control decks.  If you accept these facts, then why the hell would you play Keeper?

The crux of your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that since other drain based decks have evolved to use 3 colors, and are much faster, then why don't we just play those instead of playing a slower deck.

The answer is that these decks have become SO focused, SO tuned, SO streamlined, that they're actually all now easily beaten by answering their actual threats. 2 ways of finishing the game are NOT sufficient, and that should NOT go unpunished.

Look at gifts. It's win conditions are DSC and either tendrils, Sev. Belch. or FF-TV. That means that a swords + disenchant/pithing needle is enough to make it so you can't lose. Think about that, for a second, as its been discussed to great lengths. Oath only runs 2 creatures. Granted they're fast, but a single activation of, say, jesters cap, and that's it. Game over. CS and Stax are probably the only decks that pack multiple ways of winning, and as such, are probably the toughest matchups.

That's the reason why TMWA won. Not because it was some spectacular deck, but because it exploited a very real, very obvious hole in the metagame. It's the reason why you would play keeper, the ultimate metagame deck. Keeper is the best deck when everyone is vulnerable to similar, easily addressed weaknesses.

[forests failed you]

It would seem to me that the strength of a Keeper deck is definately not its finishers or ability to combo out.  Rather, the thing that makes Keeper good is its ability to answer threats directly card for card and then seal the game up via overwhelming card advantage.  From my experience access to cards like Disenchant, Swords to Plowss hares, Energy Flux, and Cunning Wish give the deck very good match ups against anything not playing Blue; (this includes Stax and Workshop decks.  In fact, when I was playing this at Mox tournaments over the summer and fall I actually prayed to be matched up against Stax every round.

It is in fact true, Keepers win conditions suck comparatively to Slaver, Gifts and Oath.  However, what Keeper has is the ability to play around opposing win conditions and nullify them via their silver bullet answers.  (Cunning Wish, Swords, Disenchant, Flux, Scepter, et cetera)/ 

The reason that people say Keeper's win conditions are irrelevant is that they only ever come down after the game has been neatly sealed up and your opponent is in an extremely vulnerable situation.  That phenomenon is created by the fact that Keeper plays to control the whole game not just the first few turns until it can combo out.  Which is part of the reason many players view it as weaker, or a less optimal, deck than the more comboesque Drain decks.  Keeper has to do more work in order to win because it has to cycle a Decree and beat down for a few turns.  Or cast a Colossos and attack twice in order to seal the game; rather than just activating Slaver, Burning Wishing for Tendrils, or doing whatever other combo finish Gifts or Slaver can muster up.  In many ways attacking with four 1/1 guys seems very weak in comparision to the other win conditions combo decks have to offer. 

However, for this sacrifice of a faster more powerful win condition, Keeper decks get to play with better control cards.  Balance, Swords, Disenchant.  That is the trade off.  It is what it is, and if you are interested in playing a deck that trades brokeness for utility; Keeper may very well be the deck for you.  If you don't buy the arguement, Gifts, Oath or Slaver is probably the deck for you.  It is merely a preference of playstyle, and which style of deck you think has a more optimal gameplan against a particular metagame.  Keeper shines against opposing aggro decks, Workshop decks, and Dragon decks because all of those decks try to win with cards that go into play.  However, Slavers big weakness is against the more combotastic Drain decks in the format.

FFY

[dicemanx]

The answer is that these decks have become SO focused, SO tuned, SO streamlined, that they're actually all now easily beaten by answering their actual threats. 2 ways of finishing the game are NOT sufficient, and that should NOT go unpunished.

Look at gifts. It's win conditions are DSC and either tendrils, Sev. Belch. or FF-TV. That means that a swords + disenchant/pithing needle is enough to make it so you can't lose. Think about that, for a second, as its been discussed to great lengths. Oath only runs 2 creatures. Granted they're fast, but a single activation of, say, jesters cap, and that's it.

"Easily beaten" on account of being focused on very specific goals is quite a stretch. In fact, I would go further to say that you have it completely backwards - it is Keeper that is largely the inflexible deck, while modern control-combo decks have much greater and better routes to victory, and are thus more flexible in the plan they wish to pursue and execute. Winning with Yawgwill is a plan, but so is winning with a Tinker-DSC or Oath, or Welding in a Slaver. Plowing a creature or Disenchanting an artifact is hardly a game ending plan. See more below.

The reason that people say Keeper's win conditions are irrelevant is that they only ever come down after the game has been neatly sealed up and your opponent is in an extremely vulnerable situation.

The statement that Keeper's win conditions are irrelevant applies almost equally to every other control deck in the format. The significant difference is that the other control decks have the ability to use their win conditions as game ending bombs in case the plan to overwhelm the opponent with card advantage or via a huge Will isn't good enough. In other words, Keeper is a one trick pony, while modern control decks are much more versatile because of their combo potential.

However, for this sacrifice of a faster more powerful win condition, Keeper decks get to play with better control cards.  Balance, Swords, Disenchant.  That is the trade off.  It is what it is, and if you are interested in playing a deck that trades brokeness for utility; Keeper may very well be the deck for you.

This isn't so much of a question of preference or playstyle - playing Keeper in its current incarnation puts you at a disadvantage by my estimation, so if anyone decides to field the deck they aren't maximizing their chances. This ties back to a point I made in another thread - adopting or favoring a particular playstyle can be something that limits you as a competitor. I have no doubt that Keeper can still win tournaments because it still plays very strong core cards, but that doesn't take away from the fact that its a lower percentage deck against any given field in comparison to modern control decks.

I would also very much contest that cards like Balance, StP, or Disenchant qualify as "better control cards". They have stiff competition from cards that try to end the game instead of maintaining parity. Playing attrition wars in 1998 was a perfectly valid strategy, because Keeper was one of the few decks that could rely on its ability to outdraw and thereby outcontrol other decks and could easily afford to run a few parity cards. These days, you have to fight against other deck's threats with your 1-for-1 answers, AND you potentially have to fight against their massive card drawing - in fact, you are already at a noticeable disadvantage in this department against a deck like Gifts, because nearly all of their cards are relevant in the match-up while you are sporting many dead cards. In fact, control players lose games much more frequently these days with a full grip while their opponents have barely anything in hand.

Even against aggro-control you WILL suffer compared to modern control decks - I would dread having to play with Keeper against something like Goblin Burn with Pillars/Null Rods or WW/u. You can still beat such decks, and maybe the odds are even a little in your favor, but why put yourself in a position where you have to struggle like a dog to win?

[orgcandman]

Plowing a creature or Disenchanting an artifact is hardly a game ending plan. See more below.

It is when the only path to victory that the deck runs is that route. When someone is only running 2 win conditions, and you have cheap, fast, efficient answers for those win conditions, you're in a position of advantage. If you can 1-for-1 their ONLY paths to victory by expending 2 cards, then the opposing deck is not magically at some sort of advantage just because they run more blue cards.

In other words, Keeper is a one trick pony, while modern control decks are much more versatile because of their combo potential.

I would argue that most, if not all, vintage decks are one-trick ponies. They all aim to resolve a game ending will (except dragon, and non-b decks). Barring that, they try and struggle to get their few win conditions to squeak them by, into a win. It's the nature of the beast. Keeper isn't alone here.

And lets get something straight, tinker->colossus isn't a combo. It's just a 3-4cc morphling that happens to be better at dealing damage and avoiding destruction.

I'll answer your other points when I have more time to digest them.

And slightly off-topic, for the most part this seems like one of the better quality threads. Lets keep that going.

[Milton]

Plowing a creature or Disenchanting an artifact is hardly a game ending plan. See more below.

It is when the only path to victory that the deck runs is that route. When someone is only running 2 win conditions, and you have cheap, fast, efficient answers for those win conditions, you're in a position of advantage. If you can 1-for-1 their ONLY paths to victory by expending 2 cards, then the opposing deck is not magically at some sort of advantage just because they run more blue cards.

Barring an extremely strong opening hand, a typical control deck has a build-up of four to eight turns, then they cast a huge EOT spell, then they go off in one big turn.  Yeah, you have that Disehchant... but for what?  Their Mindslaver?  Too late.  Their Belcher?  Too late.  GG.  They are going off.  Not much you can do about it.  You have two or three Plows maindeck, so you killed an Welder.  Big deal.  They are cycling through cards like hell and have found another one by the time you can C.Wish for another answer.  One for one is not good if your opponent can outdraw/outsearch you.  It's not good if C.Wish for an answer is more expensive then the problem.

The only way to win is to prevent the drawing/searching/digging of the build-up phase.  That's where Keeper shined in the past.  Prevent the play, build a card advantage, then force through a win.  That was 2000.  In 2006, your opponent will ignore you.  Keeper, though, can't ignore the opponent.  So you trade one-for-one.  Big deal.  They have more problems than you have solutions.  And more disruption and counters, too.  And their problems are cheaper than your solutions, especially if you use C. Wish.  And they can "just win" much better than you can.

Granted, if you know your personal metagame, you can be successful.  Still, my metagame is never constant.  Sure, one guy always plays Dragon and FCG is always there.  Other than that, who knows what to expect? 

If Keeper decks could control the build-up phase of other good control decks, they could regain the ability to be competitive.  Until Keeper does that, your combo-control opponent is going to ignore you, out-draw you, out-tutor you and kill you.

[PucktheCat]

If Swords, Balance, and Cunning Wish were really all that great it would be easy enough to put them into a Gifts deck.  I have actually tested Gifts with Cunning Wish and a white splash (seperately), and I know I am not the only one.  Most Gifts lists have 4-5 basic lands, so a couple of Tundras would still leave them with as many basic lands as the 4cc lists.  It hasn't caught on because bounce and win is a better plan than wrecking your mana base for Disenchant and Swords.

At any rate, Goblin Welder and Tormod's Crypt are better answers to Gifts' win conditions than Swords, Disenchant, or Pithing Needle.  They are cheaper, proactive (meaning you can play them before Gifts goes off) and affect the game before the last turn (Crypt disrupts Gift's engine, Welder powers your win).  In spite of that few people would argue that CS has a clear advantage against Gifts.

Leo

[Harkius]

It seems to me that what we have is a failure to be addressing the key concepts. So, in order to post something relevant and meaningful, and to keep this thread going on the high-level that it is, I want to break this down, and address issues separately.

First, the issue of whether it is important to stop tutors and buildup when playing Keeper against counter/control. When Weissman introduced the idea of card advantage to the world of Magic, he made a bold statement. In essence, he said, "He who draws the most cards wins." He was right. In 1996. In 1998 (or so), Paul Sligh introduced the idea of the mana curve to people. Now, this has almost nothing to do with our current conversation, but it does illustrate an important point. Magic theory has not come as far as it can. Early Magic decks were bad. After Weissman, they got a little better. After Sligh, aggro decks stood a chance again. As theory improves, decks get better as a whole. But, both of these decks taught us how to win. How to viciously, savagely beat our opponents. Two different ways, but the same concept was at the core of both. I will call it, to sound complicated and highbrow, resource utilization. It is a simple fact that resource utilization is the key concept in Magic: The Gathering. The thing that people are getting distracted with is the card names. Forget the card names for a moment. Let's get back to basic theory. Interestingly enough, these resources have slowly been revealed to players. What do Necropotence, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall, Goblin Welder, the Moxen, Lotus, and the remainder of the restricted list and the rest of the cards played in Type I decks have in common? They all taught us about resource utilization.

There are, basically, seven fundamental resources in Magic.
1. Life
2. Cards in Hand
3. Cards in your Deck
4. Your Graveyard
5. Your Turn
6. Your Mana
7. Anything from 1-6 that belongs to your opponent that you can take away from him, and use for yourself.
8. Your cards Removed From Game (Sideboard, StP targets, etc.) - Thanks FFY!

What Type I has been honed to (I was going to say reduced to, but I think that is inaccurate; these decks are the creme de la creme) is a war of resource utilization. The player who uses his or her resources more efficiently is going to win. This is a simple fact, with no exceptions needed. Weissman taught us that a turn was fundamentally equal to a card in hand. He also showed us a valuable thing that most people have forgotten. Blood Moon (at the time at least) was mad tech. Playing it effectively reduced your opponent to playing red spells. He gained card advantage by neutralizing large numbers of his opponent's cards with one of his. Necropotence and the Black Summer taught us that a life point for a card in hand was a bargain (with Yawgmoth? Sorry, couldn't resist!). The cards gained in this way could rapidly be turned into threats that would take your opponent's life away. Mana has always been recognized as a resource, but Paul Sligh recognized that unused mana was essentially the same as a wasted turn. This, combined with a little statistical analysis, pointed out to him that he needed more cheap, efficient cards than expensive bombs. Most of the more powerful cards in Type I let you abuse one of these resources. Mindslaver is what added #7 to the list so firmly. Yawgmoth's Will is what added #4 to our minds, but Goblin Welder doesn't hurt the case.

So, resource utilization is where it is at these days. But, is there, perhaps, a ninth resource? The only one that would allow Keeper to survive? An intangible, ephemeral thing that somepeople are sensing, but not describing? I think that there may be.

9. Design Space

For lack of a better term, I am going to call it Design Space. One of the most brilliant things that Richard Garfield added to his game was the idea of modular, interchangeable parts. Decks, since then, have been broken down into things like Land, Spells, and Creatures (for beginner decks), Land, Control, and Threats (for those who like control), Land, Search, and Combo (for the obvious combo decks), Land, Creatures, and Creatures (for Sligh, SuiBlack, etc.).

 BTW, let me note here that if I reference a deck archetype and it does not fit with decks currentlynamed that, perhaps I am referencing a now-dead deck that was originally called that. I am old. Get used to it.

End side note. These representations are intended to answer the question of design space. There are sixty slots (maybe 61 if you are rogue, or 62 if your name is Aaron Forsythe and your deck is green) in your deck. Into this cramped space you have to stuff all of the things that you want your deck to be able to do. Every Lightning Bolt you include is one fewer card of whatever else you would like to run.

Now, this is the resource, I think, that modern decks are skimping on to maximize their odds of winning the way that they do. A deck like Oath with two threats, or CS with just a few, or Stax, or whatever, has only a few ways to win. Calling win conditions irrelevant is misleading. The fact is that you don't always get to wait until the game is sewn up to cast your threat. If you don't wait against Keeper, you are going to get your win condition blow'd up. This is a simple fact. As long as Keeper is running the front edge of counter in the field (and with less dependence on tutors, it certainly ought to be), it should have more in hand at any given point. Or access to more with Brainstorm.

Keeper capitalizes on its design space, becoming a different kind of one-trick pony as a result. All current Vintage Tier one decks are one-trick ponies, but there are two different kinds of tricks: either to deprive your opponent of the resources to stop you from doing what you are doing (Stax, CS, Oath all count in here, along with combo, because they either take away your chance to respond by taking away mana and or cards or they take away your ability to respond by doing their thing really, really fast), or to deprive your opponent of their win conditions.

This gets us back to the arguments put forth by so many people here (I won't delineate or quote them...it would take even MORE space). Basically, Magic has evolved. Yes, it is important to try to stop spells that give your opponent card advantage. But, instead of merely taking this on faith, answer a question before you read any farther. Why is this so important? Answer? Because your opponent's deck is full of things that are threatening to you. Or, at least, it was. These days, this is not as true as it was. Provided you're running a relatively stable build, there are only some things in there that are threatening. Wasteland is going to be bad, but not as bad as Mindslaver. Strip Mine is bad, but Goblin Welder is Worse. Goblin Welder is bad, but Darksteel Colossus will kill your dumb ass, graveyard dead.

The people who are arguing that Keeper may have game are trying to think about this, and they have already accepted the part of the other people's arguments, tacitly and without much fight. Everyone silently accepts that Keeper can't counter everything. But, it can counter a lot. Prioritizing the correct targets will allow you to figure out what you need to stop and what you have to let through. For example, Thirst For Knowledge becomes much, much more an unallowable spell if there is already a Welder in play. Without one, I am less concerned about TfK. I am more worried about Tinker, and I will let the TfK into play and watch for the Welder.

Was Weissman wrong? Is card advantage not the most important? Well, I think that he was answering the wrong question. He found a piece of the puzzle, others found other parts. As a whole, resource utilization is the answer. Keeper cannot win this battle on as many fronts as other decks, but I think that it still has potential. Is it a dog? Perhaps. Perhaps not. That is what we are discussing here. But, we are also discussing the fundamental theory of Type I. Perhaps someone else has pointed this out before, and I am following in the footsteps of someone else. But, we are arguing past each other here.

No, Keeper cannot counter everything. No, Keeper shouldn't even try. Instead, Keeper needs to play its own game on its own terms. The cards that it uses can be more efficient than the cards used by everyone else. Yes, killing your opponent is a pretty damned effective method of keeping him from doing anything undesirable. However, it is not always the answer. Focusing too much on killing him means that you have less of a plan should he struggle out from underneath your massive foot. Then, he runs around and you are stuck with a helpless smile on your face. This is the game that Keeper needs to play. Consider yourself a guerrilla. Yours is not to stop everything, but only the things that must be stopped. If you stop the Darksteel Colossus, then you don't need to worry as much about Tinker. That is not a 1-for-1, as many have said. Counterspell, as Weissman wrote, doesn't just take away one card; it takes away one card right now. If you stop a Disenchant targeting a Pithing Needle, it is potentially a 1-for-4. That is card advantage. This is a fluid thing, and tricky to master. Your opponent's superior draw is then necessary, just to get him back to even! The same can be said for any number of things. If you should counter or destroy (permanently, preferrably) the threats in your opponent's deck, then all the tutors in the world will do no good. Neither will superior draw. If he is smart, he will concede the game and try to get on with winning the next, so that you don't run out of time. A 1-for-1 will not necessarily win you the game. But, Counterspells are not always a 1-for-1. Even when they are, they can win you the game, on rare occasions.

Fish used to play a game like this, on its way toward winning. Hell, it still might. I am personally not that familiar with it. But, it stands to reason that this can be an effective route to victory. Yes, Keeper requires an intense knowledge of the meta (the bad matchups at least), and even then you are going to lose a few games. Yes, Keeper may be a dog. (I am still not convinced of this. The fact that others have taken this stance as well suggests to me that it stands a chance in an unknown meta where your opponents are likely to be netdecking and the remainder of the field is Tier 2 or 3). It requires a pretty good knowledge of the cards, and perhaps even a little bit of luck. But, to the victor goes the spoils. Keeper is not as easy to hate out as most people suggest, I think. It has more stable threats and varied responses than many decks in the field. It may not be the best deck. But I think, and I think that I have demonstrated here the logic behind these thoughts, that it is a good deck, and one that someone with appropriate skill and effort could pilot to victory.

I look forward to hearing responses. You guys have been GREAT so far. Let's keep it up. I have learned a lot so far, and it is only in a venue like this that I can rise to the level of this (article-length) post. Let me hear your feedback. Have I missed the point completely? Did I make you realize something you never have? Let's hear it!

Cheers,
Harkius

Edit: Added resource #8, at FFY's suggestion. Thanks again!

[Jacob Orlove]

Ooh, magic theory! That's my cue: Putting It All Together.