Not to be a wet blanket, but this card costs 6 mana at main phase speed
So far as the game can go, I usually judge *good* or *bad* a game won by DSC.
If DSC hit the board during the first 5 turns of that game, it is usually *bad* (from my specific point of view). Otherwise, killing with DSC in the late game is *always* good.
In this analysis, I have not taken into account
the way I use to resolve DSC. I can hardcast it or put it into play because of Tinker. Both the situations are fully allowed during the late game. Both of them would win the game for you.
Early DSC, instead,
can win the game...
I choose *what* to use to win only in my last effort of the winning plan.
Have I choose DSC+Walk+B.Wish or Rebuild+B.Wish+ToA?
If you analize that question, projecting it into the late game, the choice is a non-issue.
It is like answering a rethorical question.
You have not to answer to nothing.
In the end, it doesn't matter *what* but *when*.
If you consider NiV-M as an *additional* late game tool that wins you games as the other winning conditions, I feel that your regret for it, that you are showing to us, would simply fade out.
Are 11colorless mana so different from 6coloured ones? Not so much. You can't either produce them when you are in your *winning plateau*.
Are you going to win with one of them more frequently rather than with the other one? Probably yes, but I have to advice to you *that* difference doesn't appear to be chained with DSC or NiV-M, but with Tinker itself.
My greater concern about playing with Niv-M AND Tinker+DSC is all about
the total number of useless, poor and stupid winning conditions. I would usually not waste another slot over the two usually used for them.
B.Wish is really *FAR MORE* than a winning condition to be considered a waste of space.
On this argument DSC and NiV-M are some of the most frequent reasons of mulligans and game loss.
If I would play this deck, I could see it performing better with the Tinker+DSC+B.Wish triad *OR* with NiV-M+C.Wish+B.Wish as winning conditions.
Those changes can avoid the deck to play with *too many* dead cards.
I'm with you that this feeling is really subjective.
IMHO, 2 winning cards are enough for the win.
A lot of the commonly played German decks usually packs 3 or 4 different winning conditions. They play with an additional single mana font, too. The entire logic behind the theory of their deckbuilding seems different. Less *proactive* threats ( counters, drawers, broken ), more mana and more *game ending* cards.
They chose to continuosly try to play with Weissmann into theirs heads.
It could be good as well not, the field itself would judge it.
It seems to me, that decks like those ones, would perform slightly better because are *safer* than mine, but after a good analysis, they can be changed a bit, rising the risks but adding brokeness and threats.
Pose attention to my only two changes to the initial list.
My field would punish me for playing with StPs instead of other more universal tools.
The same field would kill me because of the use of non-blue drawers and a large variety of colours into the same deck.
For my perspective, adding blue drawers and highly intelligent artifacts is always better than playing with black drawers and creature removals.
NIV-M itself is a non issue.
From my point of view, the deck can perfectly perform with both it and DSC.
The *non trivial* changes would be checked among the spells that enable you to safely play your own winners.
Maybe, that last paragraph cannot be understood really well because I'm talking about *feelings* undestood and realized of a field in which I usually not play and about deck that I usually not completely nedeck
If I would play that exact deck in my field, I would lose because of:
-- Increased mana flood
-- General slow approach of the deck to different and complex matchups
-- High hatability of his mana base.
NiV-M isn't clunky or cuttable because is it worse than Tinker or DSC but because it is an overcosted winning condition that cannot be replayed if not through Y.Will when discarded. DSC has an additional bonus by *living* into the deck, generally improving TFKs.
As a last effort on supporting NiV-M, I think that it could be played as *the only* winning condition. It is a Morphling that would not protect itself with his own untargettability but that let you draw more cards, more answers and more counters. The total amount of red mana available into the deck is far more threatening than NiV-M itself. I think that we would not see it into the *same* deck in the future, because the *surprise effect* would fade out really quickly. Or at least, not in a deck with black drawers, white removals, red answers and blue protecting spells.
I'm a big fan of german ingenuity (in fact I'm going there in a week), but, regarding Niv-Mizzet, I don't see him spending a lot more time in T8's.
I think that the authors of the deck itself have our same feeling.
Not to be rude, but all you people who are saying that Niv-Mizzet is bad, have you actually tried testing him?!!! If new ideas aren't tried Vintage will become a very dull format.
You seem not to note that *during* that last year, T1 and Eternal in general, changed, switched and become more competitive, far more than ever.
A lot of people added hints and suggestions from other formats.
Myself, would have not ever thought about playing with little creatures ( D.Conf. & Cutpurse ), bad counters ( Remands ) and strange removals ( Repeals & H/S ) aside with Drains, FoW and Restricted.
Almost any "historical" ( and *old* ) T1 player is encouraged by playing with new cards now, far more than in the past.
We are changing T1 into *Professional T1*.
@ niv: is the draw ==> burn really much better than morphling's natural protection and ability to block or exalted angel's ability to morph, and life gain? and is it really enough better to justify the unwieldy casting cost and ease of removal?
Both Kasuras, Nataz and you referred almost to the same argument.
My answer is yes.
T1 is really quicker and more competitive now.
If you play Morphling now, you give time to your opponent
If you play Angels, you give time to your opponent.
You can support DSC only because it
seems to leave the opponent with
fewer choices.
I can support NIV-M *only* because it give me cards and damages.
With a slower field, I would have preferred playing with Angels or Morphlings.
With
that quicker one, I would prefer DSC.
Now that anyone could kill your own DSC, I think that NiV.M can change our way to kill opponents again.
More tests would improve this idea.
I'd like to add another area to the discussion: the spell base of the deck. Are you all unanimously sold on Hide // Seek (I certainly am)?
I'm really interested on your arguments about the entire deck and, specifically speaking, about H/S.
My only regret, now that I'm playing my own Gifts version, is Balance.
I would not switch back, because that bluebased deck, it difficult to hate out and solid.
From time to time, I put Balance inside, to
feel again if I'm stil able to play Keeper.
H/S put me in trouble because I started to see them *far more* useful and *necessary* than any other white things.
Far more useful than StPs and Disenchants.
Far more flexible and game breaking.
They attack opponents' most abused strategy: Fewer winning conditions and solid decks.
I would judge his real value after some weeks of tests.
If his impact on the game would not fall after the end of the surprise effect, I could consider them as "the new StPs for Keeper decks".
Two of them, is a good number, but I don't see it being always true.
Control mirrors and combo matchups are the best ones during which abuse of H/S.
Aggrocontrols ones and maybe Solid MW.decs are nearly untouched by both of them.
What is your analysis of the draw engine of the deck (2 Whisper, 3 Scrying, 1 Fact, 1 Ancestral)? Am I the only one to think that Scrying should see more play than it currently does?
I woud rely more heavily on blue spells.
Skeletals can be the "added drawers" of choice for this deck, but the skeleton of the deck must be BLUE.
Worst enemy of Keepers' decks is his own structure:
- Blue color is usually considered as a *glue* for Black Drawers and Red & White Control Board's Elements.
There is nothing wrong on giving to a deck such a skeleton.
The risk of autolosing games is too high too.
MW.decs are better than in the past ( quick clock and solid mana base ).
AggroControl deck are better than in the past ( stronger critters, better drawers and more hate ).
Control decks are almost unhatable ( fewer dead cards, solid mana bases ).
Combo decks are always good if well piloted ( increased one turn kill rate, solid approach to the game ).
How or Where you can insert that *old style* 4C-C deck?
My feelings are that it could scrub out as much as win unwinnable games.
That winning or losing rates can go up or down when comparing fields.
If German Tourneys would do more Top8s and not only Swiss Rounds, I think decks such like these ones, would "win" less.
It have not so good matchups against Gifts, CS and TPS.
On the other hand, it is "Keeper", no?
Ah, I'm too romantic... I just bought 2 FOIL ASIAN H/S...
Maxx
EDIT--> More Comments added.
