Noble Fish: GUW variants here!

[Phele]

However, if you are anticipating a meta with a lot of Selkie, playing a version with Ninja/Cursecatcher is certainly a good choice (this deck won the French Championship).

Thanks for the input but I don't really get it and am probably missing something. For bringing in the Ninja over its alternate casting cost you need unblocked attackers. And Cursecatcher doesn't counter creatures nor Jitte. How is a deck without Tarmos maindeck better prepared to fight an aggro deck with Tarmos maindeck, blockers and jitte (after boarding). When I first saw your winning decklist I thought this might be a good choice to fight combo and control, but obviously it succeded in a meta full of aggro. So what do I miss? Thanks a lot for the info.

[CowWithHat]

Phele makes a strong point.  Neither ninja or cursecatcher seem to be particularly strong in the mirror.  It is possible that he got lucky in the fish matchups and was able to beat other decks easier with the ninja build.  I find it highly doubtful that ninja and cursecatcher actually make the GUW mirror much better.  As Deathknight said, the matchup revolves largely around goyf and jitte.   Neither card disrupts or facilitates goyf or jitte particularly well (I mean they both hold jittes just fine but there are better cards for that).

Obviously having goyf and jitte post board is the most effective answer to mirror strategies.  If the deck is looking for more cards to improve mirror matchups I think the best cards are sower of temptation and swords to plowshares.  Jitte plays considerably worse when you are fighting a heavy removal element and both of these spells answer goyf quite efficiently.  In addition to playing the typical role for mirror very well, sower and swords both heavily punish an opponent who is trying to run the ninja strategy.

[dawgie]

I really think its not the one who has Goyf first unless you go with a broken 1st turn play of fetch, lotus then double Goyf. I really think the mirror is based on who can play Selkie first and then go all the way with exalted. Tarmogoyf can be blocked by all other creatures.

But yes, StP is needed in the SB and I always advocated Jitte in the SB against the mirror and against random aggro.

[punki]

Hi,

I've played selkie slam in Breda, ending in 4th place. I'll do a quick minireport and post my list for comments.

rnd 1 against GUB dark depths deck with crop rotation, fow and the dark depths-hexmage combo
g1 I win easy, g2 I make the mistake of stp-ing his hexmage just because I could and I tought the first strike was relevant. In response he cast crop rotation for dark depths and make a 20/20. Game 3 I was more carefull with my counters, stifles and wastelands and he never got an opportunity to get his combo.

rnd 2 against Painter
I lose g1 mostly to my own manabase, never getting a creature into play untill it's too late and he tinkered up inkwell
g2 and 3 I get there keeping him of his mana in g2 and racing his inkwell. Game 3 I even get him @ zero permanents and throw out a Mmage on lotus to avoid a win out of the blue. But I played very sloppy, not realising he could have a pyroclasm to destroy my team and play a second mage on mox pearl the turn before i kill him. Very sloppy, but I get there. (Funny thing: he was actually holding a mox pearl)

rnd 3 against the mountains win again kinda deck
g1 I lose to my own mana (again). But it was also a little bit my fault: I fetched a trop in stead of a basic forest, not knowing he played wastelands. On the other hand If I got the forest I would not be able to daze or cast my meddling mages any time soon. Games 2 and 3 I win on having biger dudes and jitte. Also trygon really helped eating his moxes and rod zo I could get jitte active.

rnd 4 against oath.
g1 I topdeck myself out of his oath (topdeck quasali eats his oath, he demonics and top deckes strip mine eats his only green mana source)
g2 an early mage on oath gives me time to finish it.

rnd 5 and 6 ID

Top 8
first against ichorid. I obviously lose game 1 (he starts)
g2 I win through 3 bazaars. Ravenous trap is that good. I boarded in 13 cards. The filosofy was: not losing is winning I have 2 creatures out when he has about 6 cards in his library, one bridge left and one ichorid. The rest is removed from game.
g3 I win by removing his graveyard in response to a first turn unmask aftre he bazaared. I then waste his bazaar and take the game.

Top 4 against ANT
I lose to a t2 and T1 ad nauseam with pact of negation backup


the list: I started with the list posted above by some-one who knows he deck and butchered it a little bit (see changes in bold)

I kept getting mana problems so I cut a wasteland for a tundra. It was that or losing the basics and playing 4 tropicals and 4 tundras. So I thought I'd listen to you guys and keep in the basics.
After cutting a wasteland, I even cut a stifle. So I really cut into the whole manadenial plan. The reasoning was: I could cut:
- third meddling mage (already cut one for a predator)
- fourth quasali (probably the one that had to go)
- not run a second predator (but I love the card)

So I had the choice between 4 stifle or 4 quasali at the time and I opted to cut a stifle because I'd rather topdeck a creature.

Selkie-Slam

Land (17):
4 Misty Rainforest
1 polluted delta
3 Tropical Island
3 Tundra
1 Island
1 Forest
3 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine

Artifacts (8):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
4 Null Rod could be 3-off I think

Creatures (20):
4 Noble Hierarch
3 Meddling Mage
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Tarmogoyf
4 Cold-Eyed Selkie
2 Trygon predator

Instants (14):
4 Force Of Will
3 Daze
3 Spell Pierce
3 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall

Sorceries (1):
1 Time Walk

SB
4 Ravenous Trap great against ichorid, useless against the rest (maybe ok against dragon)
2 Umezawa's jitte mvp in 'mirror' matches, otherwise not so great
1 Trygon Predator just love the flying and his ability, often want 3 so one extra in the board
1 meddling mage moved to SB because of maindeck constraints
3 children of korlis against ichorid and tendrills combo
4 Swords To Plowshares best removal against aggro, ichorid and random robots that are nog inkwell
 
 
Thoughts after the tournament are more or less the same I had after testing it a few times:

- the manabase doesn't need basics
- meddling mage is best in the sideboard (maybe 2-2 split between maindeck and SB)
- I often wanted stp maindeck (or other creature removal, but in this case it would be stp)
- This deck really wants to win the die roll against a lot of decks. 3 spell pierce and 3 daze = 6 cards that are mostly good on the play
- I almost never got an active selkie unless I was already winning. But I could have lost those games if I did not have the selkie keeping me on top. So I'm not saying I would cut him.

I liked playing the deck, but didn't 'love' it because it doesn't give me that vintage feeling of playing broken cards and making insane plays. It's laying down creatures and hoping the other guy doesn't win.

So, dear fish deck: it was fun for one tournament, but I just don't see this relationship going anywhere. 

[Odd mutation]

Well done Punkmans!

I played the Selkie deck too but made too many mistakes to actually matter. The deck felt solid but the recurring problem for me was what I mentioned earlier in the thread: the mana base!
I played StormAnimagus' list with only a slightly different sideboard.

Greetings,

Robrecht.

[Phele]

Many people over here started to play without basics and had good results. I played no Island but a single basic Forest. The logic behind this was: There are two matchups I really love to see basics and that is against Fish and Shops. Against both decks, the cards I really want to play over and over again are Hierarch and Goyf. When I am able to resolve one of these without getting in risk to get my mana wasted right after it I am in a very good position. Against all other decks I boarded the Forest out to minimize the risk of getting land flooded.

We also talked about maindecking Swords or already did. This time I saw many Sphinxes around and no Inkwell so it would have been a great choice. As I still fear Inkwell, I did play Hurkyl/Merchant main but definately would overthink this plan next time. There are so many ways to stop Tinker from resolving and for the whole rest StP is just great. It meanwhile got targets in almost every deck.

I did try out Sowers in the side for the aggro matchup and they were be so so, but Jittes wouldn't have been better. The problem I always have with Jitte: After boarding in the aggro mirror it is pretty hard to even get a creature on board or keep it there. I often topdecked a Jitte without a critter and got overun right after that too quickly. Sower is very flexible and helps to resolve one of the key elements to win the aggro mirror: Having more Tarmos on your side. But I am not solved on that.

Selkie was really powerfull all day long.

Meddlling Mages were so so and I think about replacing them as well. But there to be no other solutions that fills the same disrupting role against so many decks. For example: I lost the first Selkie mirror in the top 8 by having him played a Pridemage and laying a Meddling on Tarmo right after it. For sure this was the only creature I drew from there and it was also the only one that could have get me out of this situation. Good play, good Meddling.

[Stormanimagus]

I think that Selkie Needs to evolve right now in order to continue competing. While I do think there are a fair number of Fish decks out there that run Goyf right now I'd rather take my chances with siding in 4 STP and go from there. I truly believe that Grunt is an overall-better card right now, especially when you run 8 exalted effects. Most often you'll be able to race an opposing Goyf simply on the back of Exalted. Do not forget that Grunt is also really REALLY good AGAINST Goyf as you can ruin the Graveyard. Frankly, it will need testing, but I don't really see why it wouldn't be really good.

I also think that, as hard as this is to admit, Meddling Mage has to go. Usually you are not going to live the dream and pre-emptively Mage vs. Oath as they run a lot of bounce and a really good plan B in Vault/Key. The days of MM pre-eminence seem to be basically over. The card I'd really REALLY like to start testing MD is Ethersworn Canonist, and YES as a 4-of. I want consistency with the deck and Canonist just seems so good in a daze that can sport Pierce, FoW AND Daze. Knowing that your opponent can't counter back seems like tech to me. I suppose you could argue that YOU now can't protect YOUR threats, but I don't think that is a really a downfall at all as you have a clock they MUST deal with or lose.

Given these comments here's where I might take Selkie in the near future:

Selkie Strikes Back!

Land (17):
4 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand
3 Tropical Island
2 Tundra
1 Island
1 Forest
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine

Artifacts (8):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
4 Null Rod

Creatures (18):
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Jotun Grunt
3 Cold-Eyed Selkie

Instants (16):
4 Force Of Will
4 Daze
3 Spell Pierce
4 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall

Sorceries (1):
1 Time Walk

SB
4 Wheel Of Sun And Moon
4 Pithing Needle
3 Trygon Predator
4 Sower Of Temptation

Without MM the blue count goes down to 20 and that might be a problem, but I think it is still all right for supporting FoW. Perhaps the deck should still run the full 4 Selkie, but I just can't think what to drop for a 4th and you usually only want to see 1 anyway in the early game so that was the first card to go. Not sure what else could change about the deck. Perhaps I could drop a Canonist for the 4th Pierce? This list seems pretty tight though and I think I may shuffle it up some time soon.

-Storm

[Phele]

I don't really understand where you get the need from, to evolve Selkie that much. It top8s over and over again in the moment with your great last list with Goyf and Meddling. Did you have so many bad testing/tournament results lately?

Anyway, I always do like new ideas and you presented a bunch of them.

Jotun Grunt: Grunt is good against opposing Goyfs, thats true. It also has some disruptive moment. But I am not sure, if this is enough include him, as the graveyard effect even doesn't bother Ichorid enough. In that case, the graveyard effect counts more as a disadvantage and I do want in many matchups a tough beater that stays. But I definately will try him out.

Ethersworn: Imo this card is more a sideboard choice. It is great against Storm, one of your weaker matchups. But we usually don't have enoght Storm around to justify playing him maindeck. Against Control he is okay, but there is no need to add additional maindeck weapons against Tez and Co as this matchup is already very favorable. Here we come back to Meddling Mage. I thought a lot about replacing him as well, especially cause of its UW mana cost. But I always came back to the fact, that there is no other creature, that could fill this slot, that is comparable discruptive AND flexible against most of your matchups - escpecially as many decks started to play more 4ofs again.

Sower of Temptation: I played them recently as well and liked them. They seemed to be a good alternavtive for Jitte, which often ist a bad topdeck without any creature. Anyway, I don't think Sower can replace Swords. StP is to cost effective in what it should do and this deck definately needs quick answers for creatures. I played a mix of Swords and Sowers.

Manabase: I think you should rearange your manabase a bit as you now play 11 white creatures. In your case I would play three Tundra and two Tropical. So you can still fetch on forest to play the first turn Noble but get a hight chance to get your white mana, if he gets counterd or removed.

Good Work and keep on with your great ideas.

PS: Have you tried out the Cursecatcher/Ninja Selkie?

[Guli]

Cutting meddling mage is always a hard one. I feel with you. It is never really clear if its the right move or not because he is so unique.

I am going to ignore past versions and look at the creature base you selected.

Creatures (18):
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Jotun Grunt
3 Cold-Eyed Selkie

First time I see this configuration. I always liked the combination of MANA DENIAL and CANONIST and find it a logical choice. Your overall strategy is to cut them of mana as much as you can. Canonist disrupts a totally different area of their game plan, tempo play. You can get away with it because your strategy doesn't consist of searching, drawing, digging and playing multiple answers or threats. I like Null Rod + Canonist with counter backup, it could stop their only out -> Rebuild/Hurk R

So what does grunt do in this story? You don't want them to play a lot of spells, so you don't want to see a lot of cards in the graveyard. Did you even considered that you were partly responsible that Tarmogoyf didn't get big enough? Because your strategy of denying mana hence denying spells worked.  You are making Y will virtually dead anyway.

I truly believe that Grunt is an overall-better card right now, especially when you run 8 exalted effects. Most often you'll be able to race an opposing Goyf simply on the back of Exalted. Do not forget that Grunt is also really REALLY good AGAINST Goyf as you can ruin the Graveyard. Frankly, it will need testing, but I don't really see why it wouldn't be really good.

Please do test it and report the results, I am curious. My guess is that grunt won't satisfy you in the end. Null RoD/Canonist strategies with counter backup are strong but Grunt doesn't seem the optimal fit, in the end Grunt is spell friendly and that you don't want them playing a lot of spells. I am sure Grunt will find enough food to keep him alive for 2-3 turns but then what? The difference with Goyf is that Grunt is more dependent on the graveyard and sometimes I rather have a 2/3 or 3/4 Goyf than a Grunt that will not survive that many turns. This can be tactically abused by the opponent. Grunt might weaken Tarm but it doesn't kill it and when Grunt dies the Tarm can be extremely dangerous.

If you ask me knight of the reliquary seems a strong option as a clock and supports the overall strategy of mana denial. Body wise she outclasses Goyf and Grunt. Even so that she is big enough to be an answer to some Tinker targets. Reliquary is more usefull against dredge than grunt because she can get rid of bazaar, she is strong against stax if you find the 3 mana (same can be said about trygon in this respect), she breaks the aggro match up. We are talking about a 6/6 for 3 mana at the least, not counting the exalted and that she can grow. Speculate: A couple of fetchland, waste effect on your land, wasting their land will fill your grave with 4 lands. You aren't going to play your clock in the early turns anyway so my guess is that she will be big enough for a 3 mana investment. You want a clock, the entire deck is focused on disrupting them already. I would dedicate 3 slots for the knight, a clock that it disrupts as a bonus. My guess about the knight is that you don't need to tap her more than 2 times to win the game by locking them out entirely or swinging for lethal.

4 Noble Hierarch
4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Ethersworn Canonist
3 Knight of the Reliquary
3 Cold-Eyed Selkie

My 2 cents

[Stormanimagus]

Cutting meddling mage is always a hard one. I feel with you. It is never really clear if its the right move or not because he is so unique.

I am going to ignore past versions and look at the creature base you selected.

Creatures (18):
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Jotun Grunt
3 Cold-Eyed Selkie

First time I see this configuration. I always liked the combination of MANA DENIAL and CANONIST and find it a logical choice. Your overall strategy is to cut them of mana as much as you can. Canonist disrupts a totally different area of their game plan, tempo play. You can get away with it because your strategy doesn't consist of searching, drawing, digging and playing multiple answers or threats. I like Null Rod + Canonist with counter backup, it could stop their only out -> Rebuild/Hurk R

So what does grunt do in this story? You don't want them to play a lot of spells, so you don't want to see a lot of cards in the graveyard. Did you even considered that you were partly responsible that Tarmogoyf didn't get big enough? Because your strategy of denying mana hence denying spells worked.  You are making Y will virtually dead anyway.

I truly believe that Grunt is an overall-better card right now, especially when you run 8 exalted effects. Most often you'll be able to race an opposing Goyf simply on the back of Exalted. Do not forget that Grunt is also really REALLY good AGAINST Goyf as you can ruin the Graveyard. Frankly, it will need testing, but I don't really see why it wouldn't be really good.

Please do test it and report the results, I am curious. My guess is that grunt won't satisfy you in the end. Null RoD/Canonist strategies with counter backup are strong but Grunt doesn't seem the optimal fit, in the end Grunt is spell friendly and that you don't want them playing a lot of spells. I am sure Grunt will find enough food to keep him alive for 2-3 turns but then what? The difference with Goyf is that Grunt is more dependent on the graveyard and sometimes I rather have a 2/3 or 3/4 Goyf than a Grunt that will not survive that many turns. This can be tactically abused by the opponent. Grunt might weaken Tarm but it doesn't kill it and when Grunt dies the Tarm can be extremely dangerous.

If you ask me knight of the reliquary seems a strong option as a clock and supports the overall strategy of mana denial. Body wise she outclasses Goyf and Grunt. Even so that she is big enough to be an answer to some Tinker targets. Reliquary is more usefull against dredge than grunt because she can get rid of bazaar, she is strong against stax if you find the 3 mana (same can be said about trygon in this respect), she breaks the aggro match up. We are talking about a 6/6 for 3 mana at the least, not counting the exalted and that she can grow. Speculate: A couple of fetchland, waste effect on your land, wasting their land will fill your grave with 4 lands. You aren't going to play your clock in the early turns anyway so my guess is that she will be big enough for a 3 mana investment. You want a clock, the entire deck is focused on disrupting them already. I would dedicate 3 slots for the knight, a clock that it disrupts as a bonus. My guess about the knight is that you don't need to tap her more than 2 times to win the game by locking them out entirely or swinging for lethal.

4 Noble Hierarch
4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Ethersworn Canonist
3 Knight of the Reliquary
3 Cold-Eyed Selkie

My 2 cents

Well, The Grunt was originally going to be in there to give something good MD vs. Dredge, but Knight ain't bad and could serve as a pseudo draw engine too by thinning your deck and making Selkie draw you into more nuts. I can see games where you might side 1-2 of these guys out, but I actually like the idea. The only thing I worry about is him being too slow against Stax and Dredge to make any difference. Interesting idea though and could certainly use some testing. I definitely failed to see the dis-synergy between Grunt and Cannonist. Thanks for pointing that out.

-Storm

EDIT: Given these comments made I'd like to postulate the following list:

Selkie Strikes Back!

Land (17):
4 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand
3 Tropical Island
2 Tundra
1 Island
1 Forest
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine

Artifacts (8):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
4 Null Rod

Creatures (18):
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Cold-Eyed Selkie
3 Knight Of The Reliquary

Instants (16):
4 Force Of Will
4 Daze
3 Spell Pierce
4 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall

Sorceries (1):
1 Time Walk

SB
4 Wheel Of Sun And Moon
4 Pithing Needle
3 Meddling Mage
4 Sower Of Temptation

Where I'm really struggling with this deck is how to build the Sideboard. I feel one must keep a couple things in mind when building the SB and I haven't yet been able to come to an answer that satisfies all conditions simultaneously.

1. Needs to address problem match-ups well.
2. Needs some over-lap cards (ones that you'll side in in more than one match-up)
3. Can't ever destroy the blue count (cause I'm probably never siding out FoW)

With these 3 criteria in mind I built this SB but I think MM might be a weak SB choice (he'd come in vs. Oath and Shops).

Sower is a great choice vs. Beats/mirror IMHO because he maintains (or even ups) the blue count nicely and is more powerful, though more expensive, than STP. I think that with the combination of Noble Hierarch and Stifle to protect my manabase, reaching 2UU shouldn't be that hard in most games vs. beatz.

Against shops you'd go:

-4 Canonist +4 Needle
-3 Daze +3 MM

So the blue count would stay neutral.

against Beatz I'd probably go:

-4 Null Rod +4 Sower
-3 Spell Pierce +3 MM

and against the mirror I'd probably go:

-4 Null Rod +4 Sower
-3 Canonist +3 MM

The MM come in there because they can be pretty devastating when naming Goyf as my beater is now Knight. I dunno. Whenever one is tweaking or redesigning a deck there are going to be false starts, but I really think this'll be for the best as Meddling Mage just seems underwhelming too much of the time right now. Whenever I resolve it I see my opponent relieved that I DIDN'T resolve something else and often that card is Canonist LOL.

I think that Selkie has a lot harder time with Tezz than it did during the pre-Thirst restriction era and it is no longer the easy match-up it once was. This is for a couple reasons.

1. Moving to Confidant as the new draw engine. I don't run as many answers to it. and it gains a lot of slow advantage, which can be good against fish.
2. Restriction of Thirst = less MM targets that will do anything.
3. Knowledge of how to deal effectively with Rod and Selkie. This is the biggest one. Most players now pack Grudge MD and some even pack Darkblast MD. This means WE need to evolve too.

-Storm

[AmbivalentDuck]

Wonky and somewhat random suggestion: is Compost playable against Ad Naus-like combo and the new Dark Depths/Sacrament decks?

Drawing a card every time your opponent tutors/rituals/duresses/fails at attacking/blocking seems good, and there's no upkeep unlike Remora.

[Phele]

1. Moving to Confidant as the new draw engine. I don't run as many answers to it. and it gains a lot of slow advantage, which can be good against fish.
2. Restriction of Thirst = less MM targets that will do anything.

Question and answer in one word: Instead of Thirst you can play Meddling on Confidant. Imo Meddling Mage has become even better in the last weeks.

The casting cost of Sower compared to Swords does count. Just playing Sowers is very often too late to beat Beats or the Mirror. Additionally Swords are quite effective in other matchups (Aggro Mud for example, where Sower also is often too costy).

You think so much about the blue count just because you want to include Canonists. So why not ask if Canonist is really that much of a better choice then Meddling. Meddling is more flexible, Canonist is more conidtional - better in Storm/Control-Matchups, much weaker in Aggro/Shops Matchups. I definately wouldn't play Canonist in the maindeck. And in the Sideboard it competes with Children of Korlis.

Btw, Meddling cares about Grudge or Darkblast effectively in the first game, when you face them in the opposing maindeck. In testing it was pretty obvious that it is not enought for Control to just play some removal for Null Rod or Selkie to beat the deck.

[Stormanimagus]

1. Moving to Confidant as the new draw engine. I don't run as many answers to it. and it gains a lot of slow advantage, which can be good against fish.
2. Restriction of Thirst = less MM targets that will do anything.

Question and answer in one word: Instead of Thirst you can play Meddling on Confidant. Imo Meddling Mage has become even better in the last weeks.

The casting cost of Sower compared to Swords does count. Just playing Sowers is very often too late to beat Beats or the Mirror. Additionally Swords are quite effective in other matchups (Aggro Mud for example, where Sower also is often too costy).

You think so much about the blue count just because you want to include Canonists. So why not ask if Canonist is really that much of a better choice then Meddling. Meddling is more flexible, Canonist is more conidtional - better in Storm/Control-Matchups, much weaker in Aggro/Shops Matchups. I definately wouldn't play Canonist in the maindeck. And in the Sideboard it competes with Children of Korlis.

Btw, Meddling cares about Grudge or Darkblast effectively in the first game, when you face them in the opposing maindeck. In testing it was pretty obvious that it is not enought for Control to just play some removal for Null Rod or Selkie to beat the deck.

After some testing vs. Stax and some goldfishing the deck I've realized that Mage has to stay MD, but that Knight is really solid in the Tarmogoyf Slot. It does so many awesome things for this deck like:

1. Beat for a Ton!
2. Create virtual CA by thinning the deck of lands.
3. Trump Goyf on P/T most of the time.

I also didn't realize how relevant MM could be with Knight as NOW you can name Goyf with impunity and cut off beats from their largest beatstick, while naming Confidant or Tinker against Tezz, Ritual against TPS, Oath against Oath, and Welder against Stax. MM may not be super-powerful right now, but it does fill its intended role better than any other card and deserves the MD nod as a result.

Here's the revised MD I propose:

Selkie Strikes Back!

Land (17):
4 Misty Rainforest
1 Flooded Strand
3 Tropical Island
2 Tundra
1 Island
1 Forest
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine

Artifacts (8):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Pearl
4 Null Rod

Creatures (18):
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Meddling Mage
4 Qasali Pridemage
3 Cold-Eyed Selkie
3 Knight Of The Reliquary

Instants (16):
4 Force Of Will
4 Daze
3 Spell Pierce
4 Stifle
1 Ancestral Recall

Sorceries (1):
1 Time Walk

The blue count is now at a very comfortable 24 and that is another added bonus of running MM over Canonist MD.

I do feel the Canonists deserve a spot in the SB as at least a 3-of, but I'm having a hard time coming up with the proper SB Config. This is where I need the most help.

Currently I'm thinking:

4 Wheel Of Sun and Moon
4 Pithing Needle
3 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Sower Of Temptation

I disagree on Sower being too slow. It is SOOOO clutch in the beatz match-up as you'll be able to steal dudes AND have a 2/2 flyer to boot. It is amazing against Sphinx and it is also relevant in the mirror. I dunno. Perhaps it's too cute and STP might be better, but the fact that it is blue is not irrelevant as you will probably be siding out Spell Pierce in the creature match-ups to accommodate your cards from the SB.

Other SB ideas? Better Ichorid hate? Do you think siding in the 3 Canonists for 2 Knights and a Noble against TPS will be enough to win that match-up?

How would you sideboard against Tezz (if at all?)

-Storm

[Guli]

Would you consider Karakas and True Believer in the sideboard? True Believer also stops combo but also helps against Oath.

Why don't you spread your ichorid hate again? Did you motivate this earlier? You can stop ichorid by playing stuff like Propaganda, Elephant Grass and use those cards in the aggro match up as well.

I agree that your sideboard needs the most attention. Stop changing things in main deck for now. Work on the sideboard.

The blue count is a good argument to run MM alongside that he is very flexible etc... And a very good point on the synergy between knight/MM (naming Goyf).

Knight is heavy artillery to break the aggro match up. I am thinking out loud by saying you don't need Sower at all (and if you do use the cheaper version). But you do need to deal with things like confidant and welder. Tinker should never resolve... That is how this deck deals with bombs, it counters them and denies mana. You can't close all the gabs. I think a cheaper way to steal their confidant, welder and sphinx is giving them a 3/3 flyer in return. You know very well that there is a huge difference between playing a 4 mana answer and a 2 mana answer. The drawback doesn't seem to be relevant in this case because your overall strength should overwhelm a pesky 3/3 flyer. Think about it. With your 8 exalted  effects your confidant will have 3 power at least. Or if you managed to play the knight, nobody cares about their 3/3 flyer at that point, but you did take away their draw engine (welder,confidant) or silver bullet (sphinx, DC). Don't fear Inkwell, you can race it

4 Wheel Of Sun and Moon
4 Pithing Needle
3 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Sower Of Temptation

I think your sideboard looks very rough.

Maybe something like this?

3 Wheel of Sun and Moon (dredge)
3 Pithing Needle (Bazaar)
2 Propaganda (dredge, aggro)
3 Gilded Drake (Welder, confidant, Tarm, Sphinx, Iona (if they name blue then Knight could be an out with Karakas))
1 Karakas (Iona)
3 True Believer (Oath, Combo)

[Stormanimagus]

Would you consider Karakas and True Believer in the sideboard? True Believer also stops combo but also helps against Oath.

Why don't you spread your ichorid hate again? Did you motivate this earlier? You can stop ichorid by playing stuff like Propaganda, Elephant Grass and use those cards in the aggro match up as well.

I agree that your sideboard needs the most attention. Stop changing things in main deck for now. Work on the sideboard.

The blue count is a good argument to run MM alongside that he is very flexible etc... And a very good point on the synergy between knight/MM (naming Goyf).

Knight is heavy artillery to break the aggro match up. I am thinking out loud by saying you don't need Sower at all (and if you do use the cheaper version). But you do need to deal with things like confidant and welder. Tinker should never resolve... That is how this deck deals with bombs, it counters them and denies mana. You can't close all the gabs. I think a cheaper way to steal their confidant, welder and sphinx is giving them a 3/3 flyer in return. You know very well that there is a huge difference between playing a 4 mana answer and a 2 mana answer. The drawback doesn't seem to be relevant in this case because your overall strength should overwhelm a pesky 3/3 flyer. Think about it. With your 8 exalted  effects your confidant will have 3 power at least. Or if you managed to play the knight, nobody cares about their 3/3 flyer at that point, but you did take away their draw engine (welder,confidant) or silver bullet (sphinx, DC). Don't fear Inkwell, you can race it

4 Wheel Of Sun and Moon
4 Pithing Needle
3 Ethersworn Canonist
4 Sower Of Temptation

I think your sideboard looks very rough.

Maybe something like this?

3 Wheel of Sun and Moon (dredge)
3 Pithing Needle (Bazaar)
2 Propaganda (dredge, aggro)
3 Gilded Drake (Welder, confidant, Tarm, Sphinx, Iona (if they name blue then Knight could be an out with Karakas))
1 Karakas (Iona)
3 True Believer (Oath, Combo)

Ok. So some of your ideas are not half bad for the SB, but I question some of them as well. Here's the thing about Needle. Needle comes in against Dredge AND Stax as a solution to Welder and Bazaar. That's why I run 4. It is a good hate card in more than 1 weak match-up. Karakas in the SB could be interesting as a tutor target for Knight. Interesting. I'll have to consider that card. I think True Believer is kinda meh when you already run the full compliment of MM as it isn't blue and costs WW, which can be annoying to get on turn 2 with this deck when you don't draw Noble. It's uses against Combo are pretty much nil' as they'll probably just be bouncing it before they combo out or they'll be winning with Inkwell. Gilded Drake is a fascinating idea to combat Sphinx of the Steel Wind, but I'm not sure how powerful it is against Aggro. If they don't have a Confidant out or a Goyf you are giving them a 3/3 for a 2/2 (most likely) and sometimes they can still race with it. If you play it targetting Goyf and they just drop another Goyf (which will often happen) now they have a 3/3 flyer to seal the deal for them and you have to hope to hit a Knight in time. How is this a good trade for you? I'm not writing off the idea completely, but I really don't see what you're so afraid of with Sower costing 2UU. Against Beatz/Fish it probably won't be til turn 3 that they drop the big-bad Goyf anyway, and, by that time you should have 2UU up, especially with your Hierarch on the board.

I suppose I could do a 2/2 split in the SB between Sower/Drake or perhaps even Sower/Threads, but I really do like some number of Sower as an out to Sphinx. Not that Tinker SHOULD be resolving ever, but if it does, it's nice to know I can dig for my out using Selkie. Perhaps 2/2 is actually the right call in the SB as I've found that 2 copies of a card means you should often be able to dig for it (especially with active Selkie) by turn 5-7. I suppose then that it's simply a matter of what other 2 cards to run. Right now the choices seem to be:

2 Gilded Drake
2 Threads Of Disloyalty (my preference)
2 Sword To Plowshares

All right. As to the Canonist Slots. I really think those take the cake as Anti-Combo slots. They need to be dealt with in order for the opponent to win with Tendrils and they beat for 2 at the same time. I don't True Believer comes even close to the effectiveness of Canonist against Combo. Propaganda is an interesting call and could be solid, but doesn't it die to the same hate as Wheel? I dunno. Perhaps not spreading things out against Ichorid is a dangerous plan, but I really think that the "mise" approach only shines when you also run a tutor package and this deck does not. Unless I see a lot of Goblins being played I'm not sure that Propaganda would come in in any other match-up. I mean, against Aggro Beatz it might come in, but I should already be fine in that match-up with 4 Control Magic effects and 3 Knight. Just sayin'.

-Storm

[Guli]

A quick response to your comments on believer:

How are they going to bounce your true believer with so many counters and disruption? Remember true believer protects your counter wall AND stifle. It is not just to stop them from targeting you with tendrils. That being said they HAVE to bounce believer with counter backup, duress doesn't work. Plus with true believer you have 12 cards that directly target Oath. (Qasali, MM and Believer)

You can fetch up your tundra's to play believer easily, combo doesn't run wasteland. You need white/blue anyway in that match up. (MM,Counters,Believer)

[swawagon]

How does True Believer help against Oath of Druids? There is no 'Target' in the Oracle text. Am I missing something?

Oath of Druids
Oracle text: At the beginning of each player's upkeep, if that player controls fewer creatures than any of his or her opponents, the player may reveal cards from the top of his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. The player puts that card onto the battlefield and all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard.

Meddling Mage is good against Oath.

[Yare]

How does True Believer help against Oath of Druids? There is no 'Target' in the Oracle text. Am I missing something?

Oath of Druids
Oracle text: At the beginning of each player's upkeep, if that player controls fewer creatures than any of his or her opponents, the player may reveal cards from the top of his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. The player puts that card onto the battlefield and all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard.

Meddling Mage is good against Oath.

Look at the Gatherer entry, rather than Magiccards.info:

At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who controls more creatures than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may reveal cards from his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. If he or she does, that player puts that card onto the battlefield and puts all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard.

Oath of Druids was errataed a little while ago.

[swawagon]

Thanks!

True Believer is often enough to stop TPS. And likewise a thorn in Oath's side. However are these decks a significant amount of the meta? Against Stax, RGx Aggro, many Fishes, and (save Duress) Tez it is largely just a Grizzle Bear.

[Guli]

Thanks!

True Believer is often enough to stop TPS. And likewise a thorn in Oath's side. However are these decks a significant amount of the meta? Against Stax, RGx Aggro, many Fishes, and (save Duress) Tez it is largely just a Grizzle Bear.

I don't get this comment, the believer is suggested as a sideboard card instead of canonist. In my opinion the believer can be used to side in for more match ups than canonist. And believer supported by a counter wall is also very effective just like canonist is effective with a counter wall. Do you think canonist is a card to side in against tezz?

[Stormanimagus]

Thanks!

True Believer is often enough to stop TPS. And likewise a thorn in Oath's side. However are these decks a significant amount of the meta? Against Stax, RGx Aggro, many Fishes, and (save Duress) Tez it is largely just a Grizzle Bear.

I don't get this comment, the believer is suggested as a sideboard card instead of canonist. In my opinion the believer can be used to side in for more match ups than canonist.

I agree with you that you can side it in in more match-ups, but I disagree that it is better against TPS than Canonist. Being able to make every counterspell in my deck a hard counter is pretty huge while simultaneously forcing their deck their deck to a screeching halt. Believer does not Stop Tinker--> Leviathan and it does not stop them from simply drawing the broken nuts and then tutoring up Chain post Will. Believer is really not that good in that match-up. Canonist is a card they actually have a somewhat hard time dealing with while Believer is pretty much as much of a Red Herring as Null Rod in that match-up.

-Storm

[AmbivalentDuck]

I'll try this again before giving up on it...same slot as believer: Compost

1G, Enchantment (hardest type to deal with)
If a black card is put into an opponent's graveyard (From anywhere!!!!), you may draw a card.

This card lets you put a huge portion of your deck (and its answers) into your hand against Ichorid, storm combo, and Iona Oath.  How is this not strictly better than Believer?  If you run Ravenous and Mindbreak Traps, you're pretty much guaranteed to have solid, zero mana answers to whatever comes at you.

[Guli]

I agree with you that you can side it in in more match-ups, but I disagree that it is better against TPS than Canonist.

You disagree with something i did not say. But I ll take that position in this debate. No problem.

So using believer instead of canonist is weakening the TPS match up but strengthening the oath match up? How is your match against TPS when you pilot the deck?

Rebuild and Hurk's recall are pretty damn nasty if you fail to counter them. It removes null rod and canonist. Believer and null rod means they need to find 2 cards to deal with the situation and they can't play duress effects to remove your counter or stifle.

This deck does not let TPS play a solo game. I consider the TPS match up as a favorable one, if you can't do it with Daze, Force, Spell Pierce, Stifle, MM, Null Rod how WILL you do it? I didn't suggest believer to fight TPS but with a little adjustment in play style, having shroud can really help out.

BTW Believer also stops grindstone if it might randomly pop up.

My question to the pro canonist people, do you really need canonist to win against TPS? It does have weak spots (mass artifact bounce)
How much weaker do you consider Believer than Canonist against TPS? Big enough to dismiss the additional benefits of believer?

@AmbivalentDuck
Interesting, but I have no idea
Did you test it to give some insight?

[Stormanimagus]

I agree with you that you can side it in in more match-ups, but I disagree that it is better against TPS than Canonist.

You disagree with something i did not say. But I ll take that position in this debate. No problem.

So using believer instead of canonist is weakening the TPS match up but strengthening the oath match up? How is your match against TPS when you pilot the deck?

Rebuild and Hurk's recall are pretty damn nasty if you fail to counter them. It removes null rod and canonist. Believer and null rod means they need to find 2 cards to deal with the situation and they can't play duress effects to remove your counter or stifle.

This deck does not let TPS play a solo game. I consider the TPS match up as a favorable one, if you can't do it with Daze, Force, Spell Pierce, Stifle, MM, Null Rod how WILL you do it? I didn't suggest believer to fight TPS but with a little adjustment in play style, having shroud can really help out.

BTW Believer also stops grindstone if it might randomly pop up.

My question to the pro canonist people, do you really need canonist to win against TPS? It does have weak spots (mass artifact bounce)
How much weaker do you consider Believer than Canonist against TPS? Big enough to dismiss the additional benefits of believer?

@AmbivalentDuck
Interesting, but I have no idea
Did you test it to give some insight?

Guli, I understand what you're saying, but I think it is mis-informed and dated. Believer does nothing to stop Tinker-->Robot and that WILL be the plan against us games 2 and 3 most of the time. Also, as a long time TPS pilot I can tell you that I care very little about Null Rod as I usually side out 3 off-colored moxen for games 2 & 3. Null Rod is the least of my concerns. If I had both a resolved Null Rod and Believer staring me down I'd probably still be able to combo out and tutor up Chain for the Believer or just ignore the Believer and go for Inkwell Leviathan.

Believer also isn't really THAT good against Oath, even WITH the errata on the card as Oath now can simply go the Vault/Key route FIRST and then take infinite turns to win. Often Oath plays out a lot more like Tezzeret these days with a plan B that you just shut off. Whoopie-di Do! Granted that Believer + Null Rod against Oath should probably get there, either one, by itself will not.

I'm not saying Believer is a terrible card and it is certainly in my line-up of cards to test out, but I just find Canonist to be more over-all effective against TPS, Tezz, and even (though more equal with or worse than Believer) Oath at simply slowing down the game against a deck that is trying to do "broken" things. Canonist does this more effectively than any card I know because it costs 1W (rather than 2W for Rule Of Law or 2U for Arcane Lab) and beats for 2.

I hope this helps explain some of my best reasons for running the card.

-Storm

[Guli]

I agree with you that you can side it in in more match-ups, but I disagree that it is better against TPS than Canonist.

You disagree with something i did not say. But I ll take that position in this debate. No problem.

So using believer instead of canonist is weakening the TPS match up but strengthening the oath match up? How is your match against TPS when you pilot the deck?

Rebuild and Hurk's recall are pretty damn nasty if you fail to counter them. It removes null rod and canonist. Believer and null rod means they need to find 2 cards to deal with the situation and they can't play duress effects to remove your counter or stifle.

This deck does not let TPS play a solo game. I consider the TPS match up as a favorable one, if you can't do it with Daze, Force, Spell Pierce, Stifle, MM, Null Rod how WILL you do it? I didn't suggest believer to fight TPS but with a little adjustment in play style, having shroud can really help out.

BTW Believer also stops grindstone if it might randomly pop up.

My question to the pro canonist people, do you really need canonist to win against TPS? It does have weak spots (mass artifact bounce)
How much weaker do you consider Believer than Canonist against TPS? Big enough to dismiss the additional benefits of believer?

@AmbivalentDuck
Interesting, but I have no idea
Did you test it to give some insight?

Guli, I understand what you're saying, but I think it is mis-informed and dated. Believer does nothing to stop Tinker-->Robot and that WILL be the plan against us games 2 and 3 most of the time. Also, as a long time TPS pilot I can tell you that I care very little about Null Rod as I usually side out 3 off-colored moxen for games 2 & 3. Null Rod is the least of my concerns. If I had both a resolved Null Rod and Believer staring me down I'd probably still be able to combo out and tutor up Chain for the Believer or just ignore the Believer and go for Inkwell Leviathan.

Believer also isn't really THAT good against Oath, even WITH the errata on the card as Oath now can simply go the Vault/Key route FIRST and then take infinite turns to win. Often Oath plays out a lot more like Tezzeret these days with a plan B that you just shut off. Whoopie-di Do! Granted that Believer + Null Rod against Oath should probably get there, either one, by itself will not.

I'm not saying Believer is a terrible card and it is certainly in my line-up of cards to test out, but I just find Canonist to be more over-all effective against TPS, Tezz, and even (though more equal with or worse than Believer) Oath at simply slowing down the game against a deck that is trying to do "broken" things. Canonist does this more effectively than any card I know because it costs 1W (rather than 2W for Rule Of Law or 2U for Arcane Lab) and beats for 2.

I hope this helps explain some of my best reasons for running the card.

-Storm

Points taken. Don't want to 'over-push' Believer anyway.

How often can you set up the canonist/counterwall against TPS in game 2-3? Is this the best way to fight Tinker and Bounce? Tell us about it. I am guessing MM also helps a lot when you sense they are going for tinker.

Would you see Knight of the Reliquary as a big enough body to put enough pressure so that they think twice before attacking with the Ink?

Is this the SB now btw?

3 Wheel of Sun and Moon
3 Pithing Needle
3 Ethersworn Canonist
2 Gilded Drake
2 Sower of Temptation
2 Swords to Plowshares

[Stormanimagus]

I agree with you that you can side it in in more match-ups, but I disagree that it is better against TPS than Canonist.

You disagree with something i did not say. But I ll take that position in this debate. No problem.

So using believer instead of canonist is weakening the TPS match up but strengthening the oath match up? How is your match against TPS when you pilot the deck?

Rebuild and Hurk's recall are pretty damn nasty if you fail to counter them. It removes null rod and canonist. Believer and null rod means they need to find 2 cards to deal with the situation and they can't play duress effects to remove your counter or stifle.

This deck does not let TPS play a solo game. I consider the TPS match up as a favorable one, if you can't do it with Daze, Force, Spell Pierce, Stifle, MM, Null Rod how WILL you do it? I didn't suggest believer to fight TPS but with a little adjustment in play style, having shroud can really help out.

BTW Believer also stops grindstone if it might randomly pop up.

My question to the pro canonist people, do you really need canonist to win against TPS? It does have weak spots (mass artifact bounce)
How much weaker do you consider Believer than Canonist against TPS? Big enough to dismiss the additional benefits of believer?

@AmbivalentDuck
Interesting, but I have no idea
Did you test it to give some insight?

Guli, I understand what you're saying, but I think it is mis-informed and dated. Believer does nothing to stop Tinker-->Robot and that WILL be the plan against us games 2 and 3 most of the time. Also, as a long time TPS pilot I can tell you that I care very little about Null Rod as I usually side out 3 off-colored moxen for games 2 & 3. Null Rod is the least of my concerns. If I had both a resolved Null Rod and Believer staring me down I'd probably still be able to combo out and tutor up Chain for the Believer or just ignore the Believer and go for Inkwell Leviathan.

Believer also isn't really THAT good against Oath, even WITH the errata on the card as Oath now can simply go the Vault/Key route FIRST and then take infinite turns to win. Often Oath plays out a lot more like Tezzeret these days with a plan B that you just shut off. Whoopie-di Do! Granted that Believer + Null Rod against Oath should probably get there, either one, by itself will not.

I'm not saying Believer is a terrible card and it is certainly in my line-up of cards to test out, but I just find Canonist to be more over-all effective against TPS, Tezz, and even (though more equal with or worse than Believer) Oath at simply slowing down the game against a deck that is trying to do "broken" things. Canonist does this more effectively than any card I know because it costs 1W (rather than 2W for Rule Of Law or 2U for Arcane Lab) and beats for 2.

I hope this helps explain some of my best reasons for running the card.

-Storm

Points taken. Don't want to 'over-push' Believer anyway.

How often can you set up the canonist/counterwall against TPS in game 2-3? Is this the best way to fight Tinker and Bounce? Tell us about it. I am guessing MM also helps a lot when you sense they are going for tinker.

Would you see Knight of the Reliquary as a big enough body to put enough pressure so that they think twice before attacking with the Ink?

Is this the SB now btw?

3 Wheel of Sun and Moon
3 Pithing Needle
3 Ethersworn Canonist
2 Gilded Drake
2 Sower of Temptation
2 Swords to Plowshares

Well, since I no longer run Trygon in the SB for Shops I'd rather keep the Needle count at 4. I think I need to test various iterations of Sower/Threads/STP/Gilded before I come to a final config but I think the proper number of total cards for Aggro/Fish match-up total is probably 5 or 6 so yeah, that looks ok.

I'm trying to think about what cards come out for those cards and how to minimize my dead cards post SB.

Against Beatz you obviously want to cut from the MD:

3 Spell Pierce
4 Null Rod (unless you suspect Jitte and then it's really a judgement call)

against Fish

4 Null Rod (same thing with Jitte as before)
1-2 Spell Pierce

Because of these cards being pretty much dead in that match-up and them adding to 4-7 cards I think the proper number of cards to bring in is between 5-6. You'll have the exact room you need for them.

exactly what 5-6 cards those should be I'm still not sure of.

As to the rest of the SB I really want to keep Needles at 4 because it is my best weapon against Stax and it is solid against Dredge when coupled with Wasteland and Stifle. Wheel could go down to 3 I think.

If we assume 5 cards (minimum for aggro) and 4 Needle + 3 Wheel then we have 12 cards right there.

Now I'll have to test the TPS match-up to see just how tough it is, but if my experience at my last tournament was any indicator it will be tough. I would then make those 3 slots Canonists or some other good TPS hate.

So here's what a possible SB would look like:

4 Needle
3 Wheel
3 Canonist
2 Sower
3 STP

[AmbivalentDuck]

Interesting, but I have no idea
Did you test it to give some insight?

It was solid years ago in Maher Oath  
I'm mostly suggesting it conceptually since it behaves similar to Mystic Remora except that it hits Ichorid and Oath activations.  Drawing 10 cards when Iona Oath goes off seems like ample opportunity to find an answer (ie both Mindbreak Trap and Faerie Macabre in hand).  And naturally it smokes Ichorid: you'll literally draw half your deck before they can kill you.

[RecklessEmbermage]

I'm curious to why the last few lists on this thread only include three selkies. Don't you want it reasonably early every game? Is it marginal in some match-ups? (do you side them out against non-blue aggro or stax?)

[Stormanimagus]

I'm curious to why the last few lists on this thread only include three selkies. Don't you want it reasonably early every game? Is it marginal in some match-ups? (do you side them out against non-blue aggro or stax?)

I've begun to see that they are mostly bad in multiples as you'll usually want to go at your opponent with Exalted with a Selkie and when the second one hits it won't make a huge difference as you'll be gaining 1 extra card a turn for the cost of 3 Mana. After the first one you want to be swinging with bigger fatties or with a single exalted Selkie to find more controllish cards like FoW, Null Rod and Counters.

That's what I've found to be true for now. I could be convinced to go back to 4.

[RecklessEmbermage]

I'm curious to why the last few lists on this thread only include three selkies. Don't you want it reasonably early every game? Is it marginal in some match-ups? (do you side them out against non-blue aggro or stax?)

I've begun to see that they are mostly bad in multiples as you'll usually want to go at your opponent with Exalted with a Selkie and when the second one hits it won't make a huge difference as you'll be gaining 1 extra card a turn for the cost of 3 Mana. After the first one you want to be swinging with bigger fatties or with a single exalted Selkie to find more controllish cards like FoW, Null Rod and Counters.

That's what I've found to be true for now. I could be convinced to go back to 4.

Ok.

As the deck is gaining fame, people should start considering selkie as yet another reason for playing more darkblasts and fire and ice. If this is happening in your meta (more removal in people's maindecks and sideboards), would that be a reason for playing more or less selkies?

I'm also curious to the 4 pithing needles against shops. Do shop decks always revolve around either welder or metalworker in your meta? Pithing needle wouldn't be particularly strong against white stax, for instance (stopping factorys and fetchlands, basically).