How to respond to the creature removal as beatdown

[Guli]

The rise of more creature usage in Vintage naturally prompted a bit more creature removal in most decks. I will try to list what I have seen:

- Fire/Ice and Lightning Bolt in Land-still variations
- Dismember in Control and Workshop (and others)
- Swords to plowshares and Path to Exile
- Red elemental Blast when you are on blue

Then there are some mass removal cards

- Engineered explosives seen in land still variations
- Pyroclasm in control/landstill
- Massacre, Perisj, Virtue's Ruin in combo, oath and control

Then there are the bounce spells

- Chain of Vapor
- Echoing truth
- Jace TMS
- Repeal

Also, on top all this there are the counter package that will hit you, Force of Will, Mana Drain, Mental Misstep and Spell Snare (2 drop bears).

So how is a beat down deck going to get through threats and keep them alive? Is this concern of mine viable? What are the options to counter this meta game as beat down without using the stack? I say this because it is hard to compete at the stack. Noble Fish designs have been doing oké by running their own counters and try to even the odds but what about those who choose not to run a lot counters and more threats? I checked recent top 8 on morphling.de and noticed that there are beat down decks making it top 8 without the use of counters just as there are the classical noble fish with Force of Will and so on.
 
For all the pilots who like to run a 'counterless' fish deck with lots of answers in the form of creatures, do you think it is necessary to run hate for the removal itself? Or is the answer just the opposite, run more threats instead put a lot of pressure?

I have been taunted by this theme for a while now and would like to hear what this community thinks of it.


Thanks.

[Ten-Ten]

I was thinking about this for a while also. Especialy since Thalia.
The question has no simple answer, as it depends on what creatures you are running, how disruptive they can be and what you face.

Christmas beatings for example, doesn't run many counters but doesn't need them since it can either bounce or destroy whatever permanent troubles them.
Not only that but Magus of the moon and wasteland disrupts also, making it quite difficult for them to hate your critters out....unless you're facing another creature deck. Which in that case you pack creature hate in sb: Pyrokenesis.


I think more threats is better than trying to compete on the stack, especially now with flusterstorms and mindbreak trap. The way I see it is if you pack more and more counters in your creature deck, the more you slow yourself down. That's why your creatures should already be as disruptive as possible. Plus I like to run critters with shroud/hexproof when possible if going the beats route.  

-If there are alot of Engineered explosives/Jace,tms/Repeal around, use Phyrexian revoker/Pithing needle, Gaddock.
-Burn keeping you down? Arm yourself with Sword of fire and ice, sword of war and peace. or play Plaxmanta/Troll Ascetic.
-Blurred mongoose in the right deck could be a beating against counters and removal.
-Geist of Saint Traft is also a huge threat that if not countered can be difficult for your opponent to answer.

In a meta with lots of creatures, if I were to run creatures myself, and had the Swords/Stoneforge mystic, I would go for a build around Stoneforge mystic and aether vial....
As of right now though, I favor Bomberman. A Balance of control, creatures and removal

[credmond]

Teeg is a pre-emptive answer to a lot of the answers decks bring to creature-based decks.

Using Probe combined with Meddling Mage or Meddling Mage effect cards is another option.

I think creature decks need a backup victory plan though if they are going to be able to put up consistent top 8 numbers. A board sweeper is just too effective otherwise. Dark times puts up some top 8s since it has a "tinker" plan that can end the game very quickly if unanswered.

Does Stone Forge Mystic give a strong enough back up plan with Batterskull or Elbrus or should creature decks look at some other supplemental strategy (sylvan library? Land Tax + Mox Diamond + Scroll Rack? Bazaar + squee for draw engine? Fauna shaman or survival for silver bullet dudes? Edric or Heartwood Storyteller for burying in card advantage? Vial or Skull Clamp for cheap shenanigans?) As it is, the best creatures decks seem to still be fish decks packing counters as universal answers with a strong mana denial package and Dark Times with its heavy hand and mana disruption and more importantly, a combo win. I am hoping a new creature deck will emerge (like White Trash) as viable and competitive with Cage in the meta.

[nineisnoone]

I think more threats is better than trying to compete on the stack, especially now with flusterstorms and mindbreak trap. The way I see it is if you pack more and more counters in your creature deck, the more you slow yourself down. That's why your creatures should already be as disruptive as possible. Plus I like to run critters with shroud/hexproof when possible if going the beats route.

I've always been a strong proponent of more threats rather than counters or answers (to answers as opposed to threats). If you drop a 2 drop that is a must counter, then even if it is countered, it is effectively the same thing as a reactive counter spell. I.e. it just trades with the counter. Threats are better than counters in this regard, because if they draw a blank you get to punish them for it by playing a threat. And really when you think about it, 2 mana to make the opponent discard 2 cards one of them is Force of Will and the other is blue? That's not bad at all. Plus a point of damage to boot!

The question of whether to run counters has nothing to do with answering hate cards (generally at least, I suppose there are cases where it makes sense). It has to do with answering their threats, not answering their answers.  Whether or not you are playing your threats or addressing there threats is a question of design philosophy.

Noble Fish plays counters, not necessarily to protect their cards (though certainly it can play out this way), but because they have a draw engine (selkie) and additional mana (noble). This leverages them out as being strong in the later game, this means that it makes more sense for them to be less committal upfront so as to set-up their mid-game, and hence hold onto reactive cards like counters.

GW (or any hate bears deck) doesn't play counters, not because ideally they wouldn't like them, but because they do not have as strong a late game. This mean strategically they have to be committal upfront. While counters theoretically sound nice, if they opponent doesn't have a strong play, then you have essentially just given them a free turn. This is because you can't really get a "for value" play out of a counter spell, without the opponent providing you an opportunity to do so. Force of Will on Tinker is great. Force of Will on Grey Ogre is terrible. This means you want to play threat, because they are (in theory) game state independent. Or at least, should be assuming you accurately predicted the metagame.

The reason why counter-style decks have generally been more preferred is because of turn 0 interaction.

[bluemage55]

What nineisnoone said.

A large volume of efficient threats is the best way to overwhelm an opponent playing control.  When an aggro deck plays counters, they are meant to stop broken plays and combing off; using them to stop the opponent's removal is strictly subpar compared to throwing down another threat.

[Onslaught]

Trygon Predator was already extremely well positioned in the metagame, and now he gains even more value as a blocker. Save your Doom Blades or whatever for Tarm and Trygon can wall most other Fishy kind of stuff.

[bax]

I've always been a strong proponent of more threats rather than counters or answers (to answers as opposed to threats). If you drop a 2 drop that is a must counter, then even if it is countered, it is effectively the same thing as a reactive counter spell. I.e. it just trades with the counter. Threats are better than counters in this regard, because if they draw a blank you get to punish them for it by playing a threat. And really when you think about it, 2 mana to make the opponent discard 2 cards one of them is Force of Will and the other is blue? That's not bad at all. Plus a point of damage to boot!

The question of whether to run counters has nothing to do with answering hate cards (generally at least, I suppose there are cases where it makes sense). It has to do with answering their threats, not answering their answers.  Whether or not you are playing your threats or addressing there threats is a question of design philosophy.

Noble Fish plays counters, not necessarily to protect their cards (though certainly it can play out this way), but because they have a draw engine (selkie) and additional mana (noble). This leverages them out as being strong in the later game, this means that it makes more sense for them to be less committal upfront so as to set-up their mid-game, and hence hold onto reactive cards like counters.

GW (or any hate bears deck) doesn't play counters, not because ideally they wouldn't like them, but because they do not have as strong a late game. This mean strategically they have to be committal upfront. While counters theoretically sound nice, if they opponent doesn't have a strong play, then you have essentially just given them a free turn. This is because you can't really get a "for value" play out of a counter spell, without the opponent providing you an opportunity to do so. Force of Will on Tinker is great. Force of Will on Grey Ogre is terrible. This means you want to play threat, because they are (in theory) game state independent. Or at least, should be assuming you accurately predicted the metagame.

The reason why counter-style decks have generally been more preferred is because of turn 0 interaction.

I have been succesfully playing GW Bears for quite some time now and i found out that what actually say here above is valid when you play agains "bad" control pilots. The "good" control pilots will not waste a FoW on a "Grey Ogre", but will often play around your hate bears and will counter the ones that get in between them & their winning strategy.

Typically when a GW pilot is up against control tend to have one of the two following strategies:
1. Drop the most locking piece asap. In this case if the opponent has counter you probably lose, if he doesn't you might be able to win thanks to this lock piece. I do not favor this line of play as the luck factor is way too big and i am not a lucky player!
2. Drop a number of minor bears (for that matchup) in order to find your oppo without active counter when you go and drop that Gaddock or other big bear (such as Aven EOT to make sure the oppo uses that FoW you think he has and then drop choke in your turn undisturbed). This is in my mind the best way to play. The bad new is that when you are up against a good control pilot he will not counter the Aven EoT - unless he dies from it next turn - and your choke will not enter ..

For the very same reason i really think that Vexing Shusher in any green deck without counters is a must have. It allows the GW pilot to play threats in the right order without having to sacrifice threats to lure counterspells.

On the original subject of creature removals. The only ones really to fear are mass removal. Pernicious deed, EE, Pyroclasm. And how plays them in Vintage anyway other than the 1 off in some sidebaord ?

[Grand Inquisitor]

A large volume of efficient threats is the best way to overwhelm an opponent playing control.  When an aggro deck plays counters, they are meant to stop broken plays and combing off; using them to stop the opponent's removal is strictly subpar compared to throwing down another threat.

Or even briefer: tempo.  If you get your Vintage opponent to play Legacy, you've won.

...unless you are talking about sweepers and then Teeg is really the only efficient option out there.

[vaughnbros]

Most of you seem to think that you need to play more threats to answer removal, but I disagree.  Lock pieces, counter magic, and card advantage are extremely important in overcoming removal.  Especially when we are talking about blowout cards like pyroclasm, engineered explosives, and tinker.

In decks with blue there is no reason to not run a number of free counterspells, being able to tap down for a threat and still have ways to answer to their bomb spells is huge, and if you expect to stop a card like tinker your going to have to compete with them on the stack at some point my as well be proactive about it.  

In non blue decks i think you really need to rely on your lock pieces, those cards that you can play that say your opponent cant play his.  Things like aven mindcensor, gaddock teeg, and magus of the moon are great but you can only run so many copies of each and they are not particularly good when you are drawing and resolving multiples.  Cards like null rod, chalice of the void, and now grafdigger's cage are huge and can literally lock your opponent out of the game even if their hand is loaded with removal.  It forces your opponent to keep their artifact hate in the main deck not allowing them to focus their attention to only your creatures.  

I can not stress how important card advantage is in vintage.  Your deck needs to be nearly perfectly tuned for a particular meta game in order to have success without it otherwise you won't see the cards you need in important situations.  If I have access in my colors to a strong tutor or draw ability i am automatically playing it.  So in GW which is what most of you seem to be playing id definitely be playing at least 2 if not 3 or 4 selkies.

[bluemage55]

Most of you seem to think that you need to play more threats to answer removal, but I disagree.  Lock pieces, counter magic, and card advantage are extremely important in overcoming removal.

I don’t think you know what a threat is.

Threats aren't limited to damage; lock pieces and card advantage such as Null Rod, Trygon Predator, or Bob are major threats just as Goyf is.

Especially when we are talking about blowout cards like pyroclasm, engineered explosives, and tinker.

As mentioned, counters are there to stop broken plays.  Still, having efficient threats for an aggro deck implies making it difficult for a control deck to simply answer with mass removal; for example, Bob forces opponent to answer immediately rather than hold back mass removal, Null Rod shuts down artifacts and constricts the opponent's mana (especially in conjunction with Waste/Strip), Mindcensor denies Tinker, etc.

In decks with blue there is no reason to not run a number of free counterspells, being able to tap down for a threat and still have ways to answer to their bomb spells is huge, and if you expect to stop a card like tinker your going to have to compete with them on the stack at some point my as well be proactive about it. 

Dude, no one’s suggesting taking out FoW or Daze.  The point being made is that an aggro deck doesn't want to deal with an increased presence of mass removal by becoming a control deck.

[nineisnoone]

I've always been a strong proponent of more threats rather than counters or answers (to answers as opposed to threats). If you drop a 2 drop that is a must counter, then even if it is countered, it is effectively the same thing as a reactive counter spell. I.e. it just trades with the counter. Threats are better than counters in this regard, because if they draw a blank you get to punish them for it by playing a threat. And really when you think about it, 2 mana to make the opponent discard 2 cards one of them is Force of Will and the other is blue? That's not bad at all. Plus a point of damage to boot!

The question of whether to run counters has nothing to do with answering hate cards (generally at least, I suppose there are cases where it makes sense). It has to do with answering their threats, not answering their answers.  Whether or not you are playing your threats or addressing there threats is a question of design philosophy.

Noble Fish plays counters, not necessarily to protect their cards (though certainly it can play out this way), but because they have a draw engine (selkie) and additional mana (noble). This leverages them out as being strong in the later game, this means that it makes more sense for them to be less committal upfront so as to set-up their mid-game, and hence hold onto reactive cards like counters.

GW (or any hate bears deck) doesn't play counters, not because ideally they wouldn't like them, but because they do not have as strong a late game. This mean strategically they have to be committal upfront. While counters theoretically sound nice, if they opponent doesn't have a strong play, then you have essentially just given them a free turn. This is because you can't really get a "for value" play out of a counter spell, without the opponent providing you an opportunity to do so. Force of Will on Tinker is great. Force of Will on Grey Ogre is terrible. This means you want to play threat, because they are (in theory) game state independent. Or at least, should be assuming you accurately predicted the metagame.

The reason why counter-style decks have generally been more preferred is because of turn 0 interaction.

I have been succesfully playing GW Bears for quite some time now and i found out that what actually say here above is valid when you play agains "bad" control pilots. The "good" control pilots will not waste a FoW on a "Grey Ogre", but will often play around your hate bears and will counter the ones that get in between them & their winning strategy.

Typically when a GW pilot is up against control tend to have one of the two following strategies:
1. Drop the most locking piece asap. In this case if the opponent has counter you probably lose, if he doesn't you might be able to win thanks to this lock piece. I do not favor this line of play as the luck factor is way too big and i am not a lucky player!
2. Drop a number of minor bears (for that matchup) in order to find your oppo without active counter when you go and drop that Gaddock or other big bear (such as Aven EOT to make sure the oppo uses that FoW you think he has and then drop choke in your turn undisturbed). This is in my mind the best way to play. The bad new is that when you are up against a good control pilot he will not counter the Aven EoT - unless he dies from it next turn - and your choke will not enter ..

For the very same reason i really think that Vexing Shusher in any green deck without counters is a must have. It allows the GW pilot to play threats in the right order without having to sacrifice threats to lure counterspells.

On the original subject of creature removals. The only ones really to fear are mass removal. Pernicious deed, EE, Pyroclasm. And how plays them in Vintage anyway other than the 1 off in some sidebaord ?

Emphasis mine. It's pretty obvious I'm making an exaggeration to illustrate a point, which isn't really even the one you really follow up on.

But yes, you can play around counter spells. Hell, you can play around removal too (mass or otherwise). But that's just magic strategy whether in Vintage or in Block, so I just left it unsaid.

My main problem with Shusher is that he gets in the way of "play threats in the right order" because he has to be played first. (I actually tested out Leyline of the Lifeforce as an alternative). Overall, he's okay, but not a must have. However, I've recently seen Chalice + Shusher which does look really really good.

[vaughnbros]

Most of you seem to think that you need to play more threats to answer removal, but I disagree.  Lock pieces, counter magic, and card advantage are extremely important in overcoming removal.

I don’t think you know what a threat is.

Threats aren't limited to damage; lock pieces and card advantage such as Null Rod, Trygon Predator, or Bob are major threats just as Goyf is.

This is an insanely broad definition of threat, if we are considering null rod a threat.  Literally any deck not running blue would be considered being just threats and mana sources with that definition.  So by saying running more threats in a non blue fish deck you would be saying cut mana for more dudes?

And there are certainly varying degrees of threats.  To call trygon and bob the same threat level as a goyf is just not right.

When i see the word threat when pertaining to beat down decks i see increased clock speed.

Especially when we are talking about blowout cards like pyroclasm, engineered explosives, and tinker.

As mentioned, counters are there to stop broken plays.  Still, having efficient threats for an aggro deck implies making it difficult for a control deck to simply answer with mass removal; for example, Bob forces opponent to answer immediately rather than hold back mass removal, Null Rod shuts down artifacts and constricts the opponent's mana (especially in conjunction with Waste/Strip), Mindcensor denies Tinker, etc.

You definitely misquoted me on this one and you are agreeing with me.  Mindcensor and null rod = lock pieces.  Bob = card advantage.

In decks with blue there is no reason to not run a number of free counterspells, being able to tap down for a threat and still have ways to answer to their bomb spells is huge, and if you expect to stop a card like tinker your going to have to compete with them on the stack at some point my as well be proactive about it. 

Dude, no one’s suggesting taking out FoW or Daze.  The point being made is that an aggro deck doesn't want to deal with an increased presence of mass removal by becoming a control deck.

I have definitely read a few comments in here saying you can't compete on the stack and I have seen fish decklists that are blue without force or daze, but there is also mental misstep, misdirection, and mindbreak trap which would qualify as free counters.  I thought i would just mention my opinion on that matter.

My main problem with Shusher is that he gets in the way of "play threats in the right order" because he has to be played first. (I actually tested out Leyline of the Lifeforce as an alternative). Overall, he's okay, but not a must have. However, I've recently seen Chalice + Shusher which does look really really good.

Agreed Shusher is only good with chalice of the void.  My major problem with him differs from urs though I dont like how he costs double colored mana as well as almost requires you to pay an extra mana for all of your spells.

[Delha]

Most of you seem to think that you need to play more threats to answer removal, but I disagree.  Lock pieces, counter magic, and card advantage are extremely important in overcoming removal.

I don’t think you know what a threat is.

Threats aren't limited to damage; lock pieces and card advantage such as Null Rod, Trygon Predator, or Bob are major threats just as Goyf is.

This is an insanely broad definition of threat, if we are considering null rod a threat.  Literally any deck not running blue would be considered being just threats and mana sources with that definition.  So by saying running more threats in a non blue fish deck you would be saying cut mana for more dudes?

And there are certainly varying degrees of threats.  To call trygon and bob the same threat level as a goyf is just not right.

When i see the word threat when pertaining to beat down decks i see increased clock speed.

I think you're misunderstanding the claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think the claim is that anything that can be relevant to the game in any way, however minor, is a threat. The reason those lock parts are being considered threats is because they have a powerful impact on the game. For instance, do you consider sphere effects to be threats? If you don't consider them to be threats, how exactly do you describe MUD as a deck?

[bax]

Agreed Shusher is only good with chalice of the void.  My major problem with him differs from urs though I dont like how he costs double colored mana as well as almost requires you to pay an extra mana for all of your spells.

Apologies but if you trade one of your mana (to activate Shusher) for card advantage (by neutralizing your opponent counterspells) PLUS board advantage (by landing a bear/threat) you are coming off the trade with a very good deal !

My main problem with Shusher is that he gets in the way of "play threats in the right order" because he has to be played first. (I actually tested out Leyline of the Lifeforce as an alternative). Overall, he's okay, but not a must have. However, I've recently seen Chalice + Shusher which does look really really good.

Now this makes more sense and it is true is lows you down by one turn, on the other hand is supposed to be a sideboard card vs control deck which for me are the hardest match-up (pre-Grafdigger's Cage). I have not tested Cage that much to see if it makes the shuser plan obsolete or not yet ...

[vaughnbros]

Most of you seem to think that you need to play more threats to answer removal, but I disagree.  Lock pieces, counter magic, and card advantage are extremely important in overcoming removal.

I don’t think you know what a threat is.

Threats aren't limited to damage; lock pieces and card advantage such as Null Rod, Trygon Predator, or Bob are major threats just as Goyf is.

This is an insanely broad definition of threat, if we are considering null rod a threat.  Literally any deck not running blue would be considered being just threats and mana sources with that definition.  So by saying running more threats in a non blue fish deck you would be saying cut mana for more dudes?

And there are certainly varying degrees of threats.  To call trygon and bob the same threat level as a goyf is just not right.

When i see the word threat when pertaining to beat down decks i see increased clock speed.

I think you're misunderstanding the claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think the claim is that anything that can be relevant to the game in any way, however minor, is a threat. The reason those lock parts are being considered threats is because they have a powerful impact on the game. For instance, do you consider sphere effects to be threats? If you don't consider them to be threats, how exactly do you describe MUD as a deck?

So you are saying specifically that a threat is a card that has a powerful impact on the game.  If so I do not like that definion.  What quantifies how much effect 1 card is having more than another?  A card that we would probably both agree is not a threat Preordain could pop 2 lands on the bottom of your deck and replace itself which can have a huge impact on the game hence making it a threat by your definition.

Im saying Threat = Something that needs to be answered, either by killing it or with a greater threat or more specifically in a deck like fish its a creature

By this definition a sphere is not a threat unless your playing storm combo.  MUD depending on the version has varying amounts of threats, like slash panther, lock pieces, like spheres, and cards that count as both, lodestone golem.

[Delha]

So you are saying specifically that a threat is a card that has a powerful impact on the game.  If so I do not like that definion.  What quantifies how much effect 1 card is having more than another?  A card that we would probably both agree is not a threat Preordain could pop 2 lands on the bottom of your deck and replace itself which can have a huge impact on the game hence making it a threat by your definition.

Yes. The answer to your objection is simple: Context. Nothing is a threat against everybody. Dredge really doesn't care if you've resolved Hurkyll's, just like MUD really doesn't care if you're landing Leylines. Each card is a thread against the right deck, worthless against the wrong one, and somewhere in between against others.

Im saying Threat = Something that needs to be answered, either by killing it or with a greater threat or more specifically in a deck like fish its a creature

I'd agree with you halfway. The definition you put forth is fine, but it doesn't follow that nothing in a fish deck matters except for the creatures. If your opponent just resolved on half of Vault/Key and Seal, then casting Null Rod is a huge threat, whereas casting Goyf is pointless.

By this definition a sphere is not a threat unless your playing storm combo.  MUD depending on the version has varying amounts of threats, like slash panther, lock pieces, like spheres, and cards that count as both, lodestone golem.

Lock pieces ARE threats. Spheres significantly impact every deck in the game. If I go Lotus, Strip -> Crucible, are you seriously telling me that Crucible isn't a threat? If your opponent goes T1 Shop -> Trinisphere, can you honestly claim that doesn't affect your gameplan as a beatdown deck?

[Guli]

A large volume of efficient threats is the best way to overwhelm an opponent playing control.  When an aggro deck plays counters, they are meant to stop broken plays and combing off; using them to stop the opponent's removal is strictly subpar compared to throwing down another threat.

Or even briefer: tempo.  If you get your Vintage opponent to play Legacy, you've won.

This has been my recent approach. I really like how you have formulated it.

So there is a necessity to achieve a consensus on defining what a threat is, i hear. This is good, we first have to agree that we are talking about the same terms and concepts. Still, say we have a good working definition of 'what a threat is'... How will we keep those threats alive and kicking? What point does it have when you are seeing your stuff countered, bolted, fire/iced and bolted again with Snapcaster Mage. Then you are in top-deck mode recasting the only threat you have left against say Jace and Snap mage.

[bluemage55]

This is an insanely broad definition of threat, if we are considering null rod a threat.  Literally any deck not running blue would be considered being just threats and mana sources with that definition.  So by saying running more threats in a non blue fish deck you would be saying cut mana for more dudes?

That's not true.  Non-blue decks also run disruption (e.g. Duress, Cabal Therapy), card drawing/filtering (e.g. Skullclamp, Glimpse of Nature) and removal (e.g. StP, Nature's Claim).

And there are certainly varying degrees of threats.  To call trygon and bob the same threat level as a goyf is just not right.

They're threats for different reasons.  Goyf and Slash Panthers threaten you with fast clocks.  Bob and Ninja of the Deep Hours threaten to bury you under card advantage.  Trygon threatens to wipe your board if you are playing Shop.

When i see the word threat when pertaining to beat down decks i see increased clock speed.

Increased clock speeds are only one way of threatening the opponent.  I don’t think anyone would disagree that Jace or Trinisphere are huge threats that must usually be answered.

Mindcensor and null rod = lock pieces.  Bob = card advantage.

A lock piece is a threat.  Lock pieces threaten to lock you out of the game.

Certain types of card advantage, such as Bob, are threats because they need to be answered or will bury you out of the game (compare TfK, which is CA but not a threat, or Ancestral which is a CA/bomb, but not a threat).

[bluemage55]

How will we keep those threats alive and kicking? What point does it have when you are seeing your stuff countered, bolted, fire/iced and bolted again with Snapcaster Mage. Then you are in top-deck mode recasting the only threat you have left against say Jace and Snap mage.

The key is to use threats that aren't easily answered efficiently.  For example, Shop uses Lodestone Golems as threats not only because they provide fast clocks, but because the sphere effect inherently makes answering more difficult.  Similarly, Bob forces an immediate answer or will at least replace himself, Trygon forces an immediate answer or often takes out at least a Mox with him, Quasali Pridemage can often trade 1 for 2 if the opponent tries to answer, Goyf is often fat enough that some answers don't work, Meddling Mage can flat-out deny an answer, Mindcensor disrupts the opponent and makes it diffcult to answer, creatures with evasion can't be easily answered with blockers, etc.

Secondarily, the key is also to disrupt the opponent's mana base enough that they can't easily assemble high-cost +CA answers.  The Rod x4/Waste x4/Strip package is crucial to this, which is why I always face-palm when I see an aggro list that skimps on these.

By abusing efficient threats and tempo, you put control players in the nightmarish position where they have to consistently make 1-for-2s and 1-for-1s simply to survive.  Once the control player is pitching cards to FoW, digging for mana just to cast their spells, trading a mox+removal spell to deal with Quasali, casting Snapcaster without flashbacking anything just to chump/trade, etc., then you're in control of the game.

[nineisnoone]

How will we keep those threats alive and kicking? What point does it have when you are seeing your stuff countered, bolted, fire/iced and bolted again with Snapcaster Mage. Then you are in top-deck mode recasting the only threat you have left against say Jace and Snap mage.

The key is to use threats that aren't easily answered efficiently.  For example, Shop uses Lodestone Golems as threats not only because they provide fast clocks, but because the sphere effect inherently makes answering more difficult.  Similarly, Bob forces an immediate answer or will at least replace himself, Trygon forces an immediate answer or often takes out at least a Mox with him, Quasali Pridemage can often trade 1 for 2 if the opponent tries to answer, Goyf is often fat enough that some answers don't work, Meddling Mage can flat-out deny an answer, Mindcensor disrupts the opponent and makes it diffcult to answer, creatures with evasion can't be easily answered with blockers, etc.

Secondarily, the key is also to disrupt the opponent's mana base enough that they can't easily assemble high-cost +CA answers.  The Rod x4/Waste x4/Strip package is crucial to this, which is why I always face-palm when I see an aggro list that skimps on these.

By abusing efficient threats and tempo, you put control players in the nightmarish position where they have to consistently make 1-for-2s and 1-for-1s simply to survive.  Once the control player is pitching cards to FoW, digging for mana just to cast their spells, trading a mox+removal spell to deal with Quasali, casting Snapcaster without flashbacking anything just to chump/trade, etc., then you're in control of the game.

I don't necessarily agree that Rod/Waste/Strip is "crucial", it's quite good, but you can be viable without them. But the basic idea is to be proactive. Recurring Snapcaster is slow to set up and play. And if it was fast, then the answer isn't "let's make the deck win versus this strategy", the answer is "let's play a new deck."

[Guli]

How will we keep those threats alive and kicking? What point does it have when you are seeing your stuff countered, bolted, fire/iced and bolted again with Snapcaster Mage. Then you are in top-deck mode recasting the only threat you have left against say Jace and Snap mage.

The key is to use threats that aren't easily answered efficiently.  For example, Shop uses Lodestone Golems as threats not only because they provide fast clocks, but because the sphere effect inherently makes answering more difficult.  Similarly, Bob forces an immediate answer or will at least replace himself, Trygon forces an immediate answer or often takes out at least a Mox with him, Quasali Pridemage can often trade 1 for 2 if the opponent tries to answer, Goyf is often fat enough that some answers don't work, Meddling Mage can flat-out deny an answer, Mindcensor disrupts the opponent and makes it diffcult to answer, creatures with evasion can't be easily answered with blockers, etc.

Secondarily, the key is also to disrupt the opponent's mana base enough that they can't easily assemble high-cost +CA answers.  The Rod x4/Waste x4/Strip package is crucial to this, which is why I always face-palm when I see an aggro list that skimps on these.

By abusing efficient threats and tempo, you put control players in the nightmarish position where they have to consistently make 1-for-2s and 1-for-1s simply to survive.  Once the control player is pitching cards to FoW, digging for mana just to cast their spells, trading a mox+removal spell to deal with Quasali, casting Snapcaster without flashbacking anything just to chump/trade, etc., then you're in control of the game.

I don't necessarily agree that Rod/Waste/Strip is "crucial", it's quite good, but you can be viable without them. But the basic idea is to be proactive. Recurring Snapcaster is slow to set up and play. And if it was fast, then the answer isn't "let's make the deck win versus this strategy", the answer is "let's play a new deck."

So, in a beatdown deck without counters, what creatures would you play and which form of acceleration and non-creature disruption to counter the snapcaster setup. We will discuss the other removal methods but let's do this step by step.

[bluemage55]

So, in a beatdown deck without counters, what creatures would you play and which form of acceleration and non-creature disruption to counter the snapcaster setup. We will discuss the other removal methods but let's do this step by step.

If you are specifically looking to deal with Snapcaster, the hard counter is probably Ethersworn Canonist. Besides it's obvious purpose in rendering Snapcaster a mere 2/1 body with flash, it's effect is also asymmetric since one spell per turn slows down combo/control far more than it does aggro.  Canonist also hates on Gush and Ritual decks (though the latter is less common these days).

In terms of more general solutions to Snapcaster that are less narrow, Snapcaster's other weakness is that it requires adequate mana to use effectively.  Rod/Waste/Strip capitalizes on this in addition to its universal utility.  Since it takes time to develop the mana needed to take advantage of Snapcaster, especially under hate, that slow time can be capitalized on by pressure from key threats like Bob (by piling on cards while the control deck gears up) and Goyf (by piling on damage while the control deck gears up; Goyf also benefits from not getting traded to Snapcaster).

[vaughnbros]

So, in a beatdown deck without counters, what creatures would you play and which form of acceleration and non-creature disruption to counter the snapcaster setup. We will discuss the other removal methods but let's do this step by step.

If you are specifically looking to deal with Snapcaster, the hard counter is probably Ethersworn Canonist. Besides it's obvious purpose in rendering Snapcaster a mere 2/1 body with flash, it's effect is also asymmetric since one spell per turn slows down combo/control far more than it does aggro.  Canonist also hates on Gush and Ritual decks (though the latter is less common these days).

In terms of more general solutions to Snapcaster that are less narrow, Snapcaster's other weakness is that it requires adequate mana to use effectively.  Rod/Waste/Strip capitalizes on this in addition to its universal utility, and Snapcaster is also particularly vulnerable to Thalia/Glowrider since it increases the cost of Snapcaster+flashbacked spell by 2.  Since it takes time to develop the mana needed to take advantage of Snapcaster, especially under hate, that slow time can be capitalized on by pressure from key threats like Bob (by piling on cards while the control deck gears up) and Goyf (by piling on damage while the control deck gears up; Goyf also benefits from not getting traded to Snapcaster).

So your best answer to snapcaster is one which dies to it being flashed in as a blocker? If your looking for an answer for snapcaster it certainly should be better than 1 for 1.  I would suggest scavenging ooze if your looking for a card to just completely destroy him.  Otherwise i can't think of any playable cards that both beat his 2/1 body and the CA he provides.  Although white Thalia is probably the best answer.  Red id had to go with a blood moon effect, makes it difficult to get double blue to flashback, and a pinger.  Black you can play bob and obviously just don't attack with him when they have mana up and u dont have a kill spell.  Blue idk if theres anything other than himself to counteract him.

Snapcaster is a creature so thalia/glowrider only make you pay 1 more for him and his flash backed spell.

Of course there is also grafdigger's cage which i think all beat down decks should be playing at this point which turns him into just a 2/1 flash.

[forests failed you]

I have a strong intuition that the key to solving this format is to play more Jace, the Mindsculpter in one's creature decks.  If you have Jace it doesn't matter if they can remove your guys, because you have Jace...  Also, Mystic Remora is a pretty solid way to protect one's guys from removal, since you'll be getting further ahead on resources every time they try and pick off one of your pieces.

[Guli]

I have a strong intuition that the key to solving this format is to play more Jace, the Mindsculpter in one's creature decks.  If you have Jace it doesn't matter if they can remove your guys, because you have Jace...  Also, Mystic Remora is a pretty solid way to protect one's guys from removal, since you'll be getting further ahead on resources every time they try and pick off one of your pieces.

Yes but this is off topic

[LordHomerCat]

I have a strong intuition that the key to solving this format is to play more Jace, the Mindsculpter in one's creature decks.  If you have Jace it doesn't matter if they can remove your guys, because you have Jace...  Also, Mystic Remora is a pretty solid way to protect one's guys from removal, since you'll be getting further ahead on resources every time they try and pick off one of your pieces.

Yes but this is off topic

Wat.

Brian: This is how I feel you can deal with creature removal in a beatdown deck

Guli: Your direct answer to the question posed in this thread is off topic.

[Mith]

Backing up your creatures with Remora is almost always an excellent play. It forces your opponent to deal with the threats and allows you to get ahead quickly. While I love Jace as much as the next guy, Remora fits so well with a beatdown plan.

[Diakonov]

I think the Jace plan would make the most sense if you're running a version of aggro that has lots of defensive spells.  If you've been steadily dropping creatures, you would hope that the initial brainstorm off Jace would be effective immediately.  On the following turn it would smooth out the balance between threats and defense in your hand (also you can send back extra Null Rods, Thalias, etc.).

Remora would be fantastic with aggro, except that keeping on the pressure while maintaining Remora's upkeep without Moxen is difficult.

[Guli]

I have a strong intuition that the key to solving this format is to play more Jace, the Mindsculpter in one's creature decks.  If you have Jace it doesn't matter if they can remove your guys, because you have Jace...  Also, Mystic Remora is a pretty solid way to protect one's guys from removal, since you'll be getting further ahead on resources every time they try and pick off one of your pieces.

Yes but this is off topic

Wat.

Brian: This is how I feel you can deal with creature removal in a beatdown deck

Guli: Your direct answer to the question posed in this thread is off topic.

Remora and Jace require blue. I was hoping to get some discussion going on beatdown decks that don't run blue, such as GW beats for example. With Blue you can go for a counter package and compete on the stack.

[bluemage55]

So your best answer to snapcaster is one which dies to it being flashed in as a blocker? If your looking for an answer for snapcaster it certainly should be better than 1 for 1.

It's not a true 1 for 1.  Cannonist provides benefits before the opponent trades Snapcaster to it, and forcing the opponent to play Snapcaster for no CA is actually a net gain considering that it is normally +1 CA.  You wouldn't consider countering Ancestral or Yawg to be a true 1 for 1 either, would you?

I would suggest scavenging ooze if your looking for a card to just completely destroy him.  Otherwise i can't think of any playable cards that both beat his 2/1 body and the CA he provides.

Except that Scavenging Ooze is marginal hate (Jotun Grunt is probably better since it doesn't suck mana), doesn't synergize with Goyf, and it doesn't really completely destroy him, since the opponent simply won't block Ooze.  He'll just trade Snapcaster off against one of your other bears instead.  Unless you're suggesting building an entire deck out of creatures that duck or survive Snapcaster (and hideously limiting our good options), deactivating Snapcaster and forcing a trade while the opponent is being slowed down and eating beats to the face is fine.

Red id had to go with a blood moon effect, makes it difficult to get double blue to flashback, and a pinger.

Good point.  Magus of the Moon is a strong option if running red.

Black you can play bob and obviously just don't attack with him when they have mana up and u dont have a kill spell.

Again, you’d rather just keep beating.  Bob will have at least replaced himself already before attacking, and you’d rather keep up the pressure and force the opponent to trade Snapcaster off with Bob before he can afford to flashback anything.

Blue idk if theres anything other than himself to counteract him.

Ninja of the Deep Hours is fine. Again, it will have at least replaced itself and forces the opponent to deploy Snapcaster earlier than preferred.

Snapcaster is a creature so thalia/glowrider only make you pay 1 more for him and his flash backed spell.

My mistake. I’ll edit that out.

Of course there is also grafdigger's cage which i think all beat down decks should be playing at this point which turns him into just a 2/1 flash.

By your own logic at the beginning of your post, Cage is a 1 for 0.  Cage might be decent hate against Dredge or Oath, but it will typically simply put you down a card during the crucial first few turns against control.  Sure, it shuts off Tinker-> bot, Yawg, and reduces Snapcaster to a 1-for-1, but that’s easy to play around and it applies no pressure.