Human Ingenuity

[vaughnbros]

Sin collector/exava/anceint grudge/stoneforge/mayor are all great in the situations where they are good so an argument can certainly be made for them, but by creating an argument where you are saying Xarthid isn't good because each of these cards is better in a specific situation is only gives more proof to the value of the card.  More specifically you need a card that is powerful that is tailor made for its niche match up in order to be better than him.  Your deck building style is very similar to the one I used to use when I first entered vintage, run singletons that just destroy one match up, but the issue with this is consistancy.  Drawing cards like sin collector/exava against shops, that ancient grudge against bomberman, and stoneforge against bomberman can be major liabilities.  Just look at a deck like bomberman.  Trinket mage isn't stellar in any match up, but its always relevant.  Its what makes the card such a powerhouse.  As you play more I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion that I have that a card being consistantly better than average is the more important than a card that is dead sometime and absolutely bonkers other times.  If you like the higher variance options then I agree xarthid is not the card for you.

Braids, Cabal Minion is the smokestack for Humans. Maybe time to put it at use?

I absolutely love this idea.  The deck is already running Thalia, wasteland, man lands, and thorns.  I think xarthid/braids lets it take a step further into the direction of a staunch mana denial/permanent war strat with other options like avalanche riders, vithian renegades, glowrider.

[brianpk80]

Drawing cards like sin collector/exava against shops, that ancient grudge against bomberman, and stoneforge against bomberman can be major liabilities.

Not really.  People still play Mental Misstep and Flusterstorm and side them out v. Shop.  As for Stoneforge Mystic, I don't know why anyone would think that card is a liability in the Bomberman match-up when it's in fact a must-counter unless they're half a turn away from comboing out w. Salvagers. 

 Just look at a deck like bomberman.  Trinket mage isn't stellar in any match up, but its always relevant.  Its what makes the card such a powerhouse.  

No.  Trinket Mage is an all-star in nearly every match-up precisely because he fetches whatever singleton the situation demands.  He's an accelerant, a card filtering engine, mass removal, or an off-switch to Tinker, Will, Oath, Snapcaster, and Dredge.  Xathrid Necromancer is nothing like that.  It's a potential tapped Zombie generator, but only if the opponent isn't running white, and it only matters if the opponent isn't outracing you w. Vault, Robot, Oath, Bazaar, or explosive Shop starts and you still have to lose a more valuable creature like Thalia, Bob, Noble, or Mayor to get value.  As I said before, absent a shell specifically designed to abuse it, Xathrid Necromancer is only relevant in the few match-ups where adding a 2/2 token with no ability to the board might make some difference, so we're talking about Landstill, Fish, Lightning Bolt.dec, and the Shop variants where Mayor is already poised to do well if it can cast spells.  As I see it, there is no value trying to win-more in good match-ups at the expense of weakening position in average or weak match-ups.   

Your deck building style is very similar to the one I used to use when I first entered vintage.  As you play more I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion that I have that a card being consistantly better than average is the more important than a card that is dead sometime and absolutely bonkers other times.  If you like the higher variance options then I agree xarthid is not the card for you.

If I read this correctly, you're saying I'm naive but eventually I will grow into a better player by copying the deckbuilding style you use for Dredge and blue control lists and applying it to creature lists without any negative transfer.  That doesn't make sense at all and there's a lot of inaccuracy involved in that entire line of thinking. 

I think xarthid/braids lets it take a step further into the direction of a staunch mana denial/permanent war strat with other options like avalanche riders, vithian renegades, glowrider.

There you go, a completely revamped shell designed to abuse the Necromancer.  Good luck. 

[vaughnbros]

Drawing cards like sin collector/exava against shops, that ancient grudge against bomberman, and stoneforge against bomberman can be major liabilities.

Not really.  People still play Mental Misstep and Flusterstorm and side them out v. Shop.  As for Stoneforge Mystic, I don't know why anyone would think that card is a liability in the Bomberman match-up when it's in fact a must-counter unless they're half a turn away from comboing out w. Salvagers.  

Except that mental misstep is great against every deck other than shops.

Just look at a deck like bomberman.  Trinket mage isn't stellar in any match up, but its always relevant.  Its what makes the card such a powerhouse.  

No.  Trinket Mage is an all-star in nearly every match-up precisely because he fetches whatever singleton the situation demands.  He's an accelerant, a card filtering engine, mass removal, or an off-switch to Tinker, Will, Oath, Snapcaster, and Dredge.  Xathrid Necromancer is nothing like that.  It's a potential tapped Zombie generator, but only if the opponent isn't running white, and it only matters if the opponent isn't outracing you w. Vault, Robot, Oath, Bazaar, or explosive Shop starts and you still have to lose a more valuable creature like Thalia, Bob, Noble, or Mayor to get value.  As I said before, absent a shell specifically designed to abuse it, Xathrid Necromancer is only relevant in the few match-ups where adding a 2/2 token with no ability to the board might make some difference, so we're talking about Landstill, Fish, Lightning Bolt.dec, and the Shop variants where Mayor is already poised to do well if it can cast spells.  As I see it, there is no value trying to win-more in good match-ups at the expense of weakening position in average or weak match-ups.    

I've played 4 trinket mage in a number of tournaments recently and he definitely is not an allstar in every match up.  Hes rather underwhelming against big blue and mediocre at best against workshops.  He isn't strong against anything where his 2/2 body isn't relevant.  He just becomes a 3+ mana tutor for top/explosives/mana source.  I see xarthid in humans as just as relevant and powerful in as many match ups that trinket mage is.

Your deck building style is very similar to the one I used to use when I first entered vintage.  As you play more I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion that I have that a card being consistantly better than average is the more important than a card that is dead sometime and absolutely bonkers other times.  If you like the higher variance options then I agree xarthid is not the card for you.

If I read this correctly, you're saying I'm naive but eventually I will grow into a better player by copying the deckbuilding style you use for Dredge and blue control lists and applying it to creature lists without any negative transfer.  That doesn't make sense at all and there's a lot of inaccuracy involved in that entire line of thinking.  

I'm not personally attacking you at all.  I'm sorry if I made you feel that way.  I was only trying to help by giving a different perspective on deck building.  I played workshops and fish for over a year before I ever picked up dredge or big blue.  And while you may not see me pilot them often anymore I still build and test my own variants of the decks.  I also play my dredge game 2/3's as a fish deck, and trinket mage control decks also play similarly to a fish deck.  Deck's without draw engines and search effects need consistancy even more so than blue decks do.

[Stormanimagus]

Deck's without draw engines and search effects need consistancy even more so than blue decks do.

This is how I used to think about the Human archetype so normally I'd be inclined to agree with you, but I think one can't argue with results and, instead, one must look at the qualities of a successful deck list and then do some reverse engineering asking the question "why?"

So, why is Brian's Human list so successful? Well, my big revelation in analyzing his lists is that he often breaks my golden rule:

*Storm's Golden Rule* --> Don't play anything other than 3-4 ofs in a list (other than restricted cards) that doesn't also run a robust tutor package.

I think this rule can serve well as a starting point for deck building, but it isn't a hard and fast rule like I used to think it was. You see, I wasn't considering factors like the following with enough due consideration:

1. Length of Game
2. Resiliency and Finality of the bomb.
3. Counter-intuitive 75 card configurations.

First, let's discuss #1. I think most players would agree that simple probability dictates that the longer a game goes the more likely you are to draw any 1 particular card in your deck. In fact, if you run 2 copies of a card you are likely to hit one of them in 30 cards so this stands to reason that you WILL see 1 copy of a 2-of in 23 turns (or considerably less if you land a bob and start activating him). While most players might not expect a game of Vintage to go 23 turns there are certainly those match-ups where it can. Landstill vs. Humans comes to mind as a prime example. It's for this reason that 1-2 of of Exava is not only not strange, but pretty ideal. You really don't want to fan open 2 of these guys, but you pretty much always want 1 of them to show up in this matchup. For this reason, 1-2 of them is fine as the game will likely last many turns. This is the same principle behind Mayor being good vs. Espresso btw. Many turns = many tokens, and you can expect a long affair against that deck.

Now, let's get down to #2. It took a little convincing, but I can now see how game over Exava truly is vs. landstill. When played correctly, their answers to her should be just about nil. That is pretty freaking powerful.

Now #3. The 1-2 of stoneforge + b skull seems weird until you consider playing multiple threats in a game and not wanting to double up on any bombs that aren't as good in multiples. This is also why the 1-of 4 drops make a bit more sense. You want to be able to have as much reach as possible. Variance helps reach because you can now have more of your deck on the table at the same time.

None of this is to say that I think one should totally do away with 3-4 ofs. I just think that it isn't as obvious as I once concluded, and that, actually, a deck like this can benefit from silver bullets even without having tutors to find them, quite well.

Keep up the good work Brian and Guli!

-Storm

[vaughnbros]

While 4 ofs are ideal, I don't really have a problem with singletons or 2 ofs in moderation.  My deck building philosophy follows 2 rules:

1. Only play main deck cards if they are applicable to a majority of match ups.
2. Only play sideboard cards if they are extremely impactful on specific match ups.

As such I feel like things like chalice of the void in the md of humans, and trinket mage in the board are violations of this.  I haven't played humans as much as Brian and Guli so if a cards like Exava and batterskull/stoneforge are better against a variety of decks than they look on paper to me then there is no problem with keeping them there.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Rules...

1) Build a deck
2) Test said deck vs real meta game decks
3) Tweak said deck according to results in testing
4) Win an event
5) Haters gonna hate
6) Win some more
7) Haters silenced...

lol this was my road with Landstill anyhow haha.  Don't over think the process fellows...rules? What rules?

[vaughnbros]

Rules...

1) Build a deck
2) Test said deck vs real meta game decks
3) Tweak said deck according to results in testing
4) Win an event
5) Haters gonna hate
6) Win some more
7) Haters silenced...

lol this was my road with Landstill anyhow haha.  Don't over think the process fellows...rules? What rules?

Thats cause you're a spike.  Johnny's love building their decks.  When I used to play standard though I'm with you though:
1. Find 36 cards that are legal
2. Add 24 lands
3. Crush socially challenged 8 year olds

[brianpk80]

Except that mental misstep is great against every deck other than shops.

That's also true for Sin Collector.  I even like that card post-sb against Dredge where the game is less about speed and more about protecting hate cards and creatures from Claims, Darkblasts, Missteps, etc.

I've played 4 trinket mage in a number of tournaments recently and he definitely is not an allstar in every match up.  Hes rather underwhelming against big blue and mediocre at best against workshops.

You said before that he is not stellar in any match-up and I disagreed, acknowledging that he's great in most but not all pairings.  He's stronger v. big blue in straightforward Bomberman because having AEther Spellbomb among the tutor targets allows you to control Tinker both before and after it occurs, so it shouldn't come a surprise that he's weakened v. blue in the Trinket lists that don't run it.  That's not necessarily a bad call given other design constraints and not having white+Salvagers, but it illustrates how non-Bomberman Trinket lists are going to get slightly less out of the Trinket Mage in the big blue match-up than the counterparts with Spellbomb.   

I'm not personally attacking you at all.  I'm sorry if I made you feel that way.  I was only trying to help by giving a different perspective on deck building.  

It's fine, Lance.  You wrote, "As you play more I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion that I have," which is like a rabbi telling a priest, "I'm sure as you study theology more, you'll find the same answers and change your ways."  It was more absurd than offensive not only since assumes I'm a newcomer to Type 1 but also because we just had a discussion in this thread a page or two back about the advantages of mixing diversity with consistency where the case was made for diversity outside of the consistent core (Dark Confidant, Thalia, Mayor, Noble Hierarch, Cavern, Wasteland) and it had nothing to do with experience v. inexperience.  Feel free to review the recent posts on this topic.  Until they print more clearly overpowered or broadly busted Humans like the Revoke Existence guy Guli suggests, the last 8-12 slots are variable.  I think if you began to play Humans with dedication, you would appreciate why you don't ever want to draw more than 1 Grafdigger's Cage or Stony Silence or Exava the Jace-eater Witch but do want to draw them semi-often and must design accordingly.  You also don't want to draw lots of equipment or multiple Stoneforge Mystics but it's something you do want to see not only because it's great in so many match-ups but because the life gain is a necessary part of managing the de facto draw engine, Dark Confidant.  These aren't naive random choices.  That's not to say that other options don't have merit, because they do, but as I see it, 4 copies of Xathrid Necromancer on top of 4 Mayors of Avabruck would not move a Humans list in the right direction.  It would be a step backwards, too much aggro without enough disruption/utility. 

Now #3. The 1-2 of stoneforge + b skull seems weird until you consider playing multiple threats in a game and not wanting to double up on any bombs that aren't as good in multiples. This is also why the 1-of 4 drops make a bit more sense. You want to be able to have as much reach as possible. Variance helps reach because you can now have more of your deck on the table at the same time.

Well said, Noah.  Thank you for your eloquent contribution. 

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Rules...

1) Build a deck
2) Test said deck vs real meta game decks
3) Tweak said deck according to results in testing
4) Win an event
5) Haters gonna hate
6) Win some more
7) Haters silenced...

lol this was my road with Landstill anyhow haha.  Don't over think the process fellows...rules? What rules?

Thats cause you're a spike.  Johnny's love building their decks.  When I used to play standard though I'm with you though:
1. Find 36 cards that are legal
2. Add 24 lands
3. Crush socially challenged 8 year olds

I'm a spike? LOL

[vaughnbros]

Except that mental misstep is great against every deck other than shops.

That's also true for Sin Collector.  I even like that card post-sb against Dredge where the game is less about speed and more about protecting hate cards and creatures from Claims, Darkblasts, Missteps, etc.

I'm sorry, but that card isn't good against dredge or fish in the slightest.  If you want to bring it in against me while I'm playing dredge all the better for me.

I've played 4 trinket mage in a number of tournaments recently and he definitely is not an allstar in every match up.  Hes rather underwhelming against big blue and mediocre at best against workshops.

You said before that he is not stellar in any match-up and I disagreed, acknowledging that he's great in most but not all pairings.  He's stronger v. big blue in straightforward Bomberman because having AEther Spellbomb among the tutor targets allows you to control Tinker both before and after it occurs, so it shouldn't come a surprise that he's weakened v. blue in the Trinket lists that don't run it.  That's not necessarily a bad call given other design constraints and not having white+Salvagers, but it illustrates how non-Bomberman Trinket lists are going to get slightly less out of the Trinket Mage in the big blue match-up than the counterparts with Spellbomb.    

I played in one tournament without bomberman in my deck...  aethar spellbomb definitely doesn't make or break trinket mage in the big blue match up.  He can already fetch cage to shut off tinker.

I'm not personally attacking you at all.  I'm sorry if I made you feel that way.  I was only trying to help by giving a different perspective on deck building.  

It's fine, Lance.  You wrote, "As you play more I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion that I have," which is like a rabbi telling a priest, "I'm sure as you study theology more, you'll find the same answers and change your ways."  It was more absurd than offensive not only since assumes I'm a newcomer to Type 1 but also because we just had a discussion in this thread a page or two back about the advantages of mixing diversity with consistency where the case was made for diversity outside of the consistent core (Dark Confidant, Thalia, Mayor, Noble Hierarch, Cavern, Wasteland) and it had nothing to do with experience v. inexperience.  

Except that you are still new to vintage.  You've been playing for what about 6 months? And haven't piloted a deck other than humans or won a tournament yet.  The statement about the rabbi is partially true.  If you continue to read philosophy you will most likely change your opinion on the subject.  You are acting just like a religious head here as well since you are disregarding the change that I am suggesting without entertaining it first.

Feel free to review the recent posts on this topic.  These aren't naive random choices.

I've been following most of the posts.  I'm not saying that you didn't use sound logic to make your choices, but there are no definitive proofs in this game.  When a better card is found, the meta shifts, or a new card is printed the previous choices can be replaced.  

Until they print more clearly overpowered or broadly busted Humans like the Revoke Existence guy Guli suggests, the last 8-12 slots are variable.  I think if you began to play Humans with dedication, you would appreciate why you don't ever want to draw more than 1 Grafdigger's Cage or Stony Silence or Exava the Jace-eater Witch but do want to draw them semi-often and must design accordingly.  You also don't want to draw lots of equipment or multiple Stoneforge Mystics but it's something you do want to see not only because it's great in so many match-ups but because the life gain is a necessary part of managing the de facto draw engine, Dark Confidant.

What I'm suggesting is playing cards that you ALWAYS want to see.  Not cards that you only sometimes want to see.  It doesn't have to be the necromancer that was only the catalyst for this discussion.  I don't really think life gain is necessary with bob.  You can always start playing more aggressively and end the game sooner so that you don't need a draw engine active any longer.

That's not to say that other options don't have merit, because they do, but as I see it, 4 copies of Xathrid Necromancer on top of 4 Mayors of Avabruck would not move a Humans list in the right direction.  It would be a step backwards, too much aggro without enough disruption/utility.  

For the record Exava, Huntmaster, Batterskull, and stoneforge don't disrupt and they have been some of your most recent additions suggesting that is in fact the direction the deck is moving.

I'm a spike? LOL

Well they are templates.  So no one is a clear cut into one category and in none of the others, but yes I think you are a big time spike.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Not sure what you mean by spike but... I'll look at it as I am a spike on a graph. Weather that is a good/bad/different I'll take it haha!

[A.-1.]

Capitalization is important.

Josh, Lance meant that you are a "Spike," which is one of the three types of Magic players according to Mark Rosewater. His article here explains further. He essentially said you are a tournament player that values winning above the other elements of the game.

[Guli]

Vaughnbros, I am not clearly getting the message you are trying to portrait here.

I am not even sure you are getting the points I am making. Disruption as a concept needs a context. Against broken blue, Thalia is disruption because you are stopping the chain of spells, against Landstill or BUG Exava is disruption because that is their weak spot. Against Workshop, your Dark Confidants and Mayors are disrupting their plans of dominating you.

Disruption is not only spheres or arcane labs like Canonist, Glowrider, Thorns... Against Oath, my main disruptive cards are the 4x Abrupt Decay. Why? Yes it kills oath, but the main thing it does is too allow you to continue the assault, to lower their life total so you can end the nonsense. It is a tempo play and a second Oath is most likely too late. That means they have to win without Oath, and that is where Thalia kicks in... So Abrupt makes Thalia a monster in this scenario.

When the Jace player doesn't factor in Exava, Exava hits hard. Even if you anticipate Exava she will still hit hard. The haste has a hidden time walk written on it in this Jace infested meta. When playing landstill, they probably burned through most their bolts, explosives, lost their Crucible against Decay. It is hard for them to hold double bolt in the mid game, and this is were Exava comes in. A fast and hard to deal with clock and Jace destroyer.


Personally I value consistency as much as variance. Actually when I look at my list now, and believe me it looks very crazy and totally different than any lists you have seen here or in Brian's tournament performances, I use the slots that we can define as the 'singleton' slots (1-2 offs) almost exclusively to stop the chaining of spells to keep my deck intact and operational when facing hard combo that likes to accelerate and draw vintage style. We used to do this in the past with 4x Null Rod. But times changed, we now have 4x Thalia, and she is our front line against those kind of decks, but she does require support. So that is the reason we give her extra slots. This is why there is 1 Stony (or Rod in less white heavy lists), 1 Chalice, 1 Canonist, 2 Sin Collector, ... use your imagination, I even run Trinisphere now, and am testing a couple Tangle Wires since they work great with Mayor and Bobs with instant removal spells (using the stack).

So saying there needs to be consistency means you are reading it wrong. There is a lot of consistency, Brian has repeatedly pointed out that there is a core (which are the 4x cards in the deck). I have also clarified that this Caverns archetype uses that core and the rest of the deck can be filled out at your own wish and expense. Just make sure you respect some of the guidelines we set, run sufficient anti-acceleration/anti-mass draw, make sure you are Golem proof, have a strong plan ready for Forgemaster, Hellkites or other monsters, understand that the dredge match up needs a lot practice and that your strongest card is Thalia.

Here is a list of cards that can be used to fight broken.dec:
- Trinisphere
- Null Rod
- Stony Silence
- Tangle Wire
- Chalice of the Void
- Ethersworn Canonist
- Sin Collector
- Rest in Peace
- Flusterstorm
- Mindbreak Trap
- Mental Misstep
- Grafdigger's Cage
- True Believer
- Gaddock Teeg
- Gorilla Shaman
- Aven Mindcensor
- Magus of the Moon
- Thorn of At.
- Glowrider
- Dryad Militant
...

So why would we decrease our reach by running 4x in order to satisfy 'consistency', with so many options available?


That being said, here is a new interesting Human:


My first thoughts: this can be a huge tempo play, even against Tinker. You get to attack more without blockers interfering. But that alone doesn't seem to have the desired impact. Things like Meekstone popped up in my mind. Or Royal Assassin. Also, the Dragon Oath doesn't get to swing with that monster with haste.

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

Capitalization is important.

Josh, Lance meant that you are a "Spike," which is one of the three types of Magic players according to Mark Rosewater. His article here explains further. He essentially said you are a tournament player that values winning above the other elements of the game.

I would say I'm more of a Timmy/Spike after reading that fun article.  I most certainly do not net deck lists as a true spike does. But I do enjoy winning and have a very competitive side. 10 years ago I was probably full on Timmy. Then life eventually happens and I strictly play tournaments...and in events I play to win!

@Lance so if that was trying to insult me, you don't know me very well at all...

[vaughnbros]

Your definitions for disruption and reach seem to be far different from my definitions of those words.  So I would need you to define them for me to respond to some parts of your post.

In this deck the core pieces of the deck Bob is card advantage, Thalia is disruption, Mayor is a clock, and Hierarch is mana accel.  The card that ties them all together is of course cavern of souls. With Brian's deck lists and if I'm reading what you just wrote correctly, you think cards outside of the core should only be 1 and 2 ofs?  I'm saying that this doesn't need to be the case, and suggesting that it probably shouldn't be the case.

Consistency by my definition is the ability to consistently drawing relevant cards throughout match ups and games.  Variance is the fluctuation of power level from game to game and match up to match up.  If I could draw a graph of win percentage in each game versus games played, consistency would be a flat line and variance a line fluctuating around it.

Here is a list of cards that can be used to fight broken.dec:
- Trinisphere
- Null Rod
- Stony Silence
- Tangle Wire
- Chalice of the Void
- Ethersworn Canonist
- Sin Collector
- Rest in Peace
- Flusterstorm
- Mindbreak Trap
- Mental Misstep
- Grafdigger's Cage
- True Believer
- Gaddock Teeg
- Gorilla Shaman
- Aven Mindcensor
- Magus of the Moon
- Thorn of At.
- Glowrider
- Dryad Militant
...

So why would we decrease our reach by running 4x in order to satisfy 'consistency', with so many options available?

Most of this list has negative or no synergy with the core of the deck.  Cards like this generally add to greatly to a deck's variance.  For some examples: Magus of the moon is brutal with an all non basic mana base of your own, but can be great if it happens to deal more damage to your opponent.  Dryad/Mindcensor/Teeg are not humans making them more difficult to cast and opening them up to more counterspells because they can't be played with caverns.  Thorn/Tangle wire/Trinisphere/Flusterstorm can not only be difficult to cast when you want to, but also provide nothing towards your clock.

@Lance so if that was trying to insult me, you don't know me very well at all...

Everyone is so sensitive here.  I was simply saying the reason I believed for the importance of deck building.  I haven't really hung out with you enough to know for sure since we've never been out for drinks, but you always seem like you are having a lot more fun at tournaments when you are winning.  So that's why I'd place you in the Spike category.  

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

And in my "rules" I said win and win more to silence the haters. I went through the same scrutiny when I brought landstill back on the scene. Just as Brian and Guli will/are...your tone in this discussion isn't always the best so you cone across rude. And it's always better winning or doing well...I have seen you pretty upset on days in which you get smoked. That's everyone...so IMO your being quite silly and in ways you are a spike as well...that being said this whole discussion is just dumb.

Brian sooner or later you'll break through and win an event. If I had the cards to build a fishy pile I would consider it. I like decks that are grindy and less forgiving. ..

[Guli]

Who told you that the list should be all humans? The list consist of cards that will contribute in your fight against the most powerful strategies in Vintage. That is what you want to do, that is what I would call disrupting. But in what way this disruption takes place, depends on the match up and also a certain meta game in a certain period of time.

Words can hold different meanings and angles. We agree on consistency, the reason why we add four copies of one card is to see them in our hand as much as possible. With variance I mean that the answers and threats we use to solve some problems in some match ups, are constructed with different cards and not copies of 1 card. For example, you could run 4 Null Rod next to 4 Thalia, OR you could run 1 Rod, 1 Gorilla Shaman, 1 Trinisphere and 1 Tangle Wire. The goal would be to neutralize their moxes. Each of these cards have the potential to do this, but in a different way. And on top, you get to enjoy the cumulative advantages of these cards.

Both Null Rod and Sin Collector have the potential power to stop Tinker, and with a Thalia in play, this seems a lot more likely to happen.

In this deck the core pieces of the deck Bob is card advantage, Thalia is disruption, Mayor is a clock, and Hierarch is mana accel.  The card that ties them all together is of course cavern of souls. With Brian's deck lists and if I'm reading what you just wrote correctly, you think cards outside of the core should only be 1 and 2 ofs?  I'm saying that this doesn't need to be the case, and suggesting that it probably shouldn't be the case.

No, I run a lot more 4 offs than that. And me and Brian do have our disagreements. For example, I think Caverns should run 4x Decay, no questions asked. The card fits in our uncounterable theme, and is a huge bomb against must answer threats like Dark Confidant, Metalworker, Oath of Druids, Crucible of Worlds and Time Vault.

Running 4 and if possible 5 moxes are also pretty important for the deck. If we take into account that we want a 60 card deck, there really isn't left a lot space. I prefer to fill up those slots with singletos or 2 offs and I attempt to create a grid were these remaining slots overlap and for clusters. These clusters can be labeled for what their function will be, most likely to answer an issue Caverns will be facing. For example: running 4 decay is not enough against oath. Thalia is important too, I believe 4 slots should be dedicated to get rid of the Griselbrand (or whatever they oath up). I believe that 4 slots should be dedicated to mox control, I use gorilla shaman, null rod, trinisphere (because they are essentially tapping moxes to play 1 spell so it is mana denial).

What 'clusters' would you form? Maybe we have the same, but you just tend to answer them more 'homogenically'. It doesn't matter how it looks on paper, visually you can run 4x this and 4x that, but that does not affect the chance to draw cards in a certain cluster...

[Protoaddict]

Running 4 offs does not specifically decrease the occurrence of answers, which is what I think people are tending to use the word variance for.

The blood witch is a great example. Since she is legendary and since her role is such that she will probably not be killed outright and be bounced, it makes sense not to run 4.

But let's stop looking at the cards themselves and look at their roles in the deck. We have established that Exava is an anti Jace tool. Let say we know that the deck needs 4 anti jace tools. I know that to set a number like that is not realistic in actual deck building but bear with me as this is an example. Well we know Exava is the best one so we want to run her, but she has the built in limitation of legendary so we need to find other comparable answers. So you run 1 Exava and 3 of another card that is good against Jace but is not as good as Exava. You want to draw Exava, but the variance in drawing the other card is not specifically a bad situation, because it is a better situation to be in than drawing a 2nd Exava in another game.

This logic applies to any number of cards in the list too, because some cards are better in multiple, like stax effects, while some cards simply are not. A card being good or not in multiple is also not a function of the card itself but also of the deck it is being used against and the nature of it combined with the rest of your list.

JTMS would normally not be good as a 4 of but since the change of the legendary rule and his brainstrom ability and the race to get him out that occurs in the mirror, suddenly he is.

Tabernacle of the Pendrel Viel is game over against some decks, but since the card is legendary and typically played in decks with crucible and hurts your mana production, it is almost always a 1 of.

In my white trash list, i play 4 dryad militant, 3 grafdiggers cage, 3 rest in peace, and 4 wastelands. All of these cards are good against dredge. Really good. In my sideboard you would think i play the 4th cage right, but i dont. Why? Because I would rather have a diversity of cards that help me win the game in the board than another redundant one. I can run samarui of the pale curtian to help put more bodies on the table, I can run leyline of scantity which helps prevent cabal therapy, etc. In that list diversification is key because of how the deck works and how other decks are forced to fight it.

And lastly, and I know it is a corner case, but Meddling mage, echoing truth, and many other name a card cards are played, maybe not as often as they used to be but they are still played, and having some sort of protection against them is also not a bad thing.

[vaughnbros]

And it's always better winning or doing well...I have seen you pretty upset on days in which you get smoked. That's everyone...so IMO your being quite silly and in ways you are a spike as well...that being said this whole discussion is just dumb.

I agree with you. We can stop this tangent.

Brian sooner or later you'll break through and win an event. If I had the cards to build a fishy pile I would consider it. I like decks that are grindy and less forgiving. ..

I hope he breaks through too, which is why I was trying to help him and give him some advice that could potentially put him over the top.

Who told you that the list should be all humans? The list consist of cards that will contribute in your fight against the most powerful strategies in Vintage. That is what you want to do, that is what I would call disrupting. But in what way this disruption takes place, depends on the match up and also a certain meta game in a certain period of time.

Well nothing says the whole deck needs to be humans, but humans will have a higher power level in the deck than a non human.  For a simple theoretical a 2/1 human for 2 would be better in this list than a 2/2 non human for 2.

The blood witch is a great example. Since she is legendary and since her role is such that she will probably not be killed outright and be bounced, it makes sense not to run 4.

But let's stop looking at the cards themselves and look at their roles in the deck. We have established that Exava is an anti Jace tool. Let say we know that the deck needs 4 anti jace tools. I know that to set a number like that is not realistic in actual deck building but bear with me as this is an example. Well we know Exava is the best one so we want to run her, but she has the built in limitation of legendary so we need to find other comparable answers. So you run 1 Exava and 3 of another card that is good against Jace but is not as good as Exava. You want to draw Exava, but the variance in drawing the other card is not specifically a bad situation, because it is a better situation to be in than drawing a 2nd Exava in another game.

I think this is a good way of looking at things.  To add a little bit to what you are saying certain roles are necessary in every match up, i.e. card advantage, and others are only needed for specific match ups, i.e. answer to Jace.

So to relate this to what I'm saying about this deck.  Please correct my statements if they are wrong, but if Thalia is the best at slowing down your opponent than she should be ran as a 3-4 of before we even consider null rod/gorilla shaman/trinisphere/tangle wire.  If Exava is the best at being an anti Jace tool, but good at nothing else then she should be in the sideboard.

What 'clusters' would you form? Maybe we have the same, but you just tend to answer them more 'homogenically'. It doesn't matter how it looks on paper, visually you can run 4x this and 4x that, but that does not affect the chance to draw cards in a certain cluster...

I'm not familiar with the term 'clusters' if you can clarify.

[Samoht]

Let's get off the Lancebashing bandwagon. He was just making an offhand comment re Josh's competitive side. It wasn't intended to be insulting.

I thought the comment towards BK was a bit condescending but I don't think he meant  it that way, it's just a problem that written words are hard to temper with intonation and context. It all depends on the tone/tempo you read the sentence in.

He is trying to help. A lot of his points hold weight. A core of a deck definitely HAS to be 4 ofs, 3's at the least (and I played Keeper for years. The core was FoW/Drain/Waste).  If you don't want to see things multiple times in a given match regardless of what they are doing it better be significant in particular situations. I'm not against 1's or 2's, see previous deck choice, but I prefer to have multiple tutors to acquire them. If we're just hoping to raw dog infinite 1's at the right time, that's a recipe to drawing the wrong cards just as often as the right ones.

[rooneg]

What 'clusters' would you form? Maybe we have the same, but you just tend to answer them more 'homogenically'. It doesn't matter how it looks on paper, visually you can run 4x this and 4x that, but that does not affect the chance to draw cards in a certain cluster...

I'm not familiar with the term 'clusters' if you can clarify.

Say you have 10 singletons in the deck, let's call them A through J.  Each is good against one or more of the archetypes you feel you might face.  Say cards A, B, C and D are good against Dredge, C, D, E and F are good against Shops, E, F, G and H are good against Blue control and G, H, I and J are good against Storm.  The clusters he's talking about are the sets of singletons (or 2 ofs or whatever) that are good against particular archetypes.  It's a way of thinking about deck construction that allows you to build a strong deck by providing a versatile set of cards, each of which is good against more than one type of opponent, as opposed to a bunch of playsets each of which is only good against a single archetype.

[brianpk80]

I'm sorry, but that card isn't good against dredge or fish in the slightest.  If you want to bring it in against me while I'm playing dredge all the better for me.

The card is very good v. Fish and everyone who has used Sin Collector knows this firsthand.  You use it to exile Swords/Path/Abrupt to clear the way for the Dark Confidant, Mayor, or Mystic that wins the game.  V. Dredge, he's not the all-star but game 2 and game 3 revolve around protecting hate pieces, not stopping a speed assault.  I'd be more inclined to side him in v. one of your brews because you use unorthodox tactics that catch people off guard, something Sin Collector precisely hedges against. 

Except that you are still new to vintage.  You've been playing for what about 6 months? And haven't piloted a deck other than humans or won a tournament yet. 

Everything highlighted in bold is wrong.  I can appreciate that since returning to tournaments a few months ago, a few people who haven't been playing for a very long time would mistake me for a newcomer, but I'm in fact a very old veteran.  The deck style I was used most and with which I won the most tournaments was UWx Drain Control aka Weissman aka "The Deck," and this was very old-school, ie Mirror Universe old-school.  Moat, Abyss, Ivory Tower.  Trading for a bunch of Tolarian Academies and having them get restricted.  After that, I became more interested in Vial decks and Oath of Druids before Brainstorm was restricted.  Now, I like the creature pillar because it's more fun and has more personality to it, which matters because at my age Magic/Vintage is much about having a good time as winning, and frankly more the former.  None of that is particularly relevant to the new Humans spoiled for M14 and I'm not an egomaniac who thinks their biography is "oh so important," but it definitely needed to be cleared up for you since you have been saying so many things in this thread that are untrue.   

Everyone is so sensitive here.

Not at all.  You've been volunteering fake bios of players, issuing psychological misprofiles, and using bad examples to make points about specific cards that are so disconnected from how they function in practice that they undercut the points you're trying to make.  If this were a hypersensitive bunch, there would be a bloodbath, but instead I see attempts to understand why you're writing some of the things you're writing and to explain why some of the ideas that sound good in theory would not translate well into practice. 

So saying there needs to be consistency means you are reading it wrong. There is a lot of consistency, Brian has repeatedly pointed out that there is a core (which are the 4x cards in the deck). I have also clarified that this Caverns archetype uses that core and the rest of the deck can be filled out at your own wish and expense. Just make sure you respect some of the guidelines we set, run sufficient anti-acceleration/anti-mass draw, make sure you are Golem proof, have a strong plan ready for Forgemaster, Hellkites or other monsters, understand that the dredge match up needs a lot practice and that your strongest card is Thalia.

Exactly.  You want to cover as many bases as possible while minimizing dead draws. 

What I'm suggesting is playing cards that you ALWAYS want to see.  Not cards that you only sometimes want to see.  It doesn't have to be the necromancer that was only the catalyst for this discussion.  I don't really think life gain is necessary with bob.  You can always start playing more aggressively and end the game sooner so that you don't need a draw engine active any longer.

I do play cards I always want to see.  The remaining 8-12 slots are variable until Wizards prints something else that's clearly overpowered and then there would be consolidation.  Until then, one can not say that a Swords to Plowshares is better or worse than a Grafdigger's Cage; the objective as Guli notes is identifying the threats out there and ensuring that as many bases as possible are covered.  There are many different configurations or possible roads leading to the same end and minimizing dead draws is a very significant design constraint, which is why 2 Null Rod/Silence + 1 Chalice will almost always be preferable in a vacuum to 3 Null Rod. 

As for life gain, it's very important.  Decks running Dark Confidant that do well always have an inherent mechanism for managing it, whether that is Sensei's Divining Top, Deathrite Shaman, Jace TMS, Scavenging Ooze, or Stoneforge Mystic.  The reason for this is that while, in theory one should be able to always win games off a Confidant-fueled assault, in practice, life and Magic are messier and game loss due to Bob will occur with a enough frequency that preventative measures are necessary.   

[brianpk80]

Brian sooner or later you'll break through and win an event. If I had the cards to build a fishy pile I would consider it. I like decks that are grindy and less forgiving. ..

Thanks Josh.  Even if that doesn't happen, it's ok.  I won enough when I was younger that it's not a key milestone now so being able to T8 with an underdog style deck with some left-of-center cards is rewarding enough at this stage.  Getting Grand Arbiter Augustin IV and Huntmaster of the Fells into Vintage T8 status for all posterity = fun.  That said, I'm not displeased with the deck's performance at all.  Something like 6 or 7 T8's in a row, with one missed T4 due to breakers, and then closing it off by winning a Bazaar at NYSE is not a bad run.  You coming to Bloomsburg on Saturday?

[vaughnbros]

If calling someone competetive or new is an insult then I must be a pretty big jerk to a lot of people.

If you don't want to take my advice that's fine, but there is no need to try and make me look like a villan.

Best of luck with your deck.  I'm sure ill be seeing you in some top 8's.

[Guli]

He isn't trying to make you look like a villan. Keep giving input I would say!


And I think this first wave of Mayor Fish did excellent at the hands of Brian. So many top 8 in half a year with an untested archetype (in tournaments i mean)!? That is not a small order.

So back on topic, what about them new humans?

My first thoughts: this can be a huge tempo play, even against Tinker. You get to attack more without blockers interfering. But that alone doesn't seem to have the desired impact. Things like Meekstone popped up in my mind. Or Royal Assassin. Also, the Dragon Oath doesn't get to swing with that monster with haste. Also does hurt Ichorid.

[Stormanimagus]

Guli,

I don't see what the new human does to augment our strategy nor what it does to shore up a bad matchup.

Also, I'm concerned with running Abrupt Decay as a 4-of not because I think the card is bad, but because seems like a hard color combo to get in the first 2 turns of the game. If we look at the build of the deck it usually includes 4 Caverns and 3 Waste + 1 Strip. That is 8 lands that don't add   or  . So this basically leaves us with NEEDING a Noble AND City early in order to cast our Decay. I'm not seeing that happening with regularity. I agree that Abrupt Decay is an amazing card, but I'm not sure that I think Humans is the best home for it. I'd be more inclined to use it in a dedicated BUG list where the mana is a non-issue. What is your rationale for running it as a 4-of in this list? How often do they sit (uncastable) in your hand at a critical juncture?

-Storm

[TheWhiteDragon]

Capitalization is important.

Josh, Lance meant that you are a "Spike," which is one of the three types of Magic players according to Mark Rosewater. His article here explains further. He essentially said you are a tournament player that values winning above the other elements of the game.

Just for the record, I'm a total Johnny/Spike...when I play, I play to win, but ALWAYS make my own deck (HATE netdecking/ers)!  Been a long time since I read this article...thanks for the nostalgia!

[Stormanimagus]

Upon further reflection I think abrupt decay is no worse an answer to oath than Qasali Pridemage (only difference is GB vs. GW cause in both cases you'll need exact mana to cast and cavern will likely not work) and it IS uncounterable and only costs 2 mana as opposed to 3 like Pridemage (GW and 1 to sac). Given my turnaround on the card here's the list I might try if I attended a Vintage event tomorrow:

Human Ingenuity

Land (20):
4 Cavern Of Souls
4 City Of Brass
4 Windswept Heath
2 Savannah
1 Bayou
1 Scrubland
3 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine

Artifacts (7):
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Batterskull

Enchantment (2):
2 Stony Silence

Creatures (25):
4 Noble Hierarch
1 Deathrite Shaman
4 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
4 Dark Confidant
4 Mayor Of Avabruck
2 Stoneforge Mystic
3 Fiend Hunter
2 Sin Collector
1 Exava, Rakdos Blood Witch

Instants (6):
3 Mental Misstep
3 Abrupt Decay


Sideboard
1 Thorn Of Amethyst
1 Sin Collector
1 Deathrite Shaman
1 Wasteland
1 Crucible Of Worlds
1 Phyrexian Metamorph
2 Swords to Plowshares
3 Grafdigger’s Cage
3 Rest in Peace
1 Surgical Extraction


There are some slots in this list that I'm uncertain about and some numbers I'm uncertain about, but one difference from Brian's list is that all my STPs are SB only and I run 3 Fiend Hunters main. I feel like Tinker is becoming a big threat again in the field and most Tinker.dec lists have numerous counters and missteps so I don't think STP is an ideal answer. Fiend Hunter is still one of the best cards for dealing with Tinker->Bot in an uncounterable manner. I also want to see Misstep early in the match ups where it counts and probably even see a second one. This is why I'm running 3 and not 2. I would appreciate any feedback folks could offer on this list. Thanks!

[serracollector]

I would try -1 Savanah, +1 Mutavault, and swap 1 mayor with the Crucible in side.  I think 3 mayor and 1 Crucible maindeck with a mutavault, fetches, and 4 strips is a good call in general.  But I have a preference for Crucible maindeck in almost any deck running 4+ strips with spheres/manlands.

[Guli]

@Storm

More normal lands!

+1 Fetch
+1 Bayou
-1 Ruby
-1 City of Brass

More removal!

+2 Sword to Plows
-1 Stoneforge Mystic
-1 Mental Misstep