Doomsday (the Ritual approach)

[Mith]

I like Chewer better than anything green can offer (including Trygon). One Volc in the main and a mountain in the board should do it. Adding red gives you access to Pyroclasm, which is the best all-purpose wipe vs. multiple hate bears.

I ran 4x Snuff Out and brought in a basic swamp from the board. Such a great card for this deck to sideboard in...

I kept Probe. Its a nice cantrip, adds to your felxibility, and gives you great info. It's far from necessary, but I consider it a personal choice. The spot can also be filled with a Top, though that card feels a lot more like training wheels to me.

[personalbackfire]

I kept Probe. Its a nice cantrip, adds to your felxibility, and gives you great info. It's far from necessary, but I consider it a personal choice. The spot can also be filled with a Top, though that card feels a lot more like training wheels to me.

Why is that?

[Mith]

Why is Top superfluous? Because it's not needed to win. Yes it helps you sculpt and it can be used as a draw to win, but I'd rather have Probe in that slot as it lets me know if the way is clear for me to go off.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Probe vs Top is a meta call based on how much brown you expect to encounter. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Soly's maindeck -1 Dark Rit +1 Imperial Seal is correct give or take adjusting the counter suite to a particular meta.

Sideboards are more contentious simply because Doomsday gives you so many opportunities to outplay your opponents. You have 3-4 discretionary slots to sideboard against particularly solid players in your meta and their pet decks. Ie. When I was playing a lot online back when Cavern Humans was over-popular, I went so far as to put a Dread of Night in my sideboard to deal with opponents who had too much practice playing against Doomsday.

[Mith]

White and Green hatebears both pose a problem to going off...which is why the red splash and Pyroclasm is so good. It covers everything.

[AmbivalentDuck]

The red splash wasn't worth it for a single sideboard card. In hindsight, the Chewers are an excellent idea.

[xouman]

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=12318&iddeck=90287

Last top-8 I've seen with doomsday (by Josh Butker) is just UB, thus not playing fastbond or chewers. Strangely it does not feature necropotence, even with full playset of rituals. And just 14 lands +4 artifact producers (2 of them one shot).

Do you see it as a worthwhile approach or you find it worse than the 1 ritual - 1 fastbond version?

[AmbivalentDuck]

The problem with sparse data is that it isn't very informative. If nothing else, Impulse? That list isn't optimal. From this evidence, the only thing that we can conclude is that "Oops I win" remains a viable strategy in Vintage.

The other thing to remember is that someone is guaranteed to win every tournament played. If you look at the other top8 decks, they show large deviations from the lists this community believes to be optimal. And strange ones, too. Ie. Noble Hierarch over Deathrite Shaman in a 4C control list.

As I've said before, someone needs to write a bot to scrape all Cockatrice games played. Or we can wait until there are large daily/weekly events from MTGO. Until then, "I'll draw Black Lotus when I need it" and omitting Necropotence from a list with 4x Dark Ritual both seem like awful ideas.

[d8dk32]

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=12318&iddeck=90287

Last top-8 I've seen with doomsday (by Josh Butker) is just UB, thus not playing fastbond or chewers. Strangely it does not feature necropotence, even with full playset of rituals. And just 14 lands +4 artifact producers (2 of them one shot).

Do you see it as a worthwhile approach or you find it worse than the 1 ritual - 1 fastbond version?

I wonder if there was a specific reason he chose to eliminate Fastbond. I just can't think of a reason not to have it, since it opens up the Gush->Tendrils kill, which is much harder without Fastbond. It doesn't really stretch the mana base that much. I suppose I can see the merit of 3-4 Rituals and no Necro (although i think I'd play necro with that many Rituals), but I can't agree with no Fastbond.

As I've said before, someone needs to write a bot to scrape all Cockatrice games played. Or we can wait until there are large daily/weekly events from MTGO. Until then, "I'll draw Black Lotus when I need it" and omitting Necropotence from a list with 4x Dark Ritual both seem like awful ideas.

I wonder how difficult this would be. I don't have the time to do something like this these days but it's a pretty good idea. I wonder if anyone has attempted it before. Maybe I'll have to take a peek at the source code.

[Soly]

I won't ever be sold that the 4 Rituals are right in Doomsday.  That said, Josh has played this deck a lot recently...  probably more than any of us on this board can claim at least in the last several years, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him cutting Fastbond.   Looking at the list, I get that he wants to draw gas, and Fastbond isn't really as strong as his list because it's a dedicated Doomsday deck more than the trimmed-ritual list that I play, and the no Ritual list Smmenen runs.

In a deck with 4 rituals, I would be hard pressed not to run a Gifts Ungiven and maybe even a Grim Tutor so I can sink extra rituals into gas spells.  I still would not play Necropotence.  The card just really isn't that powerful right now, since every deck in the format either puts huge strains on your lifetotal (RUG Delver, BUG Fish, Merfolk), or tries to just blow you out in one turn (Oath variants, Time Vault decks, etc).   Both of those mean that Necropotence isn't very good past turn 2. 

[Asphyxious]

I like the 4 rituals because it makes going off on turn 2 more consistent in addition to a few other more minor benefits, but there are definitely other ways to play the deck, with more control or more utility.  I just like opting for speed.

Your answer about Fastbond is exactly correct, Soly.  I cut Fastbond because too often when I was drawing it, it just wasn't action.  Furthermore, it's not really a card i wanted to see with only 1 Gush in hand because Gush is part of the combo.  So, I only really ever wanted it with 2 or more Gushes in hand, and that's usually enough to put together a win anyway.  So, I figured why not just go with more basics, especially since my area has high prevalence of shop decks.

I haven't tested your red version, but it seems good and very interesting, especially for chewers.  I also like your Gifts and/or Grim Tutor idea.  Those are excellent gas spells that I hadn't thought of.  I will very likely be trying those out.

I agree on the necro, it takes all of the surprise factor out and requires that you pass the turn, but you still can't easily pass the turn inside a DD pile.  Additionally, the deck isn't very bomb heavy.  While it runs 4 DD, I don't consider these 1 card bombs the way Jar, Bargain, Gifts, etc. tend to be, so drawing 10 cards to dig for a combination of 2 or 3 cards isn't nearly as good as digging for one or two 1 card bombs like in a more pitch-long style deck, and it costs a lot of life in a deck that already eats its own life quite a bit in a meta full of creatures.

The impulse is really an instant speed preordain.  I wanted another preordain (puts stuff on the bottom rather than shuffles) to improve my top decks, but I also wanted something for the end of my opponents turn.  I originally put it in there as another EoT draw spell for playing against Landstill.  I've been happy with it, but I'm actually cutting now as the meta is shifting more towards creature decks and less toward long-game spell-based control decks like landstill and UW Jace control.

[Smmenen]

Fastbond enables Doomsday piles that are not possible without it that can win immediately with just a G and a draw spell post-Dday. or no available mana and Gush in hand without having to use the GY.

The problem with sparse data is that it isn't very informative.

Large data isn't useful either, if the data is low quality (bad pilots, etc).  Garbage in, Garbage out.  

The other thing to remember is that someone is guaranteed to win every tournament played. If you look at the other top8 decks, they show large deviations from the lists this community believes to be optimal. And strange ones, too. Ie. Noble Hierarch over Deathrite Shaman in a 4C control list.

As I've said before, someone needs to write a bot to scrape all Cockatrice games played. Or we can wait until there are large daily/weekly events from MTGO.

The data from MTGO will be useful, but not as clarifying as you hope.  People look at SCG Legacy tournaments rather than MTGO when parsing the Legacy metagame structure.

Until then, "I'll draw Black Lotus when I need it" and omitting Necropotence from a list with 4x Dark Ritual both seem like awful ideas.

SMH.  My point wasn't that "I'll draw Black Lotus" when I need it but that Black Lotus, Lotus Petal, Demonc Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, Imperial Seal and Fastbond give my Doomsday list the critical mass of accelerants needed to win relatively consistently on turn 2-3 if goldfishing.  Moreoso if running a single Dark Ritual, which can be found with Mystical. 

[Soly]

I am a *huge* fan of the 1x Ritual for the Mystical Tutor draw.  I actually won G1/R1 on turn 2 at Eternal Weekend because of the Mystical Tutor for Dark Ritual play.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I like the 4 rituals because it makes going off on turn 2 more consistent in addition to a few other more minor benefits, but there are definitely other ways to play the deck, with more control or more utility.  I just like opting for speed.

"Oops I win" has always been a decent strategy in Vintage.

Your answer about Fastbond is exactly correct, Soly.  I cut Fastbond because too often when I was drawing it, it just wasn't action.  Furthermore, it's not really a card i wanted to see with only 1 Gush in hand because Gush is part of the combo.  So, I only really ever wanted it with 2 or more Gushes in hand, and that's usually enough to put together a win anyway.  So, I figured why not just go with more basics, especially since my area has high prevalence of shop decks.

I "buy" the reasoning for cutting green, and I do agree that this may approach a build optimized for a shops-heavy meta. You're not really set up to get into the late game where GushBond shines. Locally optimal, quite likely. Globally optimal? I think there's some merit to interacting a bit before you need to win.

I also like your Gifts and/or Grim Tutor idea.  Those are excellent gas spells that I hadn't thought of.  I will very likely be trying those out.

Gifts certainly seems better than Impulse. And on that note, so does Ponder.

[Soly]

Vito said it better than I could, and while I play Ponder in my gush shell, I think it serves more a purpose in the 1-2 ritual builds.

Ponder is not in the deck because I hate that card. You have to leave the other 2 on top! not so good when you're trying to dig through your deck for win cards. If i take gush off ponder, I'm FORCED to put the other 2 into my hand. If I blind shuffle, all of the junk I preordained to the bottom dilutes the threat density of the deck.

[Smmenen]

Vito said it better than I could, and while I play Ponder in my gush shell, I think it serves more a purpose in the 1-2 ritual builds.

Ponder is not in the deck because I hate that card. You have to leave the other 2 on top! not so good when you're trying to dig through your deck for win cards. If i take gush off ponder, I'm FORCED to put the other 2 into my hand. If I blind shuffle, all of the junk I preordained to the bottom dilutes the threat density of the deck.

Ponder isn't that great if you are trying to play a control role, and filter only the best card to your hand, but Ponder is really important for generating virtual card advantage with the Gushbond engine, by substituting for land.   It is most important for giving you a density of Gushbond engine parts so that you can "go off" immediately after playing Fastbond.   It's also really good for keeping a one land hand, ala the TurboXerox principle. 

If your deck can't go off with Fastbond --> Yawg Will --> Tendrils the turn you play Fastbond, your Gush deck lacks the density of cards like Ponder.  That's why Ponder is awesome. 

[brianpk80]

I "buy" the reasoning for cutting green, and I do agree that this may approach a build optimized for a shops-heavy meta. You're not really set up to get into the late game where GushBond shines. Locally optimal, quite likely. Globally optimal? I think there's some merit to interacting a bit before you need to win.

There's no such thing as a static "globally optimal" design of any deck out there.  Trying to engineer a one-size-fits-all perfect build is a vain pursuit, since it neglects differences in play style, additional subjective/intangible factors, and other metagame considerations both related to region and time.  On that note, I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize the Northeast U.S. metagame as somehow fringe, suboptimal, or illegitimate.  On the contrary, it's the epicenter of Vintage in America with the greatest concentration of skilled players on the continent.  FWIW, the winning deck that day was not a 4C "control" deck.

It's pretty clear the Ritual fueled fast kill is a legitimate approach to Doomsday.  Josh B has done very well both in local weekly events and in high attendance large events, which incidentally also happen to be local.  His build denies the opponent an opportunity to meaningfully interact.  There's something to be said about winning before an opponent can hand sculpt with Bob/Jace, Vamp things up, win with Oath of Druids, etc.  Having played against different Dday variants, I have to say the Ritual approach is more threatening to play against than the slow-rollers which tend to give an opponent more time to develop.   

[AmbivalentDuck]

Globally optimal -> maximizes match win% against an unknown meta.

[Smmenen]

Globally optimal -> maximizes match win% against an unknown meta.

Since when is a metagame ever completely unknown?  That means you can make no assumptions, for example, about whether we are likely to encounter Force of Wills, and may have to suppose a completely random card pool out of the available cards in Magic.  I wouldn't want to build a deck that is globally optimal according to your definition.  

I "buy" the reasoning for cutting green, and I do agree that this may approach a build optimized for a shops-heavy meta. You're not really set up to get into the late game where GushBond shines. Locally optimal, quite likely. Globally optimal? I think there's some merit to interacting a bit before you need to win.

There's no such thing as a static "globally optimal" design of any deck out there.  Trying to engineer a one-size-fits-all perfect build is a vain pursuit, since it neglects differences in play style, additional subjective/intangible factors, and other metagame considerations both related to region and time.  On that note, I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize the Northeast U.S. metagame as somehow fringe, suboptimal, or illegitimate.  On the contrary, it's the epicenter of Vintage in America with the greatest concentration of skilled players on the continent.  

NE triumphalism is just as bad as marginalizing it.  The NE's concentration of skilled players is proportionate to its population of magic players (and concentration of people) generally, so I wouldn't get too boastful about that.  The fact that X% of #EternalWeekend players in the top 16 were from the NE is a simple function of the % of players in attendance from that region (how many NE players won Vintage champs when it was at Gencon?, and you'll have a very different answer).  Boasting can just as much marginalize other regions with valid player bases.

It's pretty clear the Ritual fueled fast kill is a legitimate approach to Doomsday.  Josh B has done very well both in local weekly events and in high attendance large events, which incidentally also happen to be local.  His build denies the opponent an opportunity to meaningfully interact.  There's something to be said about winning before an opponent can hand sculpt with Bob/Jace, Vamp things up, win with Oath of Druids, etc.  Having played against different Dday variants, I have to say the Ritual approach is more threatening to play against than the slow-rollers which tend to give an opponent more time to develop.  

Brian, I've read your tournament report on this issue, and you have a very small sample size.  I would be glad to play you and illustrate the threat and speed threat that a non Ritual version can present.  I Top 4ed the Friday Grinder at eternal weekend with no Rituals with Doomsday, winning lots of games on turn 2.  Playing a list with Imperial Seal and Fastbond offers lots of lines that a list without those cards lacks.  I can't imagine playing the deck without Fastbond, as half my games are won by Fastbond --> Yawg Will --> Tendrils with the Gushbond engine.  

[brianpk80]

NE triumphalism is just as bad as marginalizing it.  The NE's concentration of skilled players is proportionate to its population of magic players (and concentration of people) generally, so I wouldn't get too boastful about that.  

I wasn't boasting, just responding to the absurd idea that the NE is an illegitimate or irrelevant metagame when we all know what the facts are.  I'm aware that there's not "something in the water" here that magically makes every Northeasterner a better Magic player; rather it is, as you say, a function of population density and the fact that Vintage flourishing gives the most opportunity for experience.   

I would be glad to play you and illustrate the threat and speed threat that a non Ritual version can present.  I Top 4ed the Friday Grinder at eternal weekend with no Rituals with Doomsday, winning lots of games on turn 2.  Playing a list with Imperial Seal and Fastbond offers lots of lines that a list without those cards lacks.  I can't imagine playing the deck without Fastbond, as half my games are won by Fastbond --> Yawg Will --> Tendrils with the Gushbond engine.  

We can play if you want, though I don't see how that would resolve the question of which is faster or more threatening.  Given Fastbond is restricted, my hunch is that Dark Ritual attains more frequent fast kills. 

[Smmenen]

We can play if you want, though I don't see how that would resolve the question of which is faster or more threatening.  Given Fastbond is restricted, my hunch is that Dark Ritual attains more frequent fast kills.  

I don't doubt that, but speed is far from the only relevant or even most important consideration in Vintage. We know this as a general matter (where are all the Ad Nauseam/Berlcher decks?) but it's also true of this archetype.   If it weren't, I wouldn't have cut Rituals when I first Top8ed the Waterbury with this archetype in 2011.  

And the degree of speed difference is not that great.  I found through testing and tournaments that Dark Ritual only very marginally speeds up the deck while creating big holes in important matchups.  Dark Ritual is really bad in the decks weakest matchups (Workshops), and weakens the deck overall in the most important matchups (like blue control, where you lose the control role option).  A big part of this thread earlier is on this point, so I won't reiterate it here except this summary.  

On cutting Fastbond: you lose alot of resilience.  There are many Doomsday piles that include Fastbond.   I already mentioned the fact that Fastbond allows you to construct very unique Doomsday piles, but you also lose the ability to win robustly without Doomsday at all.  Yes, with multiple rituals you can Ritual, Ritual, DT, Will, Ritual, Ritual, DT Tendrils and win the game, but with Fastbond, you have a robust, multi-turn engine that does not rely on Doomsday at all, and makes Yawg Will instantly lethal without having to construct it in a single turn, while  yet having the option to do it in a single turn.  

The Gushbond engine is one of the most powerful engines in Vintage.  It's a complex, multi-faceted, and highly versatile engine.  Cutting Fastbond denies you maximal utilization of Gush, and multiple endgame possibilities.  

Fastbond allows you to to resolve Yawg Will under multiple Spheres, and bust out of it, replaying fetchlands, playing Gush for 2 to draw 2 cards and lose no mana, and find the answers like Ingot Chewers or Hurkyl's, en route to victory.  

[AmbivalentDuck]

If it weren't, I wouldn't have cut Rituals when I first Top8ed the Waterbury with this archetype in 2011.

For the record, can you quickly concede that a desperately suboptimal deck can still top8, particularly given a good pilot?

[A.-1.]

As primarily a Shop pilot, I'd much rather face a Doomsday list with Fastbond than one with Dark Ritual. My win % over the past year or two is much higher versus the Fastbond versions. I've lost count the number of times I've lost to the Ritual build before getting a turn or getting my first threat countered.

[Smmenen]

As primarily a Shop pilot, I'd much rather face a Doomsday list with Fastbond than one with Dark Ritual. My win % over the past year or two is much higher versus the Fastbond versions. I've lost count the number of times I've lost to the Ritual build before getting a turn or getting my first threat countered.

Sure, but countering all of the Workshop pilots Spheres before your turn 2, and assembling Dark Ritual + Doomsday on turn 2 is not a reliable plan for beating Workshops.  Sometimes you get lucky, win the die roll, have a counter, and your opponent only has 1 Sphere on turn 1.  That's not a high percentage plan.  

In the Waterbury, I wouldn't have made top 8 if I had had Rituals in my counterspell spots, as I would have lost to control decks whom I had to wrestle over counterspell wars in order to defeat.  I also won literally 50% of my games with the Gushbond engine. 

[A.-1.]

Josh, what percentage of our games would you estimate you win without me interacting meaningfully? 30%? 40%?

[Smmenen]

So, you didn't even play a Sphere on turn 1 in 30-40% of games? That's pretty awful.  

[msg67183]

So, you didn't even play a Sphere on turn 1 in 30-40% of games? That's pretty awful.  

There is a magical card in Doomsday called Force of Will.
There is also a very situational card called Mental Misstep for the occasional turn one Sol Ring to limit options for turn one plays.

Plus he never even said he, being the Workshop player, was on the play a certain amount during those games, it seems you just assumed that.

[Smmenen]

So, you didn't even play a Sphere on turn 1 in 30-40% of games? That's pretty awful.  

There is a magical card in Doomsday called Force of Will.

What is your point?

Plus he never even said he, being the Workshop player, was on the play a certain amount during those games, it seems you just assumed that.

Naturally.

Magic matches are generally best 2 of 3, if you didn't know, which means each player gets to play first in at least one game.

Also, without Fastbond, it's much harder to win on turn 1 with the card Doomsday.   You need a second land to play Gush, which means Workshops almost always get a turn even if you are on the play.  

[Asphyxious]

I only disagree with Steve on one point. He's absolutely correct that speed is just another way to play vintage and or any particular archetype. It is certainly not the only or best method, and much of it depends on metagame and personal preference. I pilot aggressive decks better so I've stuck with the ritual version. But I certainly don't have as good of a long game as a more resilient controlling version.

The point that I disagree on is that ritual is bad in the shops matchup. I've found it to be very good because it allows me to fetch out islands rather than undergrounds. I don't have to expose myself to wastelands as early or as often.

Also on the shops matchup, Rob's point is that I've won a lot of games by countering his first threat, then using ritual to cast doomsday on my first or second turn without him getting another chance to cast anything.  That's what he means by not interacting meaningfully, not that he just didn't play anything. I dont think anyone would believe that rob doesn't know how to pilot a shops deck extremely well.

so unless he has a hand with two threats to deploy one the first turn, I have a very decent chance to win the game. The 4 rituals just makes that a little more consistent. Of course that's not to say that rituals don't come with weaknesses.  Obviously, strengthening one situation weakens another. There's just no getting around that fact.

As additional data, not that its a lot, but I just tested with Will Magraan tonight (4 rituals and no fast bond). we played 10 pre-board games and went 50-50. I won 4 of the games that I was on the play and 1 on the draw. I would say, as a guess because I didn't actually track that data, that my win percentage against shops in all the tournaments I've played has been about 40-50%.

The other major point in favor of rituals that I has been big for me is that it more often  allows a turn two win to include additional protection in the form of thought seize, spell pierce, flusterstorm, etc. That's been big for me, but again if you're not going for speed than this point is largely irrelevant.

As for the fastbond, its definitely true that it allows unique dd piles that cannot be replicated any other way and it does improve the ability of the deck to win via tendrils without dd, and it does make turn 1 wins a lot less common, but its also true that sometimes its almost dead. I originally cut it as an experiment. I just haven't missed it yet. I haven't yet walked away from a tournament won or lost thinking "man, I really missed fast bond".

Yes. Suboptimal decks can win. And they do quite often. That being said, we're discussing the finer points of list variations that both have a fairly strong history of success via multiple top 8s and via multiple pilots. so I don't think that's all that relevant here. more importantly there is nothing to learn from simply dismissing something as suboptimal. every innovation started as something that was most likely considered suboptimal. I'm sure that the first time Steve ever piloted dd, someone said or thought that it was junk, but that's long since been proven to be untrue.

Personally I don't think either 4 rituals vs 1/2 rituals or fastbond vs no fast bond is optimal all the time. I think they have all various strengths and weaknesses. as I've said I prefer the offensive strategy to a controlling strategy. I've played control decks before and I've won tournaments with them, but I never feel as confident with them as I do with an aggressive combo deck. Steve having far more vintage experience than I do, especially with control decks is significantly more comfortable with them and will probably have better results. My best results have been with 4 rituals.

[brianpk80]

The Gushbond engine is one of the most powerful engines in Vintage.  It's a complex, multi-faceted, and highly versatile engine.  Cutting Fastbond denies you maximal utilization of Gush, and multiple endgame possibilities. 

I don't have a serious disagreement with anything you wrote.  It seems fair to say that Fastbond and Dark Ritual are two viable approaches to Doomsday, with separate pros and cons.  What caught my attention in this thread was the bizarre and out-of-touch attack on the Northeast and that wasn't your transgression.  Best, -B