UR Delver

[Smmenen]

I was hoping we could end this, but oh well.

Eh.   You have consistently asserted that Tarmogoyf is objectively better than Pyromancer, not that it's better in your deck.  You said "(Back when I thought Pyromancer was better than Tarmogoyf)."  

You never caveated that "Goyf is better in MY list."  You made a blanket claim about the relative merits of each card in the abstract.  

You seem to think that I claimed Goyf is only better in my list.

No, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.   Your last message said "I suppose that I have no need to argue further now that we seem to understand each other," in responding to my concession that Goyf is probably better in your list.  Yet, since your claim was broader, your comment was strange, since it did not represent agreement on the question of which card is better in general.

Reread the paragraph above.  I said you "NEVER" caveated...  

The reason Pyromancer wasn't pulling its weight is because your deck is not designed to be optimized in a long game.  

That is not the main reason, actually. The main reason I cut Pyromancer was because Pyromacer itself could not attack into my opponent's creatures often enough.

That's the flip side of the same thing.  Another way of saying what I said is that your deck is focused on attacking on the ground in the early game.  

Really the only creature Pyromancer can swing into in a vacuum is Bob. This means that I have to wait multiple turns before the tokens can make any sizable change in their life total. Situations like these should theoretically happen even less in a deck like mine, due to my greater amount of removal, counter spells that hit creatures, and wastes to keep blockers off the table. However, this happened to me far too often. Tarmogoyf has the ability to attack through nearly everything with impunity. You may claim that because Pyromancer gets better as the game goes longer that it won't matter, however the inherent swinginess of Vintage makes this very risky.

I do, but that's not the only reason Pyroman is better.  As I said: "e generates permanent advantage against workshops, he is the ultimate defense against aggro decks (Aggro decks can't break through my wall of tokens), trumps cards like Jace or spot removal, and generates an evasive win condition in the end game."

Yes, tempo decks can play control. However, as the game goes longer your hand will get worn down.

Of course, but you only need to trade-one-for one, and be ahead by one card, allowing the virtual card advantage of the Gush engine and light mana base to fully take effect.   It's just math after that.

 He basically scales to skill level, which is insane for a tempo finisher.  

Could you please elaborate?

The better the player, the better Pyromancer becomes in a geometric rather than merely linear progression.    

Since the maindeck contains the 5 strip effects, I assume that the list has to have at least 22 mana. That changes the context in which Grudge is evaluated imo.

It only runs 20. That's just 3 more than Steve's list, so I wouldn't say it makes a drastic difference.

Actually, it is.   The virtual card advantage generated by my low mana count is a key part of my deck.  Your decks use of Wastelands means that you lose critical late game advantages by having too much mana.   Your deck has a more tenuous grasp on the late game than mine does, which explains why you prefer Goyf.  You need to win the early game or you lose.  

       You run one more Gush and one more Preordain than I do. You run 3 less mana sources.

And the combined effects of those 5 charges are enormous in terms of leveraging Turbo Xerox/Gush design principles and maximizing virtual card advantage.

[diopter]

The better the player, the better Pyromancer becomes in a geometric rather than merely linear progression.

Steve, I get most everything else but not this point. How does Pyromancer scale to skill? I guess I don't have enough serious testing with it (just my messing around with Clamps) but what kind of meaningful decisions does it really give you?

[Smmenen]

The better the player, the better Pyromancer becomes in a geometric rather than merely linear progression.

Steve, I get most everything else but not this point. How does Pyromancer scale to skill? I guess I don't have enough serious testing with it (just my messing around with Clamps) but what kind of meaningful decisions does it really give you?

I already alluded to many in my previous posts, but a big one is when to play instants to trigger Pyromancer, and how to use the trigger to take advantage of key situations.  The decision of what to do with the various tokens introduces huge decision points as well -- whether to attack, block, etc - not just when to make them.  

At a higher level, Young Pyromancer facilitates dual or complex role assignment much better and in more complex and sophisticated ways than any other tempo finisher.  Role assignment is probably the most important skill and highest level skill with this deck.

[Soly]

One card I have really liked in testing is a Grapeshot.   Even doing as much as playing Gush into Preordain into Grapeshot can create very positive situations.

However, the reason I wanted to post is this:  Have you ever considered splashing WHITE?   I've been working on a URW Delver deck, and Wear/Tear is an MVP in that deck. 

I could see playing 2 Tundras in this deck just for Wear/Tear, and then sideboarding Path to Exiles.   (Paths over swords because you're not really a Mana Denial deck)

[diopter]

At a higher level, Young Pyromancer facilitates dual or complex role assignment much better and in more complex and sophisticated ways than any other tempo finisher.  Role assignment is probably the most important skill and highest level skill with this deck.

OK, I buy that, in some matchups anyway. Against Grixis I can't imagine too many scenarios where your 1/1's aren't turning sideways every turn (the only decision being does your 2/1 join them) but against Shops I can see switching from chump block machine to finisher to be a nuanced decision.

Also I guess you have to anticipate whether your Pyro and 2 tokens (ostensibly a four turn clock against an opponent at 16 life) is going to close the game in two with a flurry of Flusterstorms, Missteps and well placed Bolt. I think that's a pretty standard skill set in many Limited formats but relatively unused in Vintage.

[Smmenen]

At a higher level, Young Pyromancer facilitates dual or complex role assignment much better and in more complex and sophisticated ways than any other tempo finisher.  Role assignment is probably the most important skill and highest level skill with this deck.

OK, I buy that, in some matchups anyway. Against Grixis I can't imagine too many scenarios where your 1/1's aren't turning sideways every turn (the only decision being does your 2/1 join them) but against Shops I can see switching from chump block machine to finisher to be a nuanced decision.

Actually, role questions come up all the time against Grixis.   Consider this simple example:

* You are facing Grixis and they have a Dark Confidant.  You have a flipped Delver and a Pyromancer in play and you are debating whether to play the second Pyromancer and try to race them in damage or keep the mana open and leave it up for countermagic.  The Confidant may put them into a danger zone.  The proper play is a role assignment question.  

Further: Whether you attack with Pyromancer or not is a complex question.  Even if you attack, and they don't block, you can play a spell and generate a blocker.  Not something Goyf can do.  

Another example in a similar vein:

* You are facing Keeper, and you need to decide whether you can out race a pair of Deathrite Shamans.  Do you go into the control role and dig for Bolts/Fire/Ice, or do you play a second Pyromancer and try to race?  It depends on many factors that are probabilistic and some that are unknown.

In nearly every matchup will present role issues because my deck is designed to pursue BOTH Roles.  It's straight out of Zvi's Who's the Beatdown II? which posits that the deck that can deny an opponent an optimal role wins the game.  Role assignment shifts happen not just from match to match, but game to game, turn to turn, and play to play.  You can shift roles 3 times in the course of a single turn playing this deck.  This deck often wants to play both the aggro and control role -- it wants to attack, but it also wants to prevent the opponent from achieving its strategic objectives.  Tokens can block, and do the latter, but also attack.  So when you make tokens is obviously a big deal - not just what you do with them.  Should you Gush in response to an attack to block, etc? Or do it on their end step so you can attack them with the tokens?  Again, a role question.  
  
Pyromancer is incredible because it can play  both Aggro AND Control roles at the same time.  Once Goyf has attacked, it can no longer block.  It can shift roles well - from being a wall to a beater, but it can't do both things simultaneously.  The ability to do both simultaneously creates more options for role assignment and role implementation than any other tempo finisher has ever offered before.  

 I think you get the point.  I elaborate much more on these issues (role assignment, etc) in the upcoming version of my Gush book, so I'll stop there.

[diopter]

Thanks for expounding - very helpful.

I find it really interesting that combat and racing is now hyper-relevant even in the control matchups. An intriguing direction that Vintage is going.

[JarofFortune]

Drawing lands in the opening hand is not a concern. This is a good thing, actually. Keep in mind that 5 of the lands are Waste effects, which are Ideal for openers. Another thing to consider is that I run less colored sources than Steve does, and nearly as many cantrips, making mana flood very unlikely.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree that the drawing the lands more often is a good thing in the Shops matchup is a good thing, and thus the context for your Grudges is different than Steve's deck.

I really disagree about the Moxen though. If you are waiting until you can land a threat to Waste, then that means every Delver-less hand you open is going to wait until turn 3 to Waste, which means your Shop opponent gets 1-3 activations of his Shop (depending on play/draw and when he plays it...). That's a lot of activations.

Mulligans change this equation of course. You are free to mulligan to your Delver the way your opponent mulligans to his Shop or Tomb hand. That's the part of the equation I'm missing, whether Delver's mulligans can trump Espresso's mulligans. On its face I would be pessimistic.

Could you expound on your test results a bit? Under what conditions (e.g. tournament/two-fist/Cockatrice) are you achieving such a beatdown on Stax?

I never mulligan aggressively to find a Delver. Trying to aggressively mulligan outside of the Dredge matchup is usually not a good idea for this deck(It often backfires and I end up going to four). Against shops, I will land an early goyf if it is reasonable, but often I will wait to keep up counter magic and maybe even waste them(Wasteland is something Workshops have a lot of trouble recovering from).

I will test in person at my LGS if possible, but that is a rare occurrence. The vast majority of my testing time is on Cockatrice. On cockatrice, I try to get in maybe a round or two versus an actual opponent every day, but most of my testing is done on a Cockatrice game against myself(using a gauntlet of different decks). Through constant repetition and being exposed to different situations in different matchups, I have gained a greater understanding of my deck, the format, and the application of tempo advantage to the format. This testing is rather comprehensive. For example, I have probably played over 150 of these games versus different flavors of shops, primarily Kuldotha. I have probably played more than twice that versus Vault-Key decks. I did take the deck to a tournament recently, but I was very tired and it affected my play negatively as the day went on(The only round I won was versus Pitch Burning Tendrils, where my wastes destroyed him. I am convinced that I could have won two of the three rounds that I lost had I been at the top of my game).

I was hoping we could end this, but oh well.

Eh.   You have consistently asserted that Tarmogoyf is objectively better than Pyromancer, not that it's better in your deck.  You said "(Back when I thought Pyromancer was better than Tarmogoyf)."  

You never caveated that "Goyf is better in MY list."  You made a blanket claim about the relative merits of each card in the abstract.  

You seem to think that I claimed Goyf is only better in my list.

No, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.   Your last message said "I suppose that I have no need to argue further now that we seem to understand each other," in responding to my concession that Goyf is probably better in your list.  Yet, since your claim was broader, your comment was strange, since it did not represent agreement on the question of which card is better in general.

Reread the paragraph above.  I said you "NEVER" caveated...  

 I apologize. I misunderstood your intention with that statement.

The reason Pyromancer wasn't pulling its weight is because your deck is not designed to be optimized in a long game.  

That is not the main reason, actually. The main reason I cut Pyromancer was because Pyromacer itself could not attack into my opponent's creatures often enough.

That's the flip side of the same thing.  Another way of saying what I said is that your deck is focused on attacking on the ground in the early game.  

So you are basically saying that your deck does not want to be a tempo deck unless you have an early delver or Clique. You would rather play control with Pyromancer than Tempo your opponent out. This isn't a bad thing, but you seem to claim that Turbo-Xerox Principles are the only principles that apply to tempo decks. Modern Tempo Decks need to have board superiority early on in many match ups, because as the game goes longer your chances of winning decrease in many match ups (Pyromancer being an exception, at the cost of being a much worse card in the early game). My claim was that goyf is a better card for tempo decks, but your deck is not a full on tempo deck aside from the situations I mentioned above. It is much more like a literal embodiment of Aggro-Control, as Onslaught said. This is mainly just a strategic difference which does warrant the inclusion of Pyromancer in your list, come to think of it.

Really the only creature Pyromancer can swing into in a vacuum is Bob. This means that I have to wait multiple turns before the tokens can make any sizable change in their life total. Situations like these should theoretically happen even less in a deck like mine, due to my greater amount of removal, counter spells that hit creatures, and wastes to keep blockers off the table. However, this happened to me far too often. Tarmogoyf has the ability to attack through nearly everything with impunity. You may claim that because Pyromancer gets better as the game goes longer that it won't matter, however the inherent swinginess of Vintage makes this very risky.

 He basically scales to skill level, which is insane for a tempo finisher.  

Could you please elaborate?

The better the player, the better Pyromancer becomes in a geometric rather than merely linear progression.    

Are you suggesting that I don't have the playskill to use Pyromancer correctly?

Since the maindeck contains the 5 strip effects, I assume that the list has to have at least 22 mana. That changes the context in which Grudge is evaluated imo.

It only runs 20. That's just 3 more than Steve's list, so I wouldn't say it makes a drastic difference.

Actually, it is.   The virtual card advantage generated by my low mana count is a key part of my deck.  Your decks use of Wastelands means that you lose critical late game advantages by having too much mana.   Your deck has a more tenuous grasp on the late game than mine does, which explains why you prefer Goyf.  You need to win the early game or you lose.  

       You run one more Gush and one more Preordain than I do. You run 3 less mana sources.

And the combined effects of those 5 charges are enormous in terms of leveraging Turbo Xerox/Gush design principles and maximizing virtual card advantage.

    What Turbo-Xerox fails to cover is building your deck with tempo advantage in mind. Therefore, Turbo-Xerox principles are not synonymous with Tempo. Wasteland is great at this, and half of the time it creates Virtual card and tempo advantage by stranding spells in their hand. Even if you can't keep your opponent off blue, cutting them off one of their secondary colors is crippling. Our decks do have different game plans, as yours plays like a control deck more often. When I said that goyf is better for tempo decks, I did not realize how controlling and less tempo-oriented you want your deck to be.

[diopter]

Jar: thanks for replying, appreciate it. Would you mind fixing some of your quote tags around your reply to Steve?

Nothing wrong with two-fisted testing at all. One thing I gleaned was that you play against Kuldotha a lot so probably are facing less Spheres of Resistance generally (I.e. More thorns).

Wanna also follow up on the Wasteland line again. Do you ever throw out Waste without a prior threat on the table?
- If no threat: how does that go for you? Shops are slowed down for sure but I surmise they draw out of their mana problems faster than you?
- If wait til a threat: around what turn are you able to activate the Wasteland ("on average")?

[JarofFortune]

Nothing wrong with two-fisted testing at all. One thing I gleaned was that you play against Kuldotha a lot so probably are facing less Spheres of Resistance generally (I.e. More thorns).

I have played against a few Kuldotha lists, but the one I test the most against does run Sphere of Resistance. Sphere only hurts the shop player if they have been hit by wasteland(Which happens a lot with my deck ). Thorn, on the flip side, does not affect my win conditions. More of my testing versus thorn, however, is against other flavors of shops, against which the deck is incredibly favored against regardless.

Wanna also follow up on the Wasteland line again. Do you ever throw out Waste without a prior threat on the table?
- If no threat: how does that go for you? Shops are slowed down for sure but I surmise they draw out of their mana problems faster than you?
- If wait til a threat: around what turn are you able to activate the Wasteland ("on average")?

    Yeah, I will in some game states. For example, If I have no threat, I will typically waste the shops player, but this changes if they are overloaded with mana or I actually need the mana source. On average, when I don't have a threat against shops, I will waste on turn 2-3. This is not always the case. If they land a turn one mana source and a sphere (Or a threat and I have removal in hand), and I have a very strong feeling that they will be manascrewed by my wasteland, I will activate it on turn 1. In this case, Wasteland becomes multiple Time Walks. In other situations, maybe If I fear being wasted myself, and I have a gush in hand, I may play a second island before playing the waste(As Steve said, this is not always the right choice, and depends on a lot of factors). Intuition is an important part of using Wasteland in this matchup.

Shops are slowed down for sure but I surmise they draw out of their mana problems faster than you?

       In practice, this is typically not the case. I have better card selection that shops, so as long as I am able to cast my cantrips I can outdraw them.

[Smmenen]

I will test in person at my LGS if possible, but that is a rare occurrence. The vast majority of my testing time is on Cockatrice. On cockatrice, I try to get in maybe a round or two versus an actual opponent every day, but most of my testing is done on a Cockatrice game against myself(using a gauntlet of different decks). Through constant repetition and being exposed to different situations in different matchups, I have gained a greater understanding of my deck, the format, and the application of tempo advantage to the format. This testing is rather comprehensive. For example, I have probably played over 150 of these games versus different flavors of shops, primarily Kuldotha.

So, your experience, understanding, and testing of the format derives from Cockatrice...

You can't credit Cockatrice for format understanding as the players in that medium, just like Apprentice and MWS, are notoriously weak.  

That's the flip side of the same thing.  Another way of saying what I said is that your deck is focused on attacking on the ground in the early game.  

So you are basically saying that your deck does not want to be a tempo deck unless you have an early delver or Clique. You would rather play control with Pyromancer than Tempo your opponent out.

No.  I think your misunderstanding here underscores my central point.  Your statement suggests that my deck seeks a static role orientation ("would rather play control than tempo...") rather than a dynamic one.  This is my central point about building a dynamic, role flexible deck that is optimized to pursue both roles, and hence my contention regarding the strength of Goyf v. Pyromancer.  

My deck is basically Grow circa 2002, Chapin Grow, if you prefer, or the earlier Comer builds in Extended, with an even better late game because of what Pyromancer does on the ground.  

This isn't a bad thing, but you seem to claim that Turbo-Xerox Principles are the only principles that apply to tempo decks.

Where did I say that?  I'm saying that MY deck is trying to derive the virtual card advantage produced by the turbo-xerox principle of playing an extremely light mana base and a bunch of cantrips with a tight mana curve.  The variance in Vintage already makes achieving those advantages difficult enough.  Playing 3 more lands and   -1 Preordain and -1 Gush makes it almost impossible to consistently achieve that mid to late game consistent statistical virtual card advantage.  

 Modern Tempo Decks need to have board superiority early on in many match ups, because as the game goes longer your chances of winning decrease in many match ups (Pyromancer being an exception, at the cost of being a much worse card in the early game).

And now you understand why I've built a deck that gets stronger as the game goes longer despite having an amazing tempo game.  

I also dispute your claim about Pyromancer being much worse in the early game.  It's only marginally worse than Goyf.  

My claim was that goyf is a better card for tempo decks, but your deck is not a full on tempo deck aside from the situations I mentioned above. It is much more like a literal embodiment of Aggro-Control, as Onslaught said. This is mainly just a strategic difference which does warrant the inclusion of Pyromancer in your list, come to think of it.

All Tempo decks are Aggro-Control decks.

   What Turbo-Xerox fails to cover is building your deck with tempo advantage in mind. Therefore, Turbo-Xerox principles are not synonymous with Tempo.

Yes, but you can't play Wasteland and maximize Gush and the virtual card advantage derived from turbo-xerox design principles.  Tempo decks come in many forms, and can be generated through many effects.  Wasteland is one way to generate tempo, but it's far from the only way.  Gush decks generate card advantage, mana advantage, virtual card advantage, and tempo advantages through the same cluster of effects that flow out of turbo-xerox principles.  Wasteland is inimical to achieving, let alone maximizing, those forms of advantage.

When I said that goyf is better for tempo decks, I did not realize how controlling and less tempo-oriented you want your deck to be.

First of all, you didn't just say Goyf was better for Tempo decks. Your original framing was that Goyf is better in URx Delver decks.  

Secondly, see my point where you are trying pin my deck into a static role orientation when the entire point is to be able to pursue both roles.  I'm not trying to be less tempo-oriented.  Rather, I want the  *option* to be more controlling.   A deck that can play a control game, like mine, and a tremendous tempo game, can pursue either role or both, and will be advantaged overall over decks that can only play one role optimally.  

***

I'm sure at some point you will write a Premium Content primer on this deck, but it would certainly be cool to hear some more expanded discussion on strategic particulars and card choices in an upcoming podcast.

Well, I believe I've done that now

Allow me to reiterate, very simply, in an affirmative manner.  This deck is designed to have maximum role flexibility so that it may pursue both roles vigorously in any situation (see Who's the Beatdown II?), which Pyromancer facilitates better than any tempo creature ever printed.  It's not a matter of preference -- of pursuing an Aggro Role or a Control role.  Rather, it's that a deck that is *capable* of playing either role will be optimized to exploit any situation. 

The design of the deck follows from Turbo Xerox principles designed to maximize the four forms of advantage to be derived from Gush.

***

On an unrelated note, I will be playing a Dack Fayden over the Steel Sabotage maindeck, as soon as it is legal.  

[hashswag]

Steve, how critical do you feel the Cliques are to this deck?

[Smmenen]

Steve, how critical do you feel the Cliques are to this deck?

That's an interesting question because it can be interpreted in so many ways. 

To illustrate the ambiguity, consider two possible interpretations. One way of interpreting that question is "how central is Clique to this deck's game plan or strategy?"  Another way to interpret is to reframe it as "What is the opportunity cost or marginal value of Clique over the next best alternative?" 

The answer to the first question is: not that important.  Delver and Pyromancer are clearly the centerpieces of this deck's strategic game plan.  Clique supplements them and fulfills a number of roles and niches. The information, disruptive ability (like Duress), and ability to deal with critical things like Time Vault/Oath in hand, make it highly valuable. 

Yet, the answer to the second question cuts in the opposite direction to the first.  Clique may not be that critical to the deck's strategy, but it has a high marginal value and low opportunity cost.   I think the marginal value of Clique over the next best card is pretty substantial.  If I were to cut a Clique, I would probably play a 3rd Flusterstorm. 

But, if by your question you mean my second interpretation, then the only way to answer that question is to ask what you would replace it with.  Maybe there is a better card, but I am not aware of it.

 

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

Just to state a thing about clique: It may be anecdotical, but it came up in recent testing:

My opponent plays turn one engineered plague. I know this card doesn't get played often, but it happens and it is a huge blowout.
He named humans. I knew my role then: Control. I played counters and preordains. I drew the first clique when I had gone through half my deck. Plague transformed the deck basically into a pure control deck with 2 win conditions and 4 dead cards (i.e. pyromancers. the delvers are still blue). I think the 4 dead cards were made up for by the virtual card advantage of the mana base and preordain's ability to put them on the bottom of the library, so that in the end, I had a full grip, full control over the game and a clique beating down. 

But yes, it could be something else.

On another note: Steve, this is a beautifully designed deck.
I made minor changes:

- mystical for scroll, as it's an instant that gets time walk, flips delver and is cheaper. I think the card disadvantage can be neglected in this deck. would you still run fire/ice over the 4th bolt in that case?
Also,
- I changed the board a bit and put in a shattering spree (goes with mystical), and a vapor snag (for a pyroblast and a leyline, changed the 3 remaining to traps). The reason for vapor snag is that in my meta there are some 20/20 indestructible creatures that pop up just from laying down lands. Also, it could be critical to get through that last turn sometimes. All in all, I think the deck is good enough against big blue even with only 1 REB coming post board and it gains something from snag.

[Protoaddict]

The assumed opportunity cost for playing 2 delvers cliques is very meta contingent, as we have noted they are bad in the dredge and shops match up, good in the control and combo matches, and apparently vital against dark times. We cannot know the, meta its hard to judge, but I think cost to play 2 is actually exacerbated over playing 1 and one option.

The different between going from 1/60 to 1/30 is 50%. but the difference in being 1/60 and Nil is immeasurable. As in the point made before about engineered plague, having 1 clique gave you a chance to win, while having 0 means you would have to scoop. Having 2 makes it easier, but the amount you gain from the second copy is fairly insubstantial compared to the gap between 1 and 0.

I do not know what card would be better than the second Clique. If you keep it a creature without the human subtype its still fills the clique role in that corner case, but that is a minor consideration. I would ask what other decks do you have issue with, even if they are corner cases, where you have little to no options main deck right now. What about Noxious revival? It's one more instant for your mancers and delvers, allows you a second use of any answer you have in the deck, and can mess up opposing tutors in a pinch. In a lot of ways it is your second delver, and also your 3rd snapcaster, 5th pyromancer, etc.

[Soly]

I'd like to mention that getting Lighting Bolt, Ancient Grudge, and Time Walk are the big reasons I played Mystical over Scroll in RUG.

[Protoaddict]

Actually I was just thinking the thing your deck would rollover to, though probably pretty rare, would be Volcanic fallout. Its a board wipe every singe time that you cannot stop. Though if your deck ever did become a major meta player in its current configuration, then perhaps fallout would become a thing as it is already pretty good.

Perhaps replacing a Clique with something that survives a fallout? I was going to say True Name Nemesis but it shares 1 toughness with everything so that may not be great is people play infest style stuff to deal with swams. Is there perhaps a threat you can play that survives a bolt or something that is relevant for your list?

A creature with a sac ability would actually help against dredge as it could sac in response to remove bridges. Just a thought, I'm drawing a bit of a blank on whats available right now.

[PETER FLUGZEUG]

Protoaddict: I think we're entering Guli-Territory here (i.e. future future league, I apologize Guli!), I'm sorry if my comment about engineered plague has caused that (speaking about hypothetical cards that aren't played but could wreckadeck).

I think one clique and one grudge (if you add green back in...) could be good, too. I have to say that while clique isn't the best card against workshops, it's not that bad though, especially against tangle wire, or if you somehow manage to keep them off threats and control them further with playing it end of draw step. The difference between 1 and 2 cliques against engineered plague is mostly a time question in a tournament. If you have won game 1 you're totally fine with only one in the deck, otherwise it can get very grindy. Again, don't overestimate that stuff, I just mentioned it because it is a real situation that came up in testing recently.

[serracollector]

Obv it doesnt have the flash and duress effect but could something like serendib efreet be considered as it still only costs there survives bolt and is both a great blocker and attacker? The one damage would seem quite negligible i would think since the deck does not run ancient tomb bob or vamp etc. Maybe even the 4/4 angel that requires a spell before it such as gush would be optimal over clique as a secondary win condition and or beater?

[Protoaddict]

I think just having a 4 toughness flyer is "hate" against some things in the format. A great many cards cant get through that and it can block a salvager, trinket mage, or Resto all day long. I'm not sure you can ever think of it as a pure beater, it has other utility even if it is not readily apparent.

[Soly]

Seriously, If you're really worried about board sweepers, you just don't overextend into it.

[Smmenen]

Seriously, If you're really worried about board sweepers, you just don't overextend into it.

Exactly.  If you have Delver and Pyromancer in play, don't play the next Delver.  I usually won't unless it will make a meaningful clock difference, which if often doesn't.  And if they have board sweepers, just don't do it. 

[Protoaddict]

Isn't Pyromancer, by definition, an overextending card?

For it to be good you need to generate some bodies, probably 3-4 in an average gamestate to be a threat and be better than goyf or something similar, and the more you make the more vulnerable you become to a sweeper (ie the more you have to lose at once). Granted it's all virtual cards when you kill the tokens, but they still reset your board position to 0 creatures every time with a sweeper.

Volcanic fallout will always remove your board, always
A Toxic deluge that goes uncounted will always smack your board for the low price of 1 life
Fire will always 2 for 1
Hell an overloaded Electrickery will always wipe your board as well.

If you have a delver and a Pyromancer on the table and they play a sweeper, not only is a giant tempo swing but it is also a 2 for 1. Sometimes a deck only needs to gain a little tempo hit to the opponent to stabilize.

[Smmenen]

Isn't Pyromancer, by definition, an overextending card?

It's the opposite, in fact.  Pyromancer's horizontal growth means that you don't have to deploy other finishers to win games.  He can do it all. 

[Soly]

Volcanic fallout will always remove your board, always
A Toxic deluge that goes uncounted will always smack your board for the low price of 1 life
Fire will always 2 for 1
Hell an overloaded Electrickery will always wipe your board as well.

You're afraid of a Pyroclasm that costs 1RR in a format full of wastelands.  Realistically your opponent is probably terrible if they're playing this.  Pyroclasm sees very little play, and THAT card actually is castable against decks packing wastleands.

Toxic Deluge is a legit fear.   But it is what it is. 

Fire/Ice hasn't been good in years.

I'll get banned again if I state my opinion on Electrickery.  That card is a house in Pauper. enough said.

[MTGFan]

So, your experience, understanding, and testing of the format derives from Cockatrice...

You can't credit Cockatrice for format understanding as the players in that medium, just like Apprentice and MWS, are notoriously weak.  

I just want to say that this is a false statement. Cockatrice is every bit as functional a testing platform as in-person testing or Magic Online. It is dependent on the caliber of the opponent you find, as is every testing platform.

If you are playing random people, your overall average skill level of your opponent may be relatively low, but if you constantly seek out a select group of players who you know to be solid, then play-testing on Cockatrice can certainly improve your knowledge of Magic as much as in-person testing or Magic Online.

As someone who has played against high-caliber opponents in person, on Magic Online, *and* on Cockatrice, I can confidently say that it is definitely possible to find a high-caliber opponent for Vintage playtesting on Cockatrice. I have personally played, many times, Brian Kelly (brianpk80), Aj Grasso (plagic), Varal, Onslaught, Rich Shay (The Atog Lord), col_impact and can say that these players and many more are of a high enough skill level to make play-testing Vintage on Cockatrice an enriching experience.

As long as the player is seeking out a select group of competent opponents, and not relying merely on random players, then Cockatrice is just as worthy a play-testing environment as anything else.

[Smmenen]

So, your experience, understanding, and testing of the format derives from Cockatrice...

You can't credit Cockatrice for format understanding as the players in that medium, just like Apprentice and MWS, are notoriously weak.  

I just want to say that this is a false statement. Cockatrice is every bit as functional a testing platform as in-person testing or Magic Online. It is dependent on the caliber of the opponent you find, as is every testing platform.

If you are playing random people, your overall average skill level of your opponent may be relatively low, but if you constantly seek out a select group of players who you know to be solid, then play-testing on Cockatrice can certainly improve your knowledge of Magic as much as in-person testing or Magic Online.

As someone who has played against high-caliber opponents in person, on Magic Online, *and* on Cockatrice, I can confidently say that it is definitely possible to find a high-caliber opponent for Vintage playtesting on Cockatrice. I have personally played, many times, Brian Kelly (brianpk80), Aj Grasso (plagic), Varal, Onslaught, Rich Shay (The Atog Lord), col_impact and can say that these players and many more are of a high enough skill level to make play-testing Vintage on Cockatrice an enriching experience.

As long as the player is seeking out a select group of competent opponents, and not relying merely on random players, then Cockatrice is just as worthy a play-testing environment as anything else.

I totally disagree with you here.  For one thing, even good players playing on Cockatrice are more likely to play sloppily and test suboptimally, and distractedly, than in a focused and meaningful test session.   

And even if you can find a few decent players, the majority being terrible just underscores my point. 

Online play will be far more consistent in a few months as Vintage comes to Magic online, and you can see the ratings of your opponent. 

You can learn your own deck well by testing online, but it won't really tell you the quality of your deck in a competitive field.   

[oshkoshhaitsyosh]

I agree it's too easy to play sloppy online due to distractions and everything else compared to in real life play. Nothing compares to it...FOREVER CARDBOARD! HAHA

I am totally guilty of sloppy online play while IRL I am completely focused and in the zone

[Onslaught]

I'm glad a lively discussion of varying viewpoints is taking place, but just as a reminder amongst all the discourse:

This deck is cool as shit

[JarofFortune]

All Tempo decks are Aggro-Control decks.

 But not all Aggro-Control decks are dedicated tempo decks. The problem with using tempo and Aggro-Control in the same context is that they become interchangeable terms(I myself am guilty of this). In fact, both terms are rather vague. It might help if you share what your personal definitions of Aggro-control decks and tempo-decks are.

I also dispute your claim about Pyromancer being much worse in the early game.  It's only marginally worse than Goyf.  

I would say that that is not the case when one is trying to pursue a tempo game. And that is the beauty of your deck. As you said, you can switch roes in when the situation calls for it.

My deck is basically Grow circa 2002, Chapin Grow, if you prefer, or the earlier Comer builds in Extended, with an even better late game because of what Pyromancer does on the ground.  

  Then it appears I have misunderstood you this whole time. Our decks have much greater functional difference than meets the eye, as yours is more flexible in changing its role while mine is more reliant on tempo advantage, particularly in the early game(Not that it can't outdraw the opponent with Cantrips and Gush. It just can't can't outdraw them on the same level as you, but gains a better Virtual CA engine for the early game in Wasteland, which gains more Tempo-advantage by extending the early game, in the style of Canadian Threshold).

You never caveated that "Goyf is better in MY list."  You made a blanket claim about the relative merits of each card in the abstract.  

First of all, you didn't just say Goyf was better for Tempo decks. Your original framing was that Goyf is better in URx Delver decks.  

Despite the contradiction in the above statements, You have convinced me that goyf is not the correct choice in some Aggro-Control Decks.  WIth what your deck is designed to do, and the way in which you meant it to be piloted, Pyromancer is usually going to be better.

So, your experience, understanding, and testing of the format derives from Cockatrice...

You can't credit Cockatrice for format understanding as the players in that medium, just like Apprentice and MWS, are notoriously weak.  

I just want to say that this is a false statement. Cockatrice is every bit as functional a testing platform as in-person testing or Magic Online. It is dependent on the caliber of the opponent you find, as is every testing platform.

If you are playing random people, your overall average skill level of your opponent may be relatively low, but if you constantly seek out a select group of players who you know to be solid, then play-testing on Cockatrice can certainly improve your knowledge of Magic as much as in-person testing or Magic Online.

As someone who has played against high-caliber opponents in person, on Magic Online, *and* on Cockatrice, I can confidently say that it is definitely possible to find a high-caliber opponent for Vintage playtesting on Cockatrice. I have personally played, many times, Brian Kelly (brianpk80), Aj Grasso (plagic), Varal, Onslaught, Rich Shay (The Atog Lord), col_impact and can say that these players and many more are of a high enough skill level to make play-testing Vintage on Cockatrice an enriching experience.

As long as the player is seeking out a select group of competent opponents, and not relying merely on random players, then Cockatrice is just as worthy a play-testing environment as anything else.

I totally disagree with you here.  For one thing, even good players playing on Cockatrice are more likely to play sloppily and test suboptimally, and distractedly, than in a focused and meaningful test session.  

And even if you can find a few decent players, the majority being terrible just underscores my point.  

Online play will be far more consistent in a few months as Vintage comes to Magic online, and you can see the ratings of your opponent.  

You can learn your own deck well by testing online, but it won't really tell you the quality of your deck in a competitive field.  

   As I said in the post where I mentioned Cockatrice, the majority of my testing on Cockatrice is two-fisted. IIRC, you advocated this method in a past article on how to test for Vintage. Therefore, most of the cockatrice player base being terrible is irrelevant. The added advantage of two-fisting is that in addition to playing a much higher amount of games, I gain a greater understanding of how other decks operate. In this way, cockatrice does prepare me for a competitive field.

I'm glad a lively discussion of varying viewpoints is taking place, but just as a reminder amongst all the discourse:

This deck is cool as shit

Damn right it is!