This something that I find very interesting that came up in a deck tech I was watching. The idea is that if you can diversify your threats, you can make your deck better by having a different threat for each game. What does this mean? If your threats are all singletons, your opponent will sideboard accordingly for the threat he/she saw, but he/she doesn't know that the threat is a singleton in your deck. Suddenly, your opponent has brought in 3, 4, or even as many as 6 cards in from the sideboard to answer a single card in your deck. You opponent suddenly has mismatched answers, and those cards will sit dead in their hand because they have the wrong answer. This is probably better suited in control decks, where you could afford to give yourself this huge amount of varience, but I feel that even Delver variants could use this for a few cards. Now obviously, four-ofs are necessary in every Constructed format, but this idea is something that I think could be very powerful in a lot of decks. I'm very interested to see what the community thinks of this idea, and it's previous success in Modern. (I believe this was used in PT RTR in UWR Control, if I'm not mistaken.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
You don't sideboard against the win conditions, you sideboard against the deck. Thrun, the Last Troll is going into Jund regardless of which win con UWR is packing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
I very much enjoy sprinkling in singletons in most of my decks. at this point, its compulsory. 1 is probably my favorite number of copies in magic. threats are one thing, but I like to diversify my answers. in control, catch all cards are few and far between. if I play UW control, do I want 4 mana leak when I run path? probably not. I run 1x remand, mana leak, condescend, trickbind, shadow of doubt, cryptic, or whatever I am feeling, it changes by the day. is it correct? is it ideal? probably not, but I like the psychological effect it has on my opponent. the 'what if they have it' factor is one of my favorite things about magic. if they try to play around lots of cards they think you have multiple copies of you can usually use that to your advantage. if they don't, well, I love the look on someone's face when they get blown out by a singleton they weren't thinking about.
I don't think the sideboard figures into this discussion much to be honest. Richard arschmann said it best: fight the deck not the card. however, if you have a transformational sideboard and change your angle of attack by turning into a gifts deck with iona and elesh norn or something, we are having a completely different conversation.
Singletons have two aspects: They can be redundant copies of things (win cons in control decks), or they can be "once in a long game" or "tutor target" style cards.
Examples: Last season with UW elixir/rev planar cleansing control: a 1-of deicide was fairly standard as it allowed a game one out to random theros gods that you otherwise couldn't beat. This is a good "one of in games that go long" type card. Another example in this category is the singleton copy of keranos, god of storms that certain twin builds run in the main, because in grindy games that go long, you'll eventually loot into it and then be pretty assured of winning.
In general, when you talk about diversifying your answers with respect to singletons, what you're referencing is having a mix of cards that all do the same job (kill a dude) with a variety of edge-cases (path is efficient and hits most things but gives them a land; edict effects like devour flesh hit boggles but are bad against affinity; doom blade hits everything in affinity except etched champion but is bad against abzan; abrupt decay can't hit tasigur where path can). In this sense, diversifying your removal is often the correct thing to do, unless there's a clear power level discrepancy (part of why we ALWAYS see four copies of lightning bolt--there's nothing anywhere near as good in-class). We see this right now with abrupt decay not necessarily being a 4-of anymore in jund because it's limited somewhat and there are other good option--it's part of a diversified removal suite, that overlaps with kolaghan's command. We saw something similar with the UWR control deck Shaun McLaren won a modern pro tour with--he ran a 15 card sideboard with 15 distinct cards, but there was a lot of overlap between the various spells in terms of their utility and doing so allowed him to have waaaaay more than 15 options for sideboarding--his SB felt a lot like it was really a 20 or 30 card sideboard, because you could craft a plan against literally ANY deck out of those 15 cards. The only time we see that kind of diversity in main decks however is in weird animals like mystical teachings, where the downside to diversification (not having a consistent draw overall) is mitigated by the increased access to your singleton cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
The idea is certainly much more powerful in Legacy (in fact, the deck tech I was watching was for Legacy), but I asked the creator if this was applicable in Modern, and he said yes, it is. I still think the idea is interesting and worth trying in some control strategies. To the brewing table!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
It works better in Legacy because of Brainstorm (sorry to state the obvious). I have been mostly against this type of theory. I love to play 4 ofs. In fact, Standard Faeries had one of my favorite configurations of nine 4 ofs and 24 lands. This is actually my favorite type of setup because if I don't see a particular card, it's because of variance, not because I only put 3 on my deck. Now I know this doesn't work with all decks and many need 3 ofs, 2 ofs, and yes, singletons to work the best way. I just personally prefer these types of configurations because they appease my "consistency side."
Now in a deck like Kiki Chord that I played, having 1 of creatures can be good because you have 4 Chord of Calling and it is similar in Collected Company decks, although you want a higher number there to increase consistency. But sometimes you actually draw those silver bullets and they are not always good. Orzhov Pontiff, when drawn, has ranged from Game Over, to Unplayable and stranded in my hand. With decks like that, you want 1 ofs because you don't want double the chance of actually drawing the card. You just want to be able to Chord for it against matchups that it's good in.
Now I noticed I went a bit too far, but the point is valid. It works in some decks and not so much in others. As a Combo player, I have that preference for 4 ofs (and sometimes, essentially 8 ofs) in order to guarantee victory in many situations.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
The idea is certainly much more powerful in Legacy (in fact, the deck tech I was watching was for Legacy), but I asked the creator if this was applicable in Modern, and he said yes, it is. I still think the idea is interesting and worth trying in some control strategies. To the brewing table!
The theory is pretty solid if not well demonstrated by lemming lists. Take UW control for example. There are a number of finishers you can choose from that attack your opponent from different angles. Examples: Elspeth, Geist, Colonade, Multiple Jaces, Gideons, etc. Which one is best? Its impossible to say, as each one shines in a different situation. I sometimes mix and match planeswalkers and such for this reason. Maybe I take 2 elspeths and 1 gideon + 1 jace for a playset of "finishers". This would be an example of your idea in practice.
This is pretty much only good against Control, not in Control deck - or if the threats are so similar that they are easily inter-changable (which is quite rare).
Overall, Control decks don't seem common enough to really warrant that approach and neither do situation where threats are that similar in "general power-level" (bad term to describe what I actually mean by it).
I disagree. The Legendary nature of Planeswalkers leads us down towards many singleton finisher options.
This something that I find very interesting that came up in a deck tech I was watching. The idea is that if you can diversify your threats, you can make your deck better by having a different threat for each game. What does this mean? If your threats are all singletons, your opponent will sideboard accordingly for the threat he/she saw, but he/she doesn't know that the threat is a singleton in your deck. Suddenly, your opponent has brought in 3, 4, or even as many as 6 cards in from the sideboard to answer a single card in your deck. You opponent suddenly has mismatched answers, and those cards will sit dead in their hand because they have the wrong answer. This is probably better suited in control decks, where you could afford to give yourself this huge amount of varience, but I feel that even Delver variants could use this for a few cards. Now obviously, four-ofs are necessary in every Constructed format, but this idea is something that I think could be very powerful in a lot of decks. I'm very interested to see what the community thinks of this idea, and it's previous success in Modern. (I believe this was used in PT RTR in UWR Control, if I'm not mistaken.)
This is pretty much only good against Control, not in Control deck - or if the threats are so similar that they are easily inter-changable (which is quite rare).
Overall, Control decks don't seem common enough to really warrant that approach and neither do situation where threats are that similar in "general power-level" (bad term to describe what I actually mean by it).
What is quite neat, though, are one-offs that give you more options or can catch opponents off-guard in game 1 (which works similarly to your idea, but those are often not "threats" in a traditional sense).
Yes, while this is also good against control game one, allegedly (coming from people who put this idea to the test and tried, some of whom still do this) tye idea is great in control as well. Having multiple different finishers and threats is great. Again, we're not talking about having 20 singletons in a deck. Far from it. Maybe like 3-4. Also, this idea comes from Legacy. I just want to see what the community thought of the idea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
The main reason to have a card be a 1x, by conventional wisdom, is for cards that are good only one at a time, but you never want to draw two of them. For instance, in Burn, I like 1x Molten Vortex, because it's great insurance against getting land flooded when I need closing damage, or for reach when the game goes long because I had to deal with numerous Leylines and other side-against-Burn measures. But I'd never want to draw a second one.
1x is also a frequent measure for once-in-a-night answers, tutor targets, or hedges against a deck you otherwise lose to. But I'm really iffy on running singletons just to bluff your opponent's sideboard. Making your deck deliberately inconsistent to dodge sideboard hate hurts you more than your opponent, unless your 1x's are redundant near-identical threats, in which case sideboard hate against one will almost always work against any of them anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This signature holds priority until end of comment.
I definitely get that logic. In case anybody's interested, MythicMTGTech did a video on YouTube about this. It's a little dated, but it's an interesting video.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
Suddenly, your opponent has brought in 3, 4, or even as many as 6 cards in from the sideboard to answer a single card in your deck. You opponent suddenly has mismatched answers, and those cards will sit dead in their hand because they have the wrong answer.
This isn't realistic in modern, but the idea of singletons having an effect can still be true. With the internet, you can prettymuch assume that your opponent knows your list within a half-dozen cards by turn 3. Sometimes turn 1. If you pop out with something kind of obscure (say a 1-of blood baron of vizkopa or slaughter pact in junk) they're going to know it's a 1-of. They know this because a junk list with 4x blood barons or pacts is worse than one that runs the traditional goyf/scooze/tasigur/rhino suite and path/decay suite.
That said, if they see a slaughter pact, your opponent on twin might try to play around pact even if you don't have it, so they might play a bit suboptimally. Similarly, if you know they run a shadow of doubt, you might use your fetches differently and awkwardly. This isn't something that comes up much, but it happens.
Most of the time though, singletons that are worth it are either:
1) curve topping finishers that are hard to answer and will probably win/take over the game on their own. You only play 1 because you never need 2 copies, you never want it in your opening hand, and you probably can't cast it before turn 6 or 7 anyway, so it's useless unless the game goes long. You'll see it often enough in 20-turn games, but as little as possible in 5-turn games.
2) high variance cards that go into a flex slot based on the meta. Electrolyze has the potential to be a blow-out (kill 2 dudes and draw a card), but more often it'll be kinda meh. You only want it against certain decks, but if you've got a bunch of them in your meta, it's great in the flex slot, and is probably the first thing sided out against the decks where it's meh.
Sometimes, and I know this is bad, I'll play a 1x Mana Tithe, and side it out game 2 or 3. The amount of tilt it's causes almost justifies its slot. I love it so much.
In heavy black-based decks, I've sometimes run Dash Hopes as a 2x, usually game one and then sided out.
That's right! Bring the hate on! I said. Dash. Hopes.
Regardless of what anybody says, it's a neat card to surprise an opponent with in some situations. It's one of those cards where its usefulness is 100% psychological. Burning for 5 or countering a spell is great for BB Instant, less the obvious choice feature. Making them play around it when you don't have it: priceless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This signature holds priority until end of comment.
The key to singles is having a deck that uses them appropriately. Having one gideon or elspeth in control works because you gain control until you can cast and protect your finisher. In something like gifts you only want one elesh norn or iona because you want to gifts for them, never draw it. I'm not too interested in a single card unless it's a gamechanger.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UB Tezzerator UBW Gifts B 8Rack
Legacy RB Goblins
I really like singletons in Legacy and Standard, where it's more common for people to side narrow hate for a single finisher. Legacy can also tutor for specific finishers which also really helps. In modern I think you're better off just going for broke and playing the most powerful thing your deck will allow. It's more common of side boards in modern to attack the deck overall, and not it's finisher, at least that is the feeling I tend to get.
Sometimes, and I know this is bad, I'll play a 1x Mana Tithe, and side it out game 2 or 3. The amount of tilt it's causes almost justifies its slot. I love it so much.
I have seen this used to great effect. Sure, it's a bad card, and once people see it, they will stop losing to it. However, I have seen Bogles cast Mana Tithe on a Splinter Twin for the win, and the look on the Twin player's face was worth a few thousand matches.
Two great 1 of's that I use for my B/W tokens list is Murderous Cut and Secure the Wastes I'm never upset to see it either. Murderous cut has proven extremely versatile in every game I see it in, and Secure the wastes has been nothing but awesome
Deck design has shifted in the last few years, especially since "one shot, universal answers" have went down hill. There's no longer a Counterspell in the format without a form of weakness, and this leaves players looking for answers. The shift in deck design is a part of the design shift that occurred during 8th edition. There are also slower combo decks and weaker counterspell walls where people can run just a handful of creatures. There are also different mechanics to how people can interact with the board as compared to the old days.
Probably the most significant is the lack of raw tutor power that you would see years ago.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
1x Worship in Tokens. I've also run the fun-of Mana Tithe. I think the psychological factor of seeing cards like these G1 makes them more strategically viable than not running them. This, however, is a different strategy entirely from the diversified answers or threats being discussed. For some, the process of sequencing answers is one of the most enjoyable of Magic. For me, mind games are a particular perk. Your deckbuilding decisions will give you the best win percentage when you match your deck to your play style and strengths.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
I don't think the sideboard figures into this discussion much to be honest. Richard arschmann said it best: fight the deck not the card. however, if you have a transformational sideboard and change your angle of attack by turning into a gifts deck with iona and elesh norn or something, we are having a completely different conversation.
Examples: Last season with UW elixir/rev planar cleansing control: a 1-of deicide was fairly standard as it allowed a game one out to random theros gods that you otherwise couldn't beat. This is a good "one of in games that go long" type card. Another example in this category is the singleton copy of keranos, god of storms that certain twin builds run in the main, because in grindy games that go long, you'll eventually loot into it and then be pretty assured of winning.
grim lavamancer as additional "one drop dudes that do things" in burn. opportunity last season in UW elixir control as the 5th sphinx's revelation. dismember as a singleton in a deck that already runs 4x path to exile. murderous cut in standard decks that already run some number of abzan charm and ultimate price or other slot removal. These are all examples of the card taking up space as "redundant copies".
In general, when you talk about diversifying your answers with respect to singletons, what you're referencing is having a mix of cards that all do the same job (kill a dude) with a variety of edge-cases (path is efficient and hits most things but gives them a land; edict effects like devour flesh hit boggles but are bad against affinity; doom blade hits everything in affinity except etched champion but is bad against abzan; abrupt decay can't hit tasigur where path can). In this sense, diversifying your removal is often the correct thing to do, unless there's a clear power level discrepancy (part of why we ALWAYS see four copies of lightning bolt--there's nothing anywhere near as good in-class). We see this right now with abrupt decay not necessarily being a 4-of anymore in jund because it's limited somewhat and there are other good option--it's part of a diversified removal suite, that overlaps with kolaghan's command. We saw something similar with the UWR control deck Shaun McLaren won a modern pro tour with--he ran a 15 card sideboard with 15 distinct cards, but there was a lot of overlap between the various spells in terms of their utility and doing so allowed him to have waaaaay more than 15 options for sideboarding--his SB felt a lot like it was really a 20 or 30 card sideboard, because you could craft a plan against literally ANY deck out of those 15 cards. The only time we see that kind of diversity in main decks however is in weird animals like mystical teachings, where the downside to diversification (not having a consistent draw overall) is mitigated by the increased access to your singleton cards.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
In practice, people just play threats that your opponent cannot kill (e.g. Keranos, God of Storms, Thrun, the Last Troll).
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Now in a deck like Kiki Chord that I played, having 1 of creatures can be good because you have 4 Chord of Calling and it is similar in Collected Company decks, although you want a higher number there to increase consistency. But sometimes you actually draw those silver bullets and they are not always good. Orzhov Pontiff, when drawn, has ranged from Game Over, to Unplayable and stranded in my hand. With decks like that, you want 1 ofs because you don't want double the chance of actually drawing the card. You just want to be able to Chord for it against matchups that it's good in.
Now I noticed I went a bit too far, but the point is valid. It works in some decks and not so much in others. As a Combo player, I have that preference for 4 ofs (and sometimes, essentially 8 ofs) in order to guarantee victory in many situations.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)The theory is pretty solid if not well demonstrated by lemming lists. Take UW control for example. There are a number of finishers you can choose from that attack your opponent from different angles. Examples: Elspeth, Geist, Colonade, Multiple Jaces, Gideons, etc. Which one is best? Its impossible to say, as each one shines in a different situation. I sometimes mix and match planeswalkers and such for this reason. Maybe I take 2 elspeths and 1 gideon + 1 jace for a playset of "finishers". This would be an example of your idea in practice.
1x is also a frequent measure for once-in-a-night answers, tutor targets, or hedges against a deck you otherwise lose to. But I'm really iffy on running singletons just to bluff your opponent's sideboard. Making your deck deliberately inconsistent to dodge sideboard hate hurts you more than your opponent, unless your 1x's are redundant near-identical threats, in which case sideboard hate against one will almost always work against any of them anyway.
This isn't realistic in modern, but the idea of singletons having an effect can still be true. With the internet, you can prettymuch assume that your opponent knows your list within a half-dozen cards by turn 3. Sometimes turn 1. If you pop out with something kind of obscure (say a 1-of blood baron of vizkopa or slaughter pact in junk) they're going to know it's a 1-of. They know this because a junk list with 4x blood barons or pacts is worse than one that runs the traditional goyf/scooze/tasigur/rhino suite and path/decay suite.
That said, if they see a slaughter pact, your opponent on twin might try to play around pact even if you don't have it, so they might play a bit suboptimally. Similarly, if you know they run a shadow of doubt, you might use your fetches differently and awkwardly. This isn't something that comes up much, but it happens.
Most of the time though, singletons that are worth it are either:
1) curve topping finishers that are hard to answer and will probably win/take over the game on their own. You only play 1 because you never need 2 copies, you never want it in your opening hand, and you probably can't cast it before turn 6 or 7 anyway, so it's useless unless the game goes long. You'll see it often enough in 20-turn games, but as little as possible in 5-turn games.
2) high variance cards that go into a flex slot based on the meta. Electrolyze has the potential to be a blow-out (kill 2 dudes and draw a card), but more often it'll be kinda meh. You only want it against certain decks, but if you've got a bunch of them in your meta, it's great in the flex slot, and is probably the first thing sided out against the decks where it's meh.
3) silver bullet tutor targets.
That's right! Bring the hate on! I said. Dash. Hopes.
Regardless of what anybody says, it's a neat card to surprise an opponent with in some situations. It's one of those cards where its usefulness is 100% psychological. Burning for 5 or countering a spell is great for BB Instant, less the obvious choice feature. Making them play around it when you don't have it: priceless.
UB Tezzerator
UBW Gifts
B 8Rack
Legacy
RB Goblins
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
I have seen this used to great effect. Sure, it's a bad card, and once people see it, they will stop losing to it. However, I have seen Bogles cast Mana Tithe on a Splinter Twin for the win, and the look on the Twin player's face was worth a few thousand matches.
Thanks you very much DarkNightCavalier for the Sig.
Probably the most significant is the lack of raw tutor power that you would see years ago.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>