Yo! This is ShinyMan. Thanks for commenting on my blog. In response to your courtesy, I'm here to see your blog.
Looking from the openess of T2 right now there could be hundred of deck archetypes between tier 2 to tier 1. Dovescape has always been a tier 1.5 at best. (Win sometimes but doesn't get played and win consistently.) It might take endless effort to push it up to tier 1. But I sure would like to pad your shoulder and say 'Go for it, man!'
That part about tap out and win, otoh, is just wrong. It's more like "tap out and lose."
This deck does not contain any haymaker strong enough to tap out for and feel confident that it wouldn't be dealt with. Djinn doesn't do that, and Sphinx certainly doesn't do that. This deck lives and dies on using cheap counterspells to nuke the opponent's impactful cards and get ahead on tempo. Tapping out is the antithesis of this deck's gameplan.
There are only four spots where you may tap out: 1)during your opponent's first turn (maybe also the second turn, depending on the deck); 2)when it's clear that the opponent has no way to interact with you nor anything threatening; 3)when you realize that the opponent has a very good read on the content of your hand and you're holding zero interactions; and 4)when you're in a dire situation and can only hope they don't have it. Other than these four situations, I dare say that it's simply wrong to tap out with this deck. And for 3) it's still debatable.
One of the worst things you can do is to tap out with the hope of a quick victory, lose to something you could have interacted with, then complain later that your opponents "always have it."
Even when you don't have any interaction in hand, it's still a good idea to not tap out most of the times. You have to think from your opponent's perspective. If you have been concealing your expressions well and they can't tell that you haven't drawn a counterspell, will they actually play their bombs into open blue mana? (If you can't conceal your reactions then it's best to steer clear of counterspells anyway.) If you haven't played against this deck then you have no idea know how much people have to respect two untapped Islands. What's likely to happen is that they will either pass the turn or test the water with a card that doesn't matter much, in which case you take a glance at it and let it resolve, saying something along the lines of "that one is fine."
You should feel bad every time you tap out with this deck. In 99% of the cases that would be the wrong decision.
https://m.soundcloud.com/user-121566285/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mono-blue-aggro
And this is a good primer for anyone who is interested in picking up this deck right now. It's written for the old Standard but most things still hold true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spikes/comments/9uxeti/standard_mono_blue_tempo_strategy_guide/
Entrancing Melody comes in against Hydroid Krasis, Drake, and mirror.
That's how I do it.
- Its Pteramanders adapt more cheapy and earlier than ours.
- It has so many cheap removals.
- It has 8 flyers that can trade with our Djinns (and 4 even cantrip).
- It plays a staring contest better than us due to having more card draws.
- Even the nut draw is still not enough most of the time because they commonly have multiple removals + counterspells.
I also have no idea how to beat it consistently without wasting too many sideboard slots. (Deep Freeze, Entrancing Melody, more hard counters, etc.)
And that is, imo, because there aren't many mono-color aggro decks running around (bad matchups for us). The top-performing decks right now are various shades of control and midrange, all of which we should be at least 50/50 against, if not positive. The only other decks that we may struggle against are Azorius Aggro and Izzet Drake, both of which are still around, but not in high number. If you expect the metagame at the PT (ahem, MC) to be similar to this, then Mono-Blue Tempo is certainly a fine choice.
As for how this deck can beat anything, if you remember Standard UB Faeries from way back you will understand, since both decks play out similarly. There are two common types of games that you win, one is when you have the nut draw with Curious Obsession + protection for the creature, then you draw an extra card every turn and just run away with the game (equivalent to T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bitterblossom, T3 Spellstutter Sprite, T4 Mistbind Clique/Cryptic Command in UB Faeries). The other type is when you are behind for the majority of the game, then at some point, you utilize the instant-speed tricks, counterspells, and the raw power of Tempest Djinn to race and win at 1 life or so. (It's extremely satisfying when that happens.) Djinns + Tricksters can turn around a surprising amount of games.
But at the same time, it requires intensive skills to achieve that. I've seen myself slip into a losing position countless times simply because of one lapse. Counter the wrong thing and you lose. Not counter the right thing and you lose. Tap too low on the wrong turn and you lose. Leave too much mana unused and you lose. Being too afraid to attack and you lose. Being too reckless with your attacks and you lose. You get the idea. Tight play is so important for this deck since the margin of victory is usually very slim.
And who cares if a deck spikes one league? Take a look at all the big tournaments going around: SCG events, MTGO mythic qualifiers, etc. Everybody and their mother have moved away from "creature-kill" Golgari, and that deck is now a problem of the past.
@magic geek: Exactly. Mengucci played no Carnage Tyrant and he had a hard time against Mono Blue regardless of whether it was Sultai or Golgari. Now, if you can read this one step further, it tells you two things. First, that card just doesn't matter much in this metagame and thus could be ditched. Second, the explore shell, which is the core of both Golgari and Sultai, is bad against Mono Blue, that is why Golgari and Sultai are generally a walk in the park for this deck.
If you have problems with multiple copies of Kraul Harpooner, Dead Weight, Assasin's Trophy, and Ravenous Chupacabra, then fine, I can understand that. Those cards can stall this deck out long enough for Carnage Tyrant to take over the game. But in that case, the problem is not Carnage Tyrant; it's the gameplan that allows Carnage Tyrant to work. And this is what all of us have been trying to say all this time: it's never about Carnage Tyrant, but rather about the lead-up that gets the game to the point where Carnage Tyrant can shine. Your job, as a pilot of this deck, is to never let them get to that point, not to get yourself into a spot where Carnage Tyrant can steal the game from you. And as described above, the nature of this deck is that it easily beats Sultai and Golgari. So if you often find yourself in a spot where you die to Carnage Tyrant, you should reconsider how you approach the matchup.
And if you take a look around, nobody plays the problematic cards mentioned above anymore, whether in Sultai or Golgari. That's why Carnage Tyrant no longer has the support it needs and thus has disappeared from the metagame. Your Death Lizard was never a problem for this deck; decks that had been pre-sideboarded against Mono Blue were. Case closed.
I must have played > 20 matches against Golgari. The number of games I lost because of Carnage Tyrant? Exactly one.
You might wanna consider the possibility that you have been playing the matchup wrong. Seriously, the matchup is never about countering Carnage Tyrant. It's about wisely using Trickster to blank their turns or to keep Wildgrowth Walker from gaining them life; choosing which spells to interact with and which to ignore; pacing yourself so your threats line up well against their answers; and racing them in the air. I would gladly let all my Golgari opponents make the average cmc of their deck higher by playing more Carnage Tyrant.
Even if they manage to live long enough to get Carnage Tyrant down, you should still be winning the race most of the time anyway. If they can hold you back long enough for Carnage Tyrant to take the game, then kudos to them; at that point they deserve to win with their big spells.
As for Metamorphic Alteration, I wouldn't touch that card at all. You need to have something worth copying, and it's inherently card-disadvantaged. Plus, it's an aura that costs 2 mana, which is a huge ask for this deck.
Because OTOH, Carnage Tyrant is very fair if you are playing sweepers or racing in the air like this deck. What this means is that this isn't about a card being fair or unfair. Carnage Tyrant is simply good versus some strategies while not so good against others. Now that's a helpful way to look at a Magic card.
- Kitesail Freebooter is a welcome addition. It disrupts the opponent's gameplan, provides card advantage, and can pick up Curious Obsession. It also ups the pirate count and allows us to switch over from Wizard's Retort to Lookout Dispersal without worries.
- Thief of Hope is also a welcome addition, essentially a flyer with built-in Curious Obsession. It costs 3 mana though, and therefore is a bit clunky considering that for this deck that cmc should be for beaters like Tempest Djinn or Spawn of Mayhem. It's also possible that we just move away from heavy-hitters in 3-cc and just peck the opponent to death; in that case having 4 Thief of Hope would be fine.
- Speaking of Spawn of Mayhem, I'm not sure how much this card adds to the deck. If it comes down on turn 3, it certainly hits harder than Djinn, but if it comes down late then Djinn generally hits harder. Since when did we run out a Djinn on turn 3 without protection though? Also, to get double black on turn 3, you need a lot of Swamps, and that has an unfortunate side effect of giving you two Swamps in your opening hand. My inclination is that if someone is going Dimir, they should just ditch Spawn of Mayhem and instead max out on Spinx and Thief of Hope.
- With black, Drill Bit may become a viable sideboard option. Spectacle is relatively easy to turn on and it hits all non-land cards.
I've not tried the deck though; these are just thoughts based on the experience I've had with straight-up mono blue. Will try it out when I have a chance and will report back to the thread.
lol Thanks for the reminder. Sometimes we stop reading the cards because we think we know them by heart. Apparently that is never the right way to do it.
RTFC holds true always. (Read the Friendly Cards)
@truth_bomb It seems like you're pre-sideboarding for White Weemie variants. Such a skewed list will certainly perform worse in an open field. To balance it out, try cutting a Sphinx or two, a couple of Mares, some Essence Captures, and all Arrester's Admonitions, then add 4 Merfolk Tricksters, 4 Opts (if you choose Pteramander over Mist-Cloaked Herald) and 4 Wizard's Retort. You can also try Lookout Dispersal if you want to go with 4 Hellkite Marauders, though Wizard's Retort + 4 Merfolk Tricksters work much better imo.
Arrester's Admonition doesn't quite work because you rarely want to main-phase a bounce spell. Yes, you get to draw a card, but considering that this deck is often constrained on mana and time, that card won't do you much good.
OTOH, Exclusion Mage works because it has a body and that helps you pressure your opponent.Plus, it makes Wizard's Retort more consistent.
If you really want a cantrip bounce, play 4x Merfolk Tricksters and 4x Mist-Cloaked Heralds and go for Crashing Tide instead.
2x Entrancing Melody?
That said, I've been really impressed with Pteramander. It has a lot of staying power, is a fine topdeck, and allows for effective racing. Yesterday, I outraced a BG deck on the back of two adapted Pteramanders, even after my opponent had gained 18 life. Mist-Cloaked Herald would've had no chance in accomplishing the same feat. Now, Sphinx and Opt kinda fight for the same slots, and Opt works much better when Pteramander is in the deck. Hence, it doesn't make sense to eschew Opt for Sphinx if you want to play Pteramander.
Another thing is that Precognitive Perception works better with Opt than Sphinx. Sphinx fixes your draws but in general doesn't result in having a lot of lands in play. OTOH, Opt allows you to draw more cards and thus make more land drops. Therefore, I think that if you pick Sphinx then it doesn't make sense to try Precognitive Perception, whereas if you opt for Opt then 1 Precognitive Perception is not entirely unreasonable.