Round 1 - Grixis Land Destruction (2-1)
He was able to slow me down enough with land destruction to make it interesting in games 1 and 2, with it coming down to sub-5 life for both of us in each of those games. Game 3 was a blowout, in comparison, with me ending the game with 19 life, losing only 1 to my own Smallpox. The only problem I ran into was getting a rack effect on line quickly enough to deal damage. Both games 1 and 2 I didn't draw into one until quite a few turns in, once I did, he went down quickly.
Side In: Collective Brutality
Side Out: Dismember
Round 2 - Blue Control/Combo Variant (2-0)
Not even a little concerning. He complained the remainder of the tournament about needing to assemble 2 pieces for his deck to work and that 8-rack made it impossible to do that. He scooped at 10 life in game 2.
No sideboard changes.
Round 3 - Merfolk (2-0)
This was a match up I was dreading. I always feel as though hyper-aggro decks like Merfolk, Elves, and Affinity are the biggest weakness of the deck. The first game he got me down to 1 life. Game 2 I was able to clear the battlefield with 3 rack effects in play and a Mutavault ready to swing in, so I was able to deal lethal with him at 11 and me at 6.
Side In: 2x Bontu's Last Reckoning; 1x Fatal Push; 2x Ratchet Bomb
Side Out: 4x Raven's Crime; 1x Dismember
Round 4 - R/W Burn (2-0)
Burn is another deck I'm not particularly fond of playing against because it comes down to who can top deck better. Fortunately, in both games, I was able to. Game 1 he flooded lands and didn't draw into enough burn spells to finish me. Game 2 he didn't draw into lands and I kept him at 1 land the entire game.
Side In: 2x Death's Shadow; Collective Brutality; 2 x Grafdigger's Cage (I wasn't sure which variant of burn he was running)
Side Out: 4x Raven's Crime; 1x Dismember
Round 5 - Grixis Death's Shadow
Draw into the Top 8 - did not play
Top 8 -
Round 1 - Merfolk (2-0)
Same Merfolk deck I played in Round 3. He played far too defensively and didn't attempt to win the race by being hyper aggressive. These games were a lot more one-sided in my favor.
Round 2 - Merfolk (0-2)
This Merfolk player admitted to having a friend that he frequently plays against that mains an 8-rack deck. He utilized a hyper-aggro strategy and was able to top-deck into very fruitful Master of Waves in both games, dealing over 14 of lethal early in game 2.
The biggest revelation from playing in the PPTQ was how to deal with Merfolk and aggro decks.
- I do think taking the play is the way to go in these match ups. I did not do that in my Top 8 and paid for it.
- I think 3x Bontu's Last Reckoning in the sideboard is the correct number.
- I will be removing Funeral Charm from the deck. As much fun as I've had with the card in the past, I've found that in the key situations where I want removal, it doesn't do the trick. Either it's ineffective because the -1 isn't enough or the singular, un-targeted discard is mediocre, considering the other options. In its place I'll be running 2x Collective Brutality. The modes are just a bit better and I found them more effective across the board. The added C of cost was not an issue, that I can recall. I had plenty of lands or other "dead" cards to discard for the Escalate cost if I wanted, based on where I was playing CB at in the game. I'll also add in a 2nd Dismember. A resolved Master of Waves made it apparent how important it is to get that card out of the game immediately and a Push won't always have a Revolt trigger to get that done.
- I have also played around with the previously mentioned Ensnaring Bridge / Bontu's Last Reckoning combination, in place of Fatal Push, Dismember, and Funeral Charm. I did not like it whatsoever. Far too costly in many situations. Bridge was easily removed or useless because of cards in hand. On and on we go.
Unrelated to Aggro:
- Delirium Skeins never came out because I wasn't matched up against any decks where it was needed. I have play tested it though and it was very useful. The only reason I have 1 SB is because that's the only copy I had the day of the tournament.
Thank you for the report and congratulations on your run.
I think that Merfolk is more dangerous for non Ensnaring Bridge variants (and in a different category of Elves and Robots), because a board wipe against them is not enough; they can easily draw 2 lords with a Mutavault in play and go to town. Their only answer to bridge is Echoing Truth or Hurkyl's Recall.
Are those 3 Grafdigger's Cage in sb because of fear of dredge or what? I think we have good matchups against Storm and Company decks.
You mentioned you want to add another Dismember. Why not adding 4 fetches and going the full Fatal Push playset mb?
Do you think that 23 lands is the correct number, despite playing 4 Raven's Crime and 4 Smallpox?
The Cages are there for dredge, storm, company, & finks decks. I don't run an Extraction in the 75, so my only option for stopping those threats is Cage, Void, etc. I know Ross runs 4 Leyline of the Void, but I'm not a fan of the hard cast cost of the card and Grafdigger's Cage hits more threats.
As for adding in the 4 fetches, that's definitely something I've considered doing and I may do that this Thursday @ my LGS to see how it goes. However, I do like having Dismember in the deck for the occasions where my opponent is running high mana creatures that are susceptible to -5/-5 removal. With the prevalence of Grixis DS, Gurmag Angler and Tasigur, the Golden Fang won't get taken out by a Fatal Push, even with a Revolt trigger, but a Dismember will get it done. Additionally, I have run into some "indestructible" creatures that a Bontu's or Push won't get, but a Dismember would.
The other thing to consider is when removal is being played. Most likely, it's T/1-3, when the opponent is playing low cost creatures at the beginning of the game. Then again, once the top deck begins. That makes me question the necessity of running 4 fetches purely for revolt triggers, because the frequency with which you're going to need a revolt trigger, have a Push available, and a fetch available is low(?)(meaning I'm not sure). I'm certainly willing to give it a shot though because, as you said, it'll help thin the deck, with Urborg in, they're swamps anyways and not useless, so we'll see what happens.
The only time I felt short on land during the event was playing against the land destruction deck. Otherwise, I think there may have been a total of 2-3 turns the whole day that I was waiting on a 3rd land to play a Lilli. Otherwise, I had plenty of lands to pitch to Raven's Crime, Collective Brutality to escalate, or Smallpox.
Round 1 - Grixis Land Destruction (2-1)
He was able to slow me down enough with land destruction to make it interesting in games 1 and 2, with it coming down to sub-5 life for both of us in each of those games. Game 3 was a blowout, in comparison, with me ending the game with 19 life, losing only 1 to my own Smallpox. The only problem I ran into was getting a rack effect on line quickly enough to deal damage. Both games 1 and 2 I didn't draw into one until quite a few turns in, once I did, he went down quickly.
Side In: Collective Brutality
Side Out: Dismember
Round 2 - Blue Control/Combo Variant (2-0)
Not even a little concerning. He complained the remainder of the tournament about needing to assemble 2 pieces for his deck to work and that 8-rack made it impossible to do that. He scooped at 10 life in game 2.
No sideboard changes.
Round 3 - Merfolk (2-0)
This was a match up I was dreading. I always feel as though hyper-aggro decks like Merfolk, Elves, and Affinity are the biggest weakness of the deck. The first game he got me down to 1 life. Game 2 I was able to clear the battlefield with 3 rack effects in play and a Mutavault ready to swing in, so I was able to deal lethal with him at 11 and me at 6.
Side In: 2x Bontu's Last Reckoning; 1x Fatal Push; 2x Ratchet Bomb
Side Out: 4x Raven's Crime; 1x Dismember
Round 4 - R/W Burn (2-0)
Burn is another deck I'm not particularly fond of playing against because it comes down to who can top deck better. Fortunately, in both games, I was able to. Game 1 he flooded lands and didn't draw into enough burn spells to finish me. Game 2 he didn't draw into lands and I kept him at 1 land the entire game.
Side In: 2x Death's Shadow; Collective Brutality; 2 x Grafdigger's Cage (I wasn't sure which variant of burn he was running)
Side Out: 4x Raven's Crime; 1x Dismember
Round 5 - Grixis Death's Shadow
Draw into the Top 8 - did not play
Top 8 -
Round 1 - Merfolk (2-0)
Same Merfolk deck I played in Round 3. He played far too defensively and didn't attempt to win the race by being hyper aggressive. These games were a lot more one-sided in my favor.
Round 2 - Merfolk (0-2)
This Merfolk player admitted to having a friend that he frequently plays against that mains an 8-rack deck. He utilized a hyper-aggro strategy and was able to top-deck into very fruitful Master of Waves in both games, dealing over 14 of lethal early in game 2.
The biggest revelation from playing in the PPTQ was how to deal with Merfolk and aggro decks.
- I do think taking the play is the way to go in these match ups. I did not do that in my Top 8 and paid for it.
- I think 3x Bontu's Last Reckoning in the sideboard is the correct number.
- I will be removing Funeral Charm from the deck. As much fun as I've had with the card in the past, I've found that in the key situations where I want removal, it doesn't do the trick. Either it's ineffective because the -1 isn't enough or the singular, un-targeted discard is mediocre, considering the other options. In its place I'll be running 2x Collective Brutality. The modes are just a bit better and I found them more effective across the board. The added C of cost was not an issue, that I can recall. I had plenty of lands or other "dead" cards to discard for the Escalate cost if I wanted, based on where I was playing CB at in the game. I'll also add in a 2nd Dismember. A resolved Master of Waves made it apparent how important it is to get that card out of the game immediately and a Push won't always have a Revolt trigger to get that done.
- I have also played around with the previously mentioned Ensnaring Bridge / Bontu's Last Reckoning combination, in place of Fatal Push, Dismember, and Funeral Charm. I did not like it whatsoever. Far too costly in many situations. Bridge was easily removed or useless because of cards in hand. On and on we go.
Unrelated to Aggro:
- Delirium Skeins never came out because I wasn't matched up against any decks where it was needed. I have play tested it though and it was very useful. The only reason I have 1 SB is because that's the only copy I had the day of the tournament.
As an 8rack player. I have found that the only removal mainboard I need are 4 smallpox, 4 Liliana of the Veil, and 3 bontu's last reckoning. With 4 Ensnaring Bridge. To be honest. That's all you need against modern. It fights all the different decks and you can do surgical in the side, 2 maindeck rats and 2 sideboard cuz if you untap with a pack rat against burn they can't win. I have done so so many times against naya burn and won. As to bontu's last reckoning, this card is the board wipe 8rack has been needing. Play it after bridge or Liliana and the downside no longer affects you. I have beaten merfolk, affinity, ur gifts storm, 4 color knightfall, naya burn, jund with kalitas, scapeshift, dredge (mainboard) even though it's still rough. Uw gifts tron, RG Tron is the only deck I have yet to actually win a match on. I've beaten eldrazi tron, coco of all forms, and I run white in the sideboard for 4 disenchants, and 2 stony silence and 2 rest in peace, with 2 packrats, another reckoning, and 4 extractions. This 15 card sideboard shores up the issue matchups. Sideboard, don't be afraid to pay 2 life to get rid of all of burns Boros charms and their swiftspears, you actually want them to resolve an eidolon cuz then you go on the packrat plan and you'll never take another damage from spells again and they just can't beat an untapped rat.
How consistently are you winning in these matches?
What does the rest of your MB look like?
By running 4 bridge and 3 bontu, you're shifting the curve significantly.
I also wonder about playing against a deck like Jund, where Tom Ross noted a resolved Dark Confidant that remained on the field was the biggest issue in dealing with that deck. That deck has a number of ways to deal with a Bridge and can generate card advantage with a Bob in play. Your only means for removal with the setup you're describing is to cast a sweeper that will tap you out of all action for 2 turns. Giving your opponent that time to top-deck and resolve another Bob.
I removed funeral charms because they were mediocre. I don't understand exactly why Tom played them over another copy of thoughtseize and wrench mind. Too many seizes in a game can hurt, yes, but since we choose to be on the draw in most games it is very important to have as much powerful t1 discard effects as possible in our decks.
Why not opt for a copy of Blackmail, instead of a 4th Thoughtseize?
As for the use of the Funeral Charm, they're good utility spells, imo. The ability to use as discard, buff, or destruction, as needed, is great. More than once I've top-decked a charm, used the +2/-1 mode on a Mutavault to swing in to destroy a planeswalker. If you don't need the discard against an aggro deck, they're a good substitute for a Push or Dismember against wheenies. Or, instant speed discard on their draw step to make sure a top-deck doesn't come in and bite you.
Hey everyone, I haven't posted here in a while but I'm a long time 8-Rack player.
I was watching the Tom Ross videos from a few days ago and I was wondering what peoples opinions are about taking the draw. I have traditionally only taken the draw against the heaviest control decks. Basically Jeskai control and nothing else. Tom seems to think it is correct to to take the draw nearly always. I'm willing to try out his approach but wanted to get a few more opinions.
When do you all choose to draw rather than play?
When a T1 disruption is imperative. Aggro decks where the ramp is very quick, such as elves, being the most obvious. The ability to drop a mana dork T1 and then ramp quickly from there means getting ahead of the play is important. Against decks with their own hand disruption, you may also want to take the play.
That has been my experience and preference.
Edit: To expand on the rationale for doing so, suppose that may be important...
Aggro decks and decks with a number of T1 options that build into T2 and T3 threats that you can't outpace are a problem. If you take the play and can disrupt T1 and cascade that disruption into T2 and T3, you can keep pace.
T1 - Hand disruption via targeted removal like Thoughtseize or Inquisition
T2 - Push the mana dork or Smallpox or more hand disruption
T3 - More of the same
By getting ahead of the threats, you're limiting their ability to ramp up and flood the field with things you can't deal with and keep the threats in their hand, where you can deal with them. The threats that do make it to the field, you can deal with via your 5-7 targeted removal spells in the form of Push, Charm, and Dismember or you can flat out ignore them because they are low power creatures that don't create a fast enough clock to outpace your rack effects.
So, an elf deck is going to have some mana dorks in hand, some lands, maybe a draw creature, and then a buff creature or two. Their T1 and T2 plays are going to be the mana dorks so they can flood the field as quickly as possible and overwhelm you with creatures. Turn 3 is a buff creature so all of the 1/1s turn into 2/2+. If you can disrupt the mana generation in T1 and T2, it puts them back a couple of turns because the deck often runs light on lands, relying on the dorks to make up for it.
Because you've disrupted the mana generation, you are then only left with 1 - 2 threats on the field in Turn 3 and 4, versus 4+ threats on the field. This allows you to destroy the most dangerous threat on the field and keep eliminating threats from their hand. Hopefully, by T3/4 they're left with 0-1 cards in hand and 1 - 2 threats on the field. From there, you can eliminate their hand and hopefully draw into removal to deal with the top deck threats they do manage to cast. Then it's a race with the rack effects.
Aggro is a rough matchup because of how quickly the threats move from the hand, where we disrupt, to the field, where we have limited disruption. That's why a lot of the sideboards you see are heavy on the removal spells (Bontus, Ratchet, etc.) By taking the play in those matches, you disrupt their T1, which they use, more than most decks, to very quickly ramp T2 and T3.
I dropped dismember from the deck last week and didn't really find myself missing it. I played Merfolk, homebrew Zoo, Mono W Control/Devotion homebrew, 5 Color Death's Shadow. I didn't find myself needing it, but I definitely did feel myself wanting more removal during those matches.
I think 4 of FP or 3/1 FP:Dismember is the way to go.
I did sideboard in Bontu's, which was supremely helpful. Now my internal debate has shifted to using Bridge, or Bontu's. Bridge is nice because it's a permanent state of denying the opponent the ability to attack, whereas Bontu's is a 1 shot sweeper. Both face various removal/counter abilities, but it seems like Artifact hate is generally down these days, at least in my meta.
I have used Bontu's for a few weeks now and the sweep is definitely nice, but unless I'm able to close the game shortly therafter, the board is full pretty quickly. Specifically thinking back to my matches against Allies and Elves, where my opponents top decked CoCo and other draw generators that allowed them to amass a good size creature base within a few turns.
delirium skeins seems like a great response to both chalice and leyline !
therefore Tom Ross don't spend any slot for cards such as ratchet bomb or engineered explosifs.
I will try it very soon !
I noticed that he didn't side out the wrench mind when playing against E-tron !
very interesting !
Didn't side out Wrench Mind v Tron and is only running 1x Dismember now.
Video is ok, play is suboptimal but decent for someone who doesn't pilot this deck all the time. I think how many fatal push vs dismember main is directly rated to what your expecting in the meta game. If I expect to face a ton of etron, bant eldrazi, bigger cmc midrange decks I would pack more dismembers. In this current meta I'm a 4 fatal push guy main maybe 1 dismember as well.
Truly, I think you're correct that the # of Dismember is directly related to the meta. The past few weeks, I've found it useless in my local meta. This week, it was useful, as I played against Tron and dredge creatures that were out of Fatal Push range. Decks I didn't need it against, it was an easy sideboard out card.
I like the 4:2 split, with 1-2 Funeral Charm, which I enjoy playing against guys that just laugh at it. I attacked with Mutavault against an opponent's planeswalker, charmed, choosing +2/-1, planeswalker dies. That laughter quickly turned to, "WTF just happened?!?!"
Tom Ross advocated for dismember when Fatal Push didn't exist. Dismember as a 4 of is no longer viable IMO. My current build runs 1 Dismember and I am going to take it out for a lil the last hope once the planeswalker rules change. Its really just another piece of removal that can get rid of something small so your smallpox/lily can take care of anything big.
I do run 4 Fatal Push main as well and I think 4 of main is just where we want to be with this deck.
The jist of it is that Tom advocates 3 x FP and 2 x Dismember. Penner ran that same ratio in his almost-Top-8 finish.
Even with Push available, these 2 at least, are running Dismember main board still (or were as of February 2017). I'm wondering if that remains the correct choice or if, as you said, 4 x FP + 1 of Dismember or something else makes more sense.
The only things I seem to run across that a FP doesn't take care of are "Indestructible". However, the "Indestructible"s that I have seen wouldn't have been taken care of by a Dismember anyways, because the toughness was too high. It would have certainly reduced the damage for a turn, but it would not have killed the creature or brought it low enough for a blocker to finish the job. Otherwise, the ability to cast Dismember off of colorless mana is the only upside I see, at the expense of either 2-4 life or 1-2 black sources.
That's wrong, the rack doesn't target. Oracle text says only "choose a player".
4th ed. Text is no longer effective.
So a rack played after a t0 leyline can beat your opponent.
This is correct. Also, Shrieking affliction still gets through as well.
Correct. Judge confirmation. I also questioned whether The Rack was handcuffed by Leyline of Sanctity, having thought I once read that it was, but the ruling is that the rack effects from both cards get through.
I know that many people, including Tom Ross, really like this card in the deck. The ability to utilize Mutavault of Ghost Quarter generated mana, with the phyrexian mana, to get a cast off and destroy a creature is very useful for this deck. Additionally, it can get around "Indestructible".
However, I question the overall utility and value of the card in the deck, given that Fatal Push is available and will destroy most everything you would target with Dismember. It also, obviously, has the lower mana cost, but cannot be cast off of colorless mana.
I expressed before that I wanted to take Dismember out of the deck, but I'm wondering if that's the correct decision. Clearly, the card is played by pro level players of the deck for a reason, so I'm trying to have an objective view of the value of the card versus other options, like: Fatal Push, Go for the Throat, Murderous Cut, Slaughter Pact, Doom Blade, etc.
Each has its pro/cons, but what makes the most sense for this deck and why?
Interesting read Darkx87 just a couple things I think a bit differently about or perhaps would like to discuss more. What role do you feel EE has in this deck? You talk about bringing it in which match ups would it make the cut? Do you find fetchlands needed? I play mono black and it is very rare I want to trigger revolt and I cant. I honestly cant think of a situation it has come up in the last 4 months. Ratchet bombs is a clean answer to chalice and tokens plus a bunch of other stuff it can be a bit slow but ive never found it to slow for what its purpose in the sideboard is. I play 4 Dark confidants in my board and I can see a whole bunch of scenarios in your post where I would have brought them in its something to consider.
1) Fetch lands for revolt triggers
I've removed Dismember from the list, which is why the revolt triggers become more important. I agree that the trigger doesn't come up every game or even every 2nd or 3rd game, but I certainly did find myself needing it. That's why I think running 2 fetch lands, 2 qhost quarters, and having the legendary rules available will be enough to get the triggers when needed. Again, it's something I have to playtest more to really determine if the fetch lands are necessary, or if there's enough with the quarters and legendary rules.
2) Dark Confidant
I've seen this in a few lists and have thought about playing around with it. I'm not convinced that it's necessary because Raven's Crime and Lili should provide enough recurring threat to not need multiple draws per turn to keep the threat level high. Obviously, in my post I mention that I was short on that and, I'm guessing, that's where you would have brought DC in to the game.
At this point, I don't have enough hard data to say absolutely no to DC, but it just feels like you're too closely approaching a worse Jund or Death's Shadow deck by adding it to the list. BUT, feelings don't mean jack next to facts, so I'm not going to nix it as a possibility for the future.
I'll be considering a few things here, whether a White splash would have helped, how the mono-B performed, how I screwed up, and what changes I'll be making.
Game 1 - I fortunately drew into a really good mixture of removal via fatal push and smallpox, with rack effects early on in the game. He emptied his own hand quite quickly, leaving me with little work to do on that front. Fortunately, with my top decking and what I had in hand, I was able to strip most of his threats and then race with 1 Shrieking Affliction and 1 Rack in play.
Game 2 - I sideboarded in Bontu's, Push, Tendrils, Betrayal and removed Wrench Mind and Thoughtseize. Nothing he was playing was above 3 mana, that I had seen, and he was emptying his hand so quickly that Wrench was superfluous. He boarded in Leyline of Sanctity, which was in his opening hand and dropped right away. Uh oh...I top decked a Raven's Crime and had 1 in hand already, making those 2 cards dead. Fortunately, my other top decks were my removal spells and I had a Lili in hand, along with a Shrieking. He controlled the match for the first few turns, dropping me to 12. Then I had enough mana online to clear the board and take control. I stayed at 12 the rest of the game, top decking more removal and using Lili to make him sac his creatures. The rack effects did the rest of the work.
A white splash would have been nice here to remove the Leyline and help make my hand control cards useful. Fortunately though, I didn't draw into any inquisitions or blackmails game 2, so the 2 raven's crimes were the only dead cards in my hand all game, which I could use as discard fodder for Lili.
Jund - Easy, until I screwed up my sideboarding
Game 1 - He only managed to drop me to 17 and lost to a combination of rack effects and mutavault aggro. Controlling his hand and the board was easy.
Games 2 & 3 - I made the fatal mistake of sideboarding in permanent hate, via creature removal and ratchet bombs, then didn't correct it for game 3. Game 2 was close, as I was 1 turn away from lethal with rack effects. Game 3 was a joke, as he controlled the board/hand, while I fizzled with a bunch of creature removal that wasn't well suited for his strategy.
A lingering souls may have helped here, as Penner swaps them in for his play, but ultimately the failure was my piloting, and a white splash wouldn't have helped with that.
Death & Taxes -
Game 1 - I fizzled on mana and he resolved a Thalia. GG
Game 2 - Again, I sideboarded in a boat load of creature hate and lost control of the hand. He was able to resolve 2 Restoration Angels, which I didn't draw answers for. GG
Again, Lingering Souls may have helped here, allowing me to block the angels, but garbage piloting and a bad sideboard tactic was my fatal mistake.
CoCo Elves -
Game 1 - A surprisingly close game, as I drew into 3 rack effects and was almost able to win the race. Unfortunately, I didn't draw into creature removal.
Game 2 - I correctly sideboarded in a bunch of creature hate. Much like Allies in round 1, he controls the game for the first few turns, then I'm able to wipe the board and take control of the game quite easily.
Game 3 - More of the same.
A white splash wouldn't have helped here. Lingering souls blockers would be useful, sure, but equivalent mana board sweepers were more effective against a deck like this.
Overall, I was happy with the decision to remove the white splash. The only time I found myself truly wishing for it was against Allies and a T0 Leyline. Fortunately, I had made the correct sideboard choices and wasn't utilizing as many "Target Player" spells in that game.
Clearly, the biggest disappointment was my piloting and lack of faith in being able to control Jund and D&T at their hand, opting instead to try and control the board.
As for changes, I felt myself wishing for more removal in every game 1, whether it was a Thalia, Confidant, Elf, or whatever. I would definitely add back in the 4th Push and drop a Blackmail. The other thing that really bothered me was not having recurring threats, once I got to top-decking. There were a few games that I didn't have a Raven's Crime in my gy, nor did I have a Lili in play. That is not a good state to be in, whatsoever. Rather than add in a 4th Raven's Crime, I'm considering adding in an Infernal Tutor.
We really only need 1 Raven's Crime to be played in order to make the top-deck state a non-issue. Unless the opponent is running graveyard hate, then multiple copies become needed. However, adding in more to potentially draw and have as redundancies isn't ideal.
At this point, I'm considering having an Infernal Tutor to allow for a targeted search of the library for a specific answer, whether it's a Lili, Crime, Void, sweeper, or something else.
I will be adding in a 2nd Flats, for the singular purpose of the Revolt trigger on Push. 3 Mutavaults felt good. I was hitting them enough that I usually had them when needed, but not so much that I was short on B mana, same with 2 Quarters. However, I still felt short on Revolt triggers. There were definitely occasions where I was wishing I had a mutavault in play, but looking at the mana options I had, it would have been more detrimental to have the colorless source, rather than the B source.
Sideboard wise, Relic felt way too slow. Leyline of the Void in place of the Relic.
Those will be the changes I look to make for the next games and I'll see where that leads.
thanks for your answers. It comfort me to go with a mono-B deck.
I tested WB on xmage and I have been sanctioned immediately by a blood moon.
I see that even affinity is playing blood moon.
If you're playing mono-black to avoid blood moon, why are you playing fetches?
You may want to consider running 3 x Mutavault, 2 x Ghost Quarter, then dropping the fetches to 2 or 3. Your net non-basic land is about the same, but you also have at least 2 ghost quarters MB to deal with Tron or Scapeshift decks game 1. Additionally, it keeps the potential revolt triggers high enough, as you can use the ghost quarters for that, as well as the marsh flats.
From there, I'd consider dropping the Fulminators down to 2, increasing the extraction / extirpate count to 4. That would better balance the spell, creature, non-land/creature permanent hate out a bit better.
There's no doubt that running a couple of fetches and the non-basics, like vault, urborg, and ghost quarter do make you more susceptible to Blood Moon. However, if you keep the basic count high enough, you should be able to get around that early enough. Additionally, running mono B makes the mana correction issue less problematic, whether blood moon is in the game or not, and thus less likely that blood moon comes in from the SB.
What are our opinions on UB Rack? Where we use tempo cards to get card advantage (i.e. remand, counter spells, serum visions) , but more importantly I want to run 'Paradox Haze' specifically. Opinions?
What would you replace though?
The problem I see is you end up losing card advantage because you're incapable of trimming their hand down quickly enough, thus diluting your threats by having to add in more answers to threats they are now able to play because you couldn't eliminate their hand quickly enough.
Paradox Haze would be fun to stack on with Rack effects, but it would also aid their upkeep cards, Phyrexian Arena for example. Plus, I'm guessing, in order to make the blue splash work, you would have to insert Haze into spots presently occupied by Shrieking or Rack, thus eliminating the gain you'd get from the "double upkeep" effect and further hindering yourself by utilizing a 3 mana card instead of a 1 mana card.
*Edit for the following:
Thinking about the general strategy of 8rack, which is to control the game by controlling your opponent's hand. By splashing in blue, you're switching the strategy to be quasi hand control with increased stack control via counterspells etc., then adding in an element of card advantage through Serum Visions.
If you're looking for card advantage, you may as well stay in the black spectrum and use Phyrexian Arena or Dark Confidant, thus keeping with the overall 8rack theme/strategy.
The Cages are there for dredge, storm, company, & finks decks. I don't run an Extraction in the 75, so my only option for stopping those threats is Cage, Void, etc. I know Ross runs 4 Leyline of the Void, but I'm not a fan of the hard cast cost of the card and Grafdigger's Cage hits more threats.
As for adding in the 4 fetches, that's definitely something I've considered doing and I may do that this Thursday @ my LGS to see how it goes. However, I do like having Dismember in the deck for the occasions where my opponent is running high mana creatures that are susceptible to -5/-5 removal. With the prevalence of Grixis DS, Gurmag Angler and Tasigur, the Golden Fang won't get taken out by a Fatal Push, even with a Revolt trigger, but a Dismember will get it done. Additionally, I have run into some "indestructible" creatures that a Bontu's or Push won't get, but a Dismember would.
The other thing to consider is when removal is being played. Most likely, it's T/1-3, when the opponent is playing low cost creatures at the beginning of the game. Then again, once the top deck begins. That makes me question the necessity of running 4 fetches purely for revolt triggers, because the frequency with which you're going to need a revolt trigger, have a Push available, and a fetch available is low(?)(meaning I'm not sure). I'm certainly willing to give it a shot though because, as you said, it'll help thin the deck, with Urborg in, they're swamps anyways and not useless, so we'll see what happens.
The only time I felt short on land during the event was playing against the land destruction deck. Otherwise, I think there may have been a total of 2-3 turns the whole day that I was waiting on a 3rd land to play a Lilli. Otherwise, I had plenty of lands to pitch to Raven's Crime, Collective Brutality to escalate, or Smallpox.
3x Fatal Push
2x Funeral Charm
1x Collective Brutality
4x Inquisition of Kozilek
4x Raven's Crime
4x Smallpox
3x Thoughtseize
3x Wrench Mind
4x The Rack
4x Shrieking Affliction
4x Liliana of the Veil
4x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
15x Swamp
2x Death's Shadow
2x Bontu's Last Reckoning
1x Collective Brutality
1x Delirium Skeins
1x Dismember
1x Fatal Push
3x Grafdigger's Cage
2x Ratchet Bomb
Match-ups were:
Swiss Rounds -
Round 1 - Grixis Land Destruction (2-1)
He was able to slow me down enough with land destruction to make it interesting in games 1 and 2, with it coming down to sub-5 life for both of us in each of those games. Game 3 was a blowout, in comparison, with me ending the game with 19 life, losing only 1 to my own Smallpox. The only problem I ran into was getting a rack effect on line quickly enough to deal damage. Both games 1 and 2 I didn't draw into one until quite a few turns in, once I did, he went down quickly.
Side In: Collective Brutality
Side Out: Dismember
Round 2 - Blue Control/Combo Variant (2-0)
Not even a little concerning. He complained the remainder of the tournament about needing to assemble 2 pieces for his deck to work and that 8-rack made it impossible to do that. He scooped at 10 life in game 2.
No sideboard changes.
Round 3 - Merfolk (2-0)
This was a match up I was dreading. I always feel as though hyper-aggro decks like Merfolk, Elves, and Affinity are the biggest weakness of the deck. The first game he got me down to 1 life. Game 2 I was able to clear the battlefield with 3 rack effects in play and a Mutavault ready to swing in, so I was able to deal lethal with him at 11 and me at 6.
Side In: 2x Bontu's Last Reckoning; 1x Fatal Push; 2x Ratchet Bomb
Side Out: 4x Raven's Crime; 1x Dismember
Round 4 - R/W Burn (2-0)
Burn is another deck I'm not particularly fond of playing against because it comes down to who can top deck better. Fortunately, in both games, I was able to. Game 1 he flooded lands and didn't draw into enough burn spells to finish me. Game 2 he didn't draw into lands and I kept him at 1 land the entire game.
Side In: 2x Death's Shadow; Collective Brutality; 2 x Grafdigger's Cage (I wasn't sure which variant of burn he was running)
Side Out: 4x Raven's Crime; 1x Dismember
Round 5 - Grixis Death's Shadow
Draw into the Top 8 - did not play
Top 8 -
Round 1 - Merfolk (2-0)
Same Merfolk deck I played in Round 3. He played far too defensively and didn't attempt to win the race by being hyper aggressive. These games were a lot more one-sided in my favor.
Round 2 - Merfolk (0-2)
This Merfolk player admitted to having a friend that he frequently plays against that mains an 8-rack deck. He utilized a hyper-aggro strategy and was able to top-deck into very fruitful Master of Waves in both games, dealing over 14 of lethal early in game 2.
The biggest revelation from playing in the PPTQ was how to deal with Merfolk and aggro decks.
- I do think taking the play is the way to go in these match ups. I did not do that in my Top 8 and paid for it.
- I think 3x Bontu's Last Reckoning in the sideboard is the correct number.
- I will be removing Funeral Charm from the deck. As much fun as I've had with the card in the past, I've found that in the key situations where I want removal, it doesn't do the trick. Either it's ineffective because the -1 isn't enough or the singular, un-targeted discard is mediocre, considering the other options. In its place I'll be running 2x Collective Brutality. The modes are just a bit better and I found them more effective across the board. The added C of cost was not an issue, that I can recall. I had plenty of lands or other "dead" cards to discard for the Escalate cost if I wanted, based on where I was playing CB at in the game. I'll also add in a 2nd Dismember. A resolved Master of Waves made it apparent how important it is to get that card out of the game immediately and a Push won't always have a Revolt trigger to get that done.
- I have also played around with the previously mentioned Ensnaring Bridge / Bontu's Last Reckoning combination, in place of Fatal Push, Dismember, and Funeral Charm. I did not like it whatsoever. Far too costly in many situations. Bridge was easily removed or useless because of cards in hand. On and on we go.
Unrelated to Aggro:
- Delirium Skeins never came out because I wasn't matched up against any decks where it was needed. I have play tested it though and it was very useful. The only reason I have 1 SB is because that's the only copy I had the day of the tournament.
How consistently are you winning in these matches?
What does the rest of your MB look like?
By running 4 bridge and 3 bontu, you're shifting the curve significantly.
I also wonder about playing against a deck like Jund, where Tom Ross noted a resolved Dark Confidant that remained on the field was the biggest issue in dealing with that deck. That deck has a number of ways to deal with a Bridge and can generate card advantage with a Bob in play. Your only means for removal with the setup you're describing is to cast a sweeper that will tap you out of all action for 2 turns. Giving your opponent that time to top-deck and resolve another Bob.
Why not opt for a copy of Blackmail, instead of a 4th Thoughtseize?
As for the use of the Funeral Charm, they're good utility spells, imo. The ability to use as discard, buff, or destruction, as needed, is great. More than once I've top-decked a charm, used the +2/-1 mode on a Mutavault to swing in to destroy a planeswalker. If you don't need the discard against an aggro deck, they're a good substitute for a Push or Dismember against wheenies. Or, instant speed discard on their draw step to make sure a top-deck doesn't come in and bite you.
When a T1 disruption is imperative. Aggro decks where the ramp is very quick, such as elves, being the most obvious. The ability to drop a mana dork T1 and then ramp quickly from there means getting ahead of the play is important. Against decks with their own hand disruption, you may also want to take the play.
That has been my experience and preference.
Edit: To expand on the rationale for doing so, suppose that may be important...
Aggro decks and decks with a number of T1 options that build into T2 and T3 threats that you can't outpace are a problem. If you take the play and can disrupt T1 and cascade that disruption into T2 and T3, you can keep pace.
T1 - Hand disruption via targeted removal like Thoughtseize or Inquisition
T2 - Push the mana dork or Smallpox or more hand disruption
T3 - More of the same
By getting ahead of the threats, you're limiting their ability to ramp up and flood the field with things you can't deal with and keep the threats in their hand, where you can deal with them. The threats that do make it to the field, you can deal with via your 5-7 targeted removal spells in the form of Push, Charm, and Dismember or you can flat out ignore them because they are low power creatures that don't create a fast enough clock to outpace your rack effects.
So, an elf deck is going to have some mana dorks in hand, some lands, maybe a draw creature, and then a buff creature or two. Their T1 and T2 plays are going to be the mana dorks so they can flood the field as quickly as possible and overwhelm you with creatures. Turn 3 is a buff creature so all of the 1/1s turn into 2/2+. If you can disrupt the mana generation in T1 and T2, it puts them back a couple of turns because the deck often runs light on lands, relying on the dorks to make up for it.
Because you've disrupted the mana generation, you are then only left with 1 - 2 threats on the field in Turn 3 and 4, versus 4+ threats on the field. This allows you to destroy the most dangerous threat on the field and keep eliminating threats from their hand. Hopefully, by T3/4 they're left with 0-1 cards in hand and 1 - 2 threats on the field. From there, you can eliminate their hand and hopefully draw into removal to deal with the top deck threats they do manage to cast. Then it's a race with the rack effects.
Aggro is a rough matchup because of how quickly the threats move from the hand, where we disrupt, to the field, where we have limited disruption. That's why a lot of the sideboards you see are heavy on the removal spells (Bontus, Ratchet, etc.) By taking the play in those matches, you disrupt their T1, which they use, more than most decks, to very quickly ramp T2 and T3.
I think 4 of FP or 3/1 FP:Dismember is the way to go.
I did sideboard in Bontu's, which was supremely helpful. Now my internal debate has shifted to using Bridge, or Bontu's. Bridge is nice because it's a permanent state of denying the opponent the ability to attack, whereas Bontu's is a 1 shot sweeper. Both face various removal/counter abilities, but it seems like Artifact hate is generally down these days, at least in my meta.
I have used Bontu's for a few weeks now and the sweep is definitely nice, but unless I'm able to close the game shortly therafter, the board is full pretty quickly. Specifically thinking back to my matches against Allies and Elves, where my opponents top decked CoCo and other draw generators that allowed them to amass a good size creature base within a few turns.
Didn't side out Wrench Mind v Tron and is only running 1x Dismember now.
Truly, I think you're correct that the # of Dismember is directly related to the meta. The past few weeks, I've found it useless in my local meta. This week, it was useful, as I played against Tron and dredge creatures that were out of Fatal Push range. Decks I didn't need it against, it was an easy sideboard out card.
I like the 4:2 split, with 1-2 Funeral Charm, which I enjoy playing against guys that just laugh at it. I attacked with Mutavault against an opponent's planeswalker, charmed, choosing +2/-1, planeswalker dies. That laughter quickly turned to, "WTF just happened?!?!"
I agree that 4 of Dismember does not seem correct these days. However, I was internally referencing this article, when posting my question: http://www.starcitygames.com/article/34621_8-Rack-Makes-A-Splash.html
The jist of it is that Tom advocates 3 x FP and 2 x Dismember. Penner ran that same ratio in his almost-Top-8 finish.
Even with Push available, these 2 at least, are running Dismember main board still (or were as of February 2017). I'm wondering if that remains the correct choice or if, as you said, 4 x FP + 1 of Dismember or something else makes more sense.
The only things I seem to run across that a FP doesn't take care of are "Indestructible". However, the "Indestructible"s that I have seen wouldn't have been taken care of by a Dismember anyways, because the toughness was too high. It would have certainly reduced the damage for a turn, but it would not have killed the creature or brought it low enough for a blocker to finish the job. Otherwise, the ability to cast Dismember off of colorless mana is the only upside I see, at the expense of either 2-4 life or 1-2 black sources.
Correct. Judge confirmation. I also questioned whether The Rack was handcuffed by Leyline of Sanctity, having thought I once read that it was, but the ruling is that the rack effects from both cards get through.
Unrelated to that...Dismember.
I know that many people, including Tom Ross, really like this card in the deck. The ability to utilize Mutavault of Ghost Quarter generated mana, with the phyrexian mana, to get a cast off and destroy a creature is very useful for this deck. Additionally, it can get around "Indestructible".
However, I question the overall utility and value of the card in the deck, given that Fatal Push is available and will destroy most everything you would target with Dismember. It also, obviously, has the lower mana cost, but cannot be cast off of colorless mana.
I expressed before that I wanted to take Dismember out of the deck, but I'm wondering if that's the correct decision. Clearly, the card is played by pro level players of the deck for a reason, so I'm trying to have an objective view of the value of the card versus other options, like: Fatal Push, Go for the Throat, Murderous Cut, Slaughter Pact, Doom Blade, etc.
Each has its pro/cons, but what makes the most sense for this deck and why?
What did your matches look like for opposing decks?
1) Fetch lands for revolt triggers
I've removed Dismember from the list, which is why the revolt triggers become more important. I agree that the trigger doesn't come up every game or even every 2nd or 3rd game, but I certainly did find myself needing it. That's why I think running 2 fetch lands, 2 qhost quarters, and having the legendary rules available will be enough to get the triggers when needed. Again, it's something I have to playtest more to really determine if the fetch lands are necessary, or if there's enough with the quarters and legendary rules.
2) Dark Confidant
I've seen this in a few lists and have thought about playing around with it. I'm not convinced that it's necessary because Raven's Crime and Lili should provide enough recurring threat to not need multiple draws per turn to keep the threat level high. Obviously, in my post I mention that I was short on that and, I'm guessing, that's where you would have brought DC in to the game.
At this point, I don't have enough hard data to say absolutely no to DC, but it just feels like you're too closely approaching a worse Jund or Death's Shadow deck by adding it to the list. BUT, feelings don't mean jack next to facts, so I'm not going to nix it as a possibility for the future.
I'll be considering a few things here, whether a White splash would have helped, how the mono-B performed, how I screwed up, and what changes I'll be making.
2 Dismember
2 Funeral Charm
3 Fatal push
Sorceries (18)
2 Blackmail
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Raven's Crime
4 Smallpox
2 Thoughtseize
3 Wrench Mind
4 Shrieking Affliction
4 The Rack
Planeswalkers (4)
4 Liliana of the Veil
Lands (23)
3 Mutavault
2 Ghost Quarter
1 Marsh Flats
4 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
13 Swamp
3 Death's Shadow
2 Bontu's Last Reckoning
4 Extirpate
1 Fatal Push
1 Flaying Tendrils
1 Night of Souls' Betrayal
2 Ratchet Bomb
1 Relic of Progenitus
CoCo Allies - Surprisingly easy -
Game 1 - I fortunately drew into a really good mixture of removal via fatal push and smallpox, with rack effects early on in the game. He emptied his own hand quite quickly, leaving me with little work to do on that front. Fortunately, with my top decking and what I had in hand, I was able to strip most of his threats and then race with 1 Shrieking Affliction and 1 Rack in play.
Game 2 - I sideboarded in Bontu's, Push, Tendrils, Betrayal and removed Wrench Mind and Thoughtseize. Nothing he was playing was above 3 mana, that I had seen, and he was emptying his hand so quickly that Wrench was superfluous. He boarded in Leyline of Sanctity, which was in his opening hand and dropped right away. Uh oh...I top decked a Raven's Crime and had 1 in hand already, making those 2 cards dead. Fortunately, my other top decks were my removal spells and I had a Lili in hand, along with a Shrieking. He controlled the match for the first few turns, dropping me to 12. Then I had enough mana online to clear the board and take control. I stayed at 12 the rest of the game, top decking more removal and using Lili to make him sac his creatures. The rack effects did the rest of the work.
A white splash would have been nice here to remove the Leyline and help make my hand control cards useful. Fortunately though, I didn't draw into any inquisitions or blackmails game 2, so the 2 raven's crimes were the only dead cards in my hand all game, which I could use as discard fodder for Lili.
Jund - Easy, until I screwed up my sideboarding
Game 1 - He only managed to drop me to 17 and lost to a combination of rack effects and mutavault aggro. Controlling his hand and the board was easy.
Games 2 & 3 - I made the fatal mistake of sideboarding in permanent hate, via creature removal and ratchet bombs, then didn't correct it for game 3. Game 2 was close, as I was 1 turn away from lethal with rack effects. Game 3 was a joke, as he controlled the board/hand, while I fizzled with a bunch of creature removal that wasn't well suited for his strategy.
A lingering souls may have helped here, as Penner swaps them in for his play, but ultimately the failure was my piloting, and a white splash wouldn't have helped with that.
Death & Taxes -
Game 1 - I fizzled on mana and he resolved a Thalia. GG
Game 2 - Again, I sideboarded in a boat load of creature hate and lost control of the hand. He was able to resolve 2 Restoration Angels, which I didn't draw answers for. GG
Again, Lingering Souls may have helped here, allowing me to block the angels, but garbage piloting and a bad sideboard tactic was my fatal mistake.
CoCo Elves -
Game 1 - A surprisingly close game, as I drew into 3 rack effects and was almost able to win the race. Unfortunately, I didn't draw into creature removal.
Game 2 - I correctly sideboarded in a bunch of creature hate. Much like Allies in round 1, he controls the game for the first few turns, then I'm able to wipe the board and take control of the game quite easily.
Game 3 - More of the same.
A white splash wouldn't have helped here. Lingering souls blockers would be useful, sure, but equivalent mana board sweepers were more effective against a deck like this.
Overall, I was happy with the decision to remove the white splash. The only time I found myself truly wishing for it was against Allies and a T0 Leyline. Fortunately, I had made the correct sideboard choices and wasn't utilizing as many "Target Player" spells in that game.
Clearly, the biggest disappointment was my piloting and lack of faith in being able to control Jund and D&T at their hand, opting instead to try and control the board.
As for changes, I felt myself wishing for more removal in every game 1, whether it was a Thalia, Confidant, Elf, or whatever. I would definitely add back in the 4th Push and drop a Blackmail. The other thing that really bothered me was not having recurring threats, once I got to top-decking. There were a few games that I didn't have a Raven's Crime in my gy, nor did I have a Lili in play. That is not a good state to be in, whatsoever. Rather than add in a 4th Raven's Crime, I'm considering adding in an Infernal Tutor.
We really only need 1 Raven's Crime to be played in order to make the top-deck state a non-issue. Unless the opponent is running graveyard hate, then multiple copies become needed. However, adding in more to potentially draw and have as redundancies isn't ideal.
At this point, I'm considering having an Infernal Tutor to allow for a targeted search of the library for a specific answer, whether it's a Lili, Crime, Void, sweeper, or something else.
I will be adding in a 2nd Flats, for the singular purpose of the Revolt trigger on Push. 3 Mutavaults felt good. I was hitting them enough that I usually had them when needed, but not so much that I was short on B mana, same with 2 Quarters. However, I still felt short on Revolt triggers. There were definitely occasions where I was wishing I had a mutavault in play, but looking at the mana options I had, it would have been more detrimental to have the colorless source, rather than the B source.
Sideboard wise, Relic felt way too slow. Leyline of the Void in place of the Relic.
Those will be the changes I look to make for the next games and I'll see where that leads.
You may want to consider running 3 x Mutavault, 2 x Ghost Quarter, then dropping the fetches to 2 or 3. Your net non-basic land is about the same, but you also have at least 2 ghost quarters MB to deal with Tron or Scapeshift decks game 1. Additionally, it keeps the potential revolt triggers high enough, as you can use the ghost quarters for that, as well as the marsh flats.
From there, I'd consider dropping the Fulminators down to 2, increasing the extraction / extirpate count to 4. That would better balance the spell, creature, non-land/creature permanent hate out a bit better.
There's no doubt that running a couple of fetches and the non-basics, like vault, urborg, and ghost quarter do make you more susceptible to Blood Moon. However, if you keep the basic count high enough, you should be able to get around that early enough. Additionally, running mono B makes the mana correction issue less problematic, whether blood moon is in the game or not, and thus less likely that blood moon comes in from the SB.
Just my $0.02.
What would you replace though?
The problem I see is you end up losing card advantage because you're incapable of trimming their hand down quickly enough, thus diluting your threats by having to add in more answers to threats they are now able to play because you couldn't eliminate their hand quickly enough.
Paradox Haze would be fun to stack on with Rack effects, but it would also aid their upkeep cards, Phyrexian Arena for example. Plus, I'm guessing, in order to make the blue splash work, you would have to insert Haze into spots presently occupied by Shrieking or Rack, thus eliminating the gain you'd get from the "double upkeep" effect and further hindering yourself by utilizing a 3 mana card instead of a 1 mana card.
*Edit for the following:
Thinking about the general strategy of 8rack, which is to control the game by controlling your opponent's hand. By splashing in blue, you're switching the strategy to be quasi hand control with increased stack control via counterspells etc., then adding in an element of card advantage through Serum Visions.
If you're looking for card advantage, you may as well stay in the black spectrum and use Phyrexian Arena or Dark Confidant, thus keeping with the overall 8rack theme/strategy.