Five With Flores is happy to have another post from our friend Thomas Dodd, aka @amistod on Twitter.
Thomas was instrumental in building the mono-Cascade decks and has been representin’ the blog with our signature decks at a number of 5K events, including a Top 16 with Black Baneslayer, you know, before it was cool.
Thomas is back with a great report — and response to the Grand Unified Theory of Magic — and Five is happy, as always to have him.
On the Monday before the Atlanta 5k, I called my friend, Robbie Cordell, and exclaimed that I had found the deck for us to play that weekend. When I saw Mike’s Grixis list, it was right after listening to Kelly, Will and Mike discuss the Grand Unified Theory, and I felt like the veil had been lifted. My main problem with the Double Negative/Sphinx version is that Duress completely undermines the path to victory. There are as many as ten situational spells in LSV’s list. Once I realized that no card in Mike’s deck “missedâ€, I was hooked. (As you guys know from my stint with Black Baneslayer, I am absolutely obsessed with never missing a cascade.) Robbie and I began working with the list on MTGO several days before the 5k. Since the first thing I do when I start testing a Flores list is drop one of the expensive spells, I took out Sorin Markov and replaced it with a Terminate. After several matches, we started noticing a trend. We wanted more Nighthawks, and we boarded in the same cards in almost every match. Into the Roil is phenomenal against three drops, but with Verdant Catacombs, not even Spreading Seas could save me from the Leech. The Terminate is really a concession to Putrid Leech. I just can’t seem to play decks that do well against that guy. Countersquall performed better than expected, and we moved it to the main deck. With the added space in the sideboard, this is what we registered:
Grixis Burn, by Thomas Dodd
2 Sorin Markov
4 Divination
4 Spreading Seas
4 Blightning
3 Countersquall
4 Cruel Ultimatum
4 Sedraxis Specter
2 Terminate
4 Burst Lightning
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Crumbling Sanctuary
4 Drowned Catacomb
3 Dragonskull Summit
4 Island
2 Mountain
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Swamp
sb
2 Malakir Bloodwitch
4 Vampire Nighthawk
1 Bituminous Blast
1 Countersquall
1 Earthquake
4 Goblin Ruinblaster
2 Pyroclasm
Apparently, Robbie and Mike can’t lose to Vampires. I, on the other hand, can’t seem to beat them reliably, and it was definitely a problem for me in Atlanta. Another thing I noticed was the lack of a cohesive sideboard plan. All day long, I had an uneven number of cards that I wanted in/out. I would like to give you thoughts on updating the deck, but I think the Esper build Mike posted [here] really covers the same points that I would make. In the weeks after Worldwake, you will definitely see me casting Day of Judgment on turn 3, and Sorin Markov on turn 5.
Round 1 – Mono Black Control – Eric
Eric’s deck wasn’t the best list I have ever seen; however, he had up to 4 Duress, Mindrot, and Mind Sludge after sideboarding.
I sideboarded in the Countersquall for a Terminate.
1-0 / 2-1 games
Round 2 – UWR Fog – Scott
I have to admit, this build completely took me off guard, and I wasn’t sure how to play against it. I sideboarded in the extra Countersquall and beat him in 3.
2-0 / 4-2 games
Round 3 – Vampires – Greer
Greer is a local player and I see him at all the Atlanta events. I know he is a good player who loves his linear decks. Game 1 was typical, and I sideboarded in my Nighthawks and Countersquall.
Game 2 I mulliganed to 5, and I was unable to overcome it.
2-1 / 4-4 games
Round 4 – Vampires w/ Red – Todd Anderson
I always enjoy playing Todd, but when his Bolts dispatched my Nighthawks, this match-up proved to be even worse for me than the mono black Vampire build.
2-2 / 4-6 games
At this point in the event, I decided to drop. The number of Vampire decks in the room was staggering. Three lists made the top 8, and I really believe that it was because the deck was so well represented. There was a swiss side event, and I knew the deck could perform, so I joined.
Round 1 – Junk Home Brew – Ric
I sideboarded incorrectly because I won game 1 so quickly that I didn’t really know what he was playing. Game 2 he had turn 3 Ajani and turn 4 Baneslayer. I couldn’t keep up. I really love decks like Grixis and Black Baneslayer because opponents tend to sideboard incorrectly. He boarded in Thought Hemorrhage, etc and kept a slow draw, so he couldn’t kill me quickly enough. “Misassignment of role = game loss.”
1-0 / 2-1 games
Round 2 – Grixis (Double Negative) – David
I knew going into this tournament that Mike’s build would crush the mirror, and I really expected there to be more of these decks in Atlanta. At one point, I played Blighting, he played Negate, and I Countersqualled. 5 life and 3 cards, please. The 8 pack of Land Destruction is really over the top.
2-0 / 4-1 games
Round 3 – Boros Bushwhacker – Taylor
I had just watched this guy smash Vampires, and I was very happy to play him, considering my sideboard. Game 1 was very easy and after +2 Pyroclasm +1 Earthquake, not even Ruinblasters could save him.
3-0 / 6-1 games
Round 4 – True Mirror – Jared
These were two brutal games that were very close: just two Mages slugging each other with Blightning. He boarded in Nighthawks and I added more removal.
4-0 / 8-1 games
Round 5 – Grixis (Double Negative) – J
J was playing the Doubly Negative version of the deck, with the exception of main deck Blightning. I won Game 1, but Game 2 he found a Cruel Ultimatum first. Game 3 I was on the play and mulliganed to 5. His first play was a Blightning, and that was it for me.
4-1 / 9-3
The mulligan at the finish line was painful but overdue, considering how well the deck performed. I was very impressed with the list, although it might have been a poor choice for this tournament. It was tough to overcome the weakness to Bloodghast. Robbie ended the day at 6-3, finishing just outside the top 16.
There is a lot of buzz about different applications of the Grand Unified Theory. All cards have text that explain what they do, but when looking through a broader lens, the impact of the card may be far more than what the actual text says.
Would you play a card that says: 3W, sorcery, draw 2 cards, target opponent discards a card? That has to be worth 2UB at least, and we all know U > W!
At States last fall, I was observing a match where Vampires was playing against Boros Bushwhacker. Both players had several cards in hand, but an empty board. The Vampire’s hand was Doomblade, Infest, 2 Gatekeeper of Malakir, 2 Fleshbag Marauder.
After several turns of Draw-Go, Boros untaps and plays Ranger of Eos, getting Bushwhacker and Steppe Lynx. He is attempting to have one big turn while still being resilient to an Infest, so he passes the turn.
The Vampire casts an end of turn Doomblade on the Ranger. The Vampire player draws a land, passes, and loses that next turn. The correct play would have been to untap and kick a Gatekeeper of Malakir with Doomblade up for the Steppe Lynx. The Vampire player automatically cast Doomblade without realizing that he was just throwing the card away. The Grand Unified Theory can be applied on the fly to help you navigate tricky situations.
In closing, I want to give a plug to some of the guys out there that are really turning out some entertaining and educational content. You guys should really be listening to: Yo! MTGTaps and Limited Resources on the MTGCAST podcast network. If you aren’t reading QuietSpeculation.com and following Kelly Reid on Twitter, you are really missing out on a wealth of knowledge regarding the financial side of Magic.
Thomas Dodd
amistod on Twitter / MTGO
12 comments ↓
This Grand Unified Theory stuff is leaving me feeling like the kid wearing the dunce hat in the back of the class, just not “getting it.” In your example, didn’t the guy get into that predicament from some misguided attempt to appease some vague notion of “mana efficiency?” Why did he not play the Gatekeepers? Was his math just off having not known about the land or lands in the other player’s hand? Ultimately, how does discussing the play as 3W(or 2UB, as it were) change the way we view the situation, as opposed to the other way you referred to it, which was in terms of “card advantage,” saying the effect was to “draw 2 cards, target opponent discards a card?” Would the terms of the calculations be different if he had, as in the article, kicked the Gatekeeper and kept the Doomblade up? Certainly, if we think of it in “card advantage” terms, you are “up a card,” but how does this change the math in regards to the Mana theory?
Please excuse if I am missing something, but I just feel like I don’t have a very strong grasp of the application of the theory just yet, and so I feel I don’t understand how it pertains to real situations. How does the language of how we understand change with this theory?
@Alfrebaut
He played the Doom Blade to avoid losing two mana to fallow, but if he had played right, he would have saved THREE mana the next turn, plus not lost to the forward mana production his opponent had (clearly in the RRR+ range).
This assumes that both players had enough mana to execute the plays being mentioned: Casting Doom Blade EOT *does* maximize mana for his turn, but does not maximize resources and options available to him for the next few turns – turns where he absolutely needed resources, knowing that Bushwhacker and Steppe Lynx were in hand. Looking at it from a resource vs resource perspective:
Assuming mana availability is not an issue for either player:
Turn A – Boros has one creature in play and at least two creatures in hand. Reasonable assumption would be that there’s also a land in hand for a Landfall trigger.
Least number of potential attackers: 3
Least potential damage from next attack: (3+1)+(2+1)+(1+1) = 9
So casting EOT Doomblade only reduces the potential damage by 4 and the number of attackers by 1. Even then, if the assumption is wrong and there is an additional attacker and/or the land drop is a fetch land, this action is completely negligible.
On the other hand, if Vampire did not cast his Doom Blade EOT and played his turn like this:
Turn B – Vampire kicks Gatekeeper killing Ranger, has mana open for Doom Blade
He has one potential blocker and an additional removal spell, which means he has absolutely negated 1 attacker and 4 potential damage, plus (barring removal from the Boros side) potentially negated 2 attackers. He has also successfully stalled the board (assuming no Boros shenanigans) with enough breathing room to cast a second Gatekeeper should the Boros player try to cast a relevant threat.
In other words, by following this principle of resource maximization, the Vamps player could have completely negated the advantage that the Boros player gained by playing the Ranger (again, assuming no further shenanigans by the Boros player).
Hope that helps!
It’s perfectly possible that I’m just a moron, but I’m still missing how he is “saving three mana.” Is it that it is more efficient given the cards in his hand to kick the Gatekeeper the next turn? Doesn’t that just save him the two mana that he would have misspent on the Blade(uh oh, I’m in perilous ground here with DBG) which would have had the same result as the extra B to kick the Gatekeeper? Isn’t the issue more the “card” availability of the Doom Blade the next turn? After all, he could have dug himself out of that situation by playing the un-kicked Gatekeeper, which would have still been an inefficient use of his “cards” (as there is a virtual “card” attached to Gatekeeper if you pay the extra B). Hmm.. this is all getting a little muddled.
My point is that isn’t it clearer that the reason the play was wrong was because he spent a “card” in casting Doom Blade rather than spending the fractional “card” that comes attached to Gatekeeper? Is there a way to show through the Mana theory that he misspent his resources that is a better way of looking at it than this?
Let’s say Vampires has five lands in play, which according to amistod’s story, he should have.
Here are the scenarios:
1.
Opponent’s turn, do nothing (5 mana fallow, 0 mana spent).
Untap [nothing].
Vampire turn: Gatekeeper of Malakir (2 mana fallow, 3 mana spent).
Opponent’s turn [big turn]; Doom Blade (2 mana spent).
Mana spent this cycle – 5 mana
2. (reality)
Opponent’s turn, Doom Blade (3 mana fallow, 2 mana spent)
Untap [2].
Vampire turn: Nothing (5 mana fallow, 0 mana spent).
Opponent’s turn [big turn]; nothing.
Mana spent this cycle – 2 mana
So by playing the Doom Blade on the opponent’s turn, he actually spends less mana over the course of the game than if he held the Doom Blade.
Even if he never actually played the Doom Blade (after playing the Gatekeeper of Malakir), he would have spent 3, not 2, by holding the Doom Blade.
This just counts “actual” mana spent without taking into account the more elegant — or exacerbating — hoops to be jumped through with the GUT.
Alright, I can see where you’re coming from. But, in that situation, given that he knew what his opponent’s hand was, and what was and wasn’t in his, wasn’t the second most optimal play to play one or more of those Gatekeepers unkicked? If the goal was just to spend more mana, then he could have played the two Gatekeepers in his hand. In that case, according to your calculation, he would have spent 6 mana in this cycle, making more efficient, though it is clearly suboptimal.
@Alfrebaut
I was just showing how much actual mana he could tap.
The real math is more based more on what the Bushwhacker player would do.
Yeah, alright then. So… let’s see it.
On Grixis, and Applying Grand Unified Theory by Thomas Dodd…
Your story has been summoned to the battlefield – Trackback from MTGBattlefield…
My point is that the Boros player had cast Ranger of Eos which generated an advantage. If the Vampire player kicked a Gatekeeper, it would kill the Ranger and trade with the Bushwhacker. He could take some of the advantage back. The Grand Unified Theory does more than just explain “why good cards are good”. Doomblade trades on a 1 for 1 scale, which is fine if your opponent is playing a Baneslayer Angel. Because the player cast Ranger of Eos, a different strategy must be employed.
I hope this deck can be revisited in light of Worldwake. There are a few cards that may drop in as 3- or 4-ofs (Treasure Hunt, I’m thinking, in place of Divination).
Again, hehehehehe…
I’ll need time to understand better how your blog works, etc… but… I’m here! Hehehehehehehehe…
Here in Brazil I’m winning many FNM’s with this deck, I need more info about Top Standard Vampire Decks
Please let me know your opinion about it (Including Sideboard, Deathmark is a Sorcery and I’m looking something faster against White, take a look…).
61 Cards
Lands:
15 Swamps
4 Marsh Flats
4 Verdant Catacombs
Creatures:
4 Nighthawk Vampire
4 Vampire Nocturnus
4 Gatekeeper of Malakir
3 Vampire Hexmage
3 Bloodghast
3 Malakir Bloodwitch
2 Kalastria Highborn
Planeswalkers:
1 Sorin Markov
Artifacts:
1 Eldrazi Monument
Spells:
3 Sign in Blood
3 Urge to Feed
3 Tendrils of Corruption
2 Mind Sludge
2 Grim Discovery
Sideboard:
3 Deathmark
3 Duress
3 Sadistic Sacrament
1 Malakir Bloodwitch
2 Mind Sludge
3 Marsh Casualties
Best Wishes
Patrick
You must log in to post a comment.