[Deck] Solidarity (Reset High Tide)

[Bahamuth]

Echoing Truth is also good against decks like Dragon Stompy and Stax, where you need to bounce threats and/or soft lock components like Chalice and 3Sphere for the EOT win.

That's basically the reason. It's useful against many, many decks. If you're playing 2 Spell Snare mainboard, you can even use 2 to board in against forms of aggro.

Thank you Bahamuth, but i've been thinking: what do you guys think on putting a flash of insight in the SB against discard??
I think it could be better than divert and disrupt because is not a dead card if you draw it later (I know disrupt replaces itself, but flash is much better midcombo)
I'm thinking in something like this:

1 meditate (I had 4 in the MB, but I changed this)
1 turnabout
1 stroke of genius
1 brain freeze
1 rebuild
1 flash of insight
2 spell snare
2 wipe away
2 hydroblast
3 ecoing truth

If discard is a serious factor in your meta, consider putting 2-3 Think Twice in the mainboard. A thirth Flash of Insight is probably a bad idea, since it's potentially dead when found in multiples. Think Twice would do better in that occasion. Also, be sure to board in the 4th Meditate against discard, because topdecking one or cantripping into one can easily win you the game.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I know most people don't remember this, but way back when there was a huge debate over whether Force of Will should be in the deck. Believe it or not, that was from the perspective where it wasn't and some people were trying to add it. Most of NoVA was actually against the idea at first, self included, although eventually it went that way. Periodically, however, I still question whether it's earning it's place anymore, whereas I think most people tend to assume that heavy blue deck= 4x FoW as obvious. However, with Repeal and now Crypitc Command, I'm wondering if cantripping control elements that slow the game down might be more relevant to the deck's bad matchups than a card disadvantage counterspell, even if it is free. The biggest advantage to FoW was that it could force through the combo turn 3-4, but if you can stall longer, this isn't quite as relevant. And Cryptic Command is a pretty sexy staller.

[Taurelin]

The following argument might sound a bit outdated. But isn't FoW our only answer to 1st turn Goblin Lackey?

Sure, Goblins is not that regularly played as it used to be. But still it's still a factor in many metagames. And Turnabouting/Cryptic Commanding by turn 4 to buy some time can just be too slow.

[deviant]

Force is also really good against faster combo..

[Funky-kun]

Duh, Force stops CB. Usually when a CB lands the Solidarity player FOW's (if able) and the Thresh player FOW's back. So if the Force is another card, say Cryptic Command or Repeal, and the Solidarity player lets the CB resolve, when trying to bounce the CB, they will Force the bounce, so yeah, free protection really helps get through hate. And usually losing a single card for FOW to buy multiple turns is the right thing to do. But I guess everyone already knows this.

[cloudstrife7]

Duh, Force stops CB. Usually when a CB lands the Solidarity player FOW's (if able) and the Thresh player FOW's back. So if the Force is another card, say Cryptic Command or Repeal, and the Solidarity player lets the CB resolve, when trying to bounce the CB, they will Force the bounce, so yeah, free protection really helps get through hate. And usually losing a single card for FOW to buy multiple turns is the right thing to do. But I guess everyone already knows this.

Although I haven't played this deck, your logic makes me uncomfortable. Basically, you are presenting a situation in which the opponent plays Cb with force backup, and comparing the deck's chances based on which card it has. You conclude that Force is best, but even in your example, it doesn't play out that way.

You show that: If you have force, they play CB, you force it, losing two cards (force and the pitch), then they force back, losing two cards(force and pitch). The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards (sensei-top was not part of the example, but 4 if it was) and you are down 2 cards.

You also show that: If you have cryptic, they play CB. You wait a turn, play cryptic, losing one card, they force it, losing two cards. The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards, and you are down one card.

From here I would say that in the situation you provided, Cryptic command is the better card, as in the presented scenario, you are still screwed, but you have one more card than previous.

I'm not trying to argue that force is bad, just that the situation you showed does not back up your conclusion.

edit: maybe that wink face meant you were joking, and I'm a tool

[I'm a TROLL]

Although I haven't played this deck, your logic makes me uncomfortable. Basically, you are presenting a situation in which the opponent plays Cb with force backup, and comparing the deck's chances based on which card it has. You conclude that Force is best, but even in your example, it doesn't play out that way.

You show that: If you have force, they play CB, you force it, losing two cards (force and the pitch), then they force back, losing two cards(force and pitch). The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards (sensei-top was not part of the example, but 4 if it was) and you are down 2 cards.

You also show that: If you have cryptic, they play CB. You wait a turn, play cryptic, losing one card, they force it, losing two cards. The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards, and you are down one card.

From here I would say that in the situation you provided, Cryptic command is the better card, as in the presented scenario, you are still screwed, but you have one more card than previous.

I'm not trying to argue that force is bad, just that the situation you showed does not back up your conclusion.

edit: maybe that wink face meant you were joking, and I'm a tool

Actually, you make some great points. I am going to try not playing Force of Will and replace them with Cryptic Commands to help this match-up.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Although I haven't played this deck, your logic makes me uncomfortable. Basically, you are presenting a situation in which the opponent plays Cb with force backup, and comparing the deck's chances based on which card it has. You conclude that Force is best, but even in your example, it doesn't play out that way.

You show that: If you have force, they play CB, you force it, losing two cards (force and the pitch), then they force back, losing two cards(force and pitch). The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards (sensei-top was not part of the example, but 4 if it was) and you are down 2 cards.

You also show that: If you have cryptic, they play CB. You wait a turn, play cryptic, losing one card, they force it, losing two cards. The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards, and you are down one card.

From here I would say that in the situation you provided, Cryptic command is the better card, as in the presented scenario, you are still screwed, but you have one more card than previous.

I'm not trying to argue that force is bad, just that the situation you showed does not back up your conclusion.

edit: maybe that wink face meant you were joking, and I'm a tool

I think he's just falling into the irrational "You can't cut Force" camp.

Don't forget that in the bounce example, you can always wait and draw another bounce spell to get out of it. Another Force is useless at this point. Ditto to Chalice of the Void. I think it's fair to say that these two cards represent the biggest threats to this deck's aims.

[i-never-smile]

Suppose that Force of Will is cut from this deck. Then what cards should be added to fill those 4 open slots? Force is a Swiss army knife that can answer faster combo decks, can counter lacky to stop the bleeding preemptitively, and can answer an early Dark Confidant to keep the opponent off of rediculous card advantage. Then, later on, it helps break through counter walls and can be remanded back to be recast. What other card (or cards) could replace Force of Will in order to improve Solidarity, if FoW is cut?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Uhhhh.

You might want to backtrack, champ.

Primarily we're talking about some combination of Cryptic Command/Repeal.

[Funky-kun]

Although I haven't played this deck, your logic makes me uncomfortable. Basically, you are presenting a situation in which the opponent plays Cb with force backup, and comparing the deck's chances based on which card it has. You conclude that Force is best, but even in your example, it doesn't play out that way.

You show that: If you have force, they play CB, you force it, losing two cards (force and the pitch), then they force back, losing two cards(force and pitch). The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards (sensei-top was not part of the example, but 4 if it was) and you are down 2 cards.

You also show that: If you have cryptic, they play CB. You wait a turn, play cryptic, losing one card, they force it, losing two cards. The end result is that CB sticks, they are down 3 cards, and you are down one card.

From here I would say that in the situation you provided, Cryptic command is the better card, as in the presented scenario, you are still screwed, but you have one more card than previous.

I'm not trying to argue that force is bad, just that the situation you showed does not back up your conclusion.

edit: maybe that wink face meant you were joking, and I'm a tool

No, I am not joking. You might actually be right, because winning through a CB without Top is possible, but in most cases blind reveals (and Brainstorm/Ponder trickery) might just win them enough time to beat you with ugly guys. And if they get their lock done, their hand size is pretty much irrelevant, because they have a higher chance of killing you without your cantripping abilities to find Wish/Command. However this argument is dependent on my experience with the FOW build, so with enough Commands/Repeals to find reliably without cantrips it might be easier to accomplish this, so testing is the best way to tell the correct answer.

Actually, I don't own Forces, so I'm playing with different cards in their slot. I was playing with Arcane Denials (a hard counter for nasty stuff with a build-in trick for CA that works great against discard). If the main concern is CB, Repeal seems a bit better than Command to me, because of the fact that Command is vulnerable to Daze unless you get to 5 lands, and that does not always happen very easy. Repeal is also very good against agroish decks and other random stuff like Trinisphere, Meddling Mage, Pyrostatic Pillar and so on. Of course Command has awesome flexibility, but at a higher mana cost.

The thing that justifies FOW in the deck for me the most is that this card beats Random. It is the No1 card you want to see against combo, and can counter very relevant stuff (most of the things I mentioned earlier worth Repealing, plus Chalice @1 and nasty sorceries as Hymn). Trying to improve one matchup while making most of the others worse does not seem like a right plan to me.

[i-never-smile]

Uhhhh.

You might want to backtrack, champ.

Primarily we're talking about some combination of Cryptic Command/Repeal.

I don't like to respond to individual posts, but I think my implied intent was a bit cloudy. Perhaps I should be more clear. My point was that Force of Will is a versatile solution to several problems, from faster combo (Belcher etc) to problematic permanents (Bob, Counterbalance) to enemy countermagic/other protection spells (like Chant) mid-combo. While Cryptic Command and Repeal are both really good against permanents and are cantrips in their own right, there's something to be said for buying 2-3 extra turns for one FoW and the card you pitched to it, and there's also something to be said for being able to answer threats on turn 1 on the draw or to protect your combo in the middle of it. I don't see Repeal or Cryptic Command stretching that far.

So my question stands: What card (or combination of cards) can provide answers from turn 1 on, and protect the combo as well as Force of Will (or better)? I like Cryptic Command more than it's healthy for a man to like a piece of cardboard, and I have been testing it in Solidarity, but I seriously doubt it's going to patch a hole where Force is. I'm still open to the idea of taking out the Forces, if a better option is presented.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

That argument doesn't make sense. If I were advocating arming our military with guns, and you were advocating using machetes, you might say, "Show me where you can use a gun to cut down a tree, or skin a deer." But it would still be a foolish general who arms his troops with machetes over guns. Repeal does not have to be better than Force of Will at being Force of Will to be better in the deck; it only has to be better at making Solidarity win.

Example given, going off; Repeal and Cryptic Command buy you more time to get more mana and sculpt your hand better. With that time, and given that Solidarity is by it's nature instant speed, why can't you simply continue going off through an Orim's Chant, if you don't have to worry about the pressure from early beats? Moreover, you won't have to go off in response to Counterbalance or Chalice, because you can rely on drawing your bounce spells. This isn't to say that Repeal and Cryptic Command are necessarily better than Force of Will, but their not being Force of Will is not a logical argument for why they aren't better.

[Deep6er]

Jack, you DO know that Repeal CANNOT bounce a Chalice, right?

You also know that using Cryptic Command for just about any purpose is not efficient, right?

Force of Will's effectiveness can be decided upon by looking at what matchups it helps.

TES
Threshold (your contrived situation of you Forcing Counterbalance and them Forcing back is not true 100% of the time. On occasion Force stops Counterbalance).
Goblins
Dragon Stompy (or other Chalice Aggro decks)

Repeal is a different matter entirely. It stops Vial in Goblins, and has a pretty good shot at hitting a resolved Counterbalance, but it doesn't stop Chalice. Additionally, it's inefficient in mana use.

Plus, without Force of Will, you weaken the blue based control matchup. Additionally, you've nary spoken a word about Remand. That card's inclusion would be a good measure of the direction you think Solidarity should go in.

On another note, fuck yourself. I hate talking to you about Magic Theory/Strategy, but nobody else is bringing up these questions. ESPECIALLY where Solidarity is concerned. Goddammit.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Jack, you DO know that Repeal CANNOT bounce a Chalice, right?

I guess I do now, asshole. Also, see Counterbalance/Trinisphere.

You also know that using Cryptic Command for just about any purpose is not efficient, right?

Cantripping fog seems pretty good in a lot of situations, actually.

Force of Will's effectiveness can be decided upon by looking at what matchups it helps.

No it can't. It's a card that reads "counter target spell". By definition it's going to help against any deck that plays spells. It's effectiveness can be determined by measuring where another card might help more and the deck's needs.

(your contrived situation of you Forcing Counterbalance and them Forcing back is not true 100% of the time. On occasion Force stops Counterbalance).

It's not my contrived scenario. Also, ringing endorsement much?

Repeal is a different matter entirely. It stops Vial in Goblins, and has a pretty good shot at hitting a resolved Counterbalance, but it doesn't stop Chalice. Additionally, it's inefficient in mana use.

Define this. The biggest disadvantage I see against Goblins is that it doesn't hit Driver. Also, is Goblins the main deck to argue against anymore? Also, Cryptic Command seems quite good here.

Plus, without Force of Will, you weaken the blue based control matchup.

Doesn't that strictly depend upon what you replace it with and how good that card is against blue-based control?

Yes, it does. I'm answering my own question.

Additionally, you've nary spoken a word about Remand. That card's inclusion would be a good measure of the direction you think Solidarity should go in.

What does Remand have to do with it?

On another note, fuck yourself. I hate talking to you about Magic Theory/Strategy, but nobody else is bringing up these questions. ESPECIALLY where Solidarity is concerned. Goddammit.

What's that "Former" doing next to Solidarity in the thread title? Oh, that's right. Solidarity's not DTB anymore. Not like it used to be. When it was good. Remember that? Huh? Dave? Remember?


In seriousness, when a deck's not working, it's time to consider another tact. Cryptic Command and Repeal might be worse than Force and whatever other slots you could cut maindeck, but it might not be, and the status quo isn't working.

Also, best friends forever!

[Deep6er]

1) I DID say that Repeal could deal with a Counterbalance (in all likelihood) and that extends to Trinisphere. But I'm much more worried about Chalice than I am Trinisphere. At least I can still play spells like Opt/Brainstorm through a Trinisphere. Not so much a Chalice.

2) Cantripping Fog seems really fucking terrible when it costs four mana.

3) Isn't Force the worst possible place to start looking when trying out new cards? Isn't Force one of the very few things that works to prevent bad matchups (like TES) from spiraling completely out of control?

4) Yes it's an endorsement. I think Force of Will is a necessity for Solidarity. I've tried out some builds that didn't have it (in an effort to test how fast and consistent it can go off) and found them lacking. Force is the glue that (sometimes) gets you to the point in the game when you can win.

5) Repeal costs more mana to bounce a permanent than it took to cast that permanent. Additionally, it won't stop a Lackey on the draw, and if you're trying to play around Daze, it won't pick up a Counterbalance until turn four. Three if they're not playing Daze. But then again, if they're not playing Daze, there's a possibility of them playing cards at the three slot anyway.

Cryptic Command seems awful in this matchup. If they're going to beat you, they're going to set up a scenario that opens on Lackey and goes into Siege Gang (rarely with the addition of Piledriver). Spending four fucking mana isn't really something you can afford to do in order to Fog. ESPECIALLY because it doesn't do shit in the first three turns. The four mana that it takes to Fog them is mana that you did NOT spend looking for High Tide (or whatever the missing piece is).

6) No, it doesn't. Force of Will is really strong against blue-based control decks. Cryptic Command isn't because of it's prohibitively high mana cost.

7) I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you're trying to do with Solidarity. The inclusion of Remand would be a key indicator. If you wanted Remand to stay in the deck, likelihood is high that you'd be pushing for a slower version that would bounce threatening permanents and go off in the following turn.

Whereas a build without Remand would probably focus on being more aggressively focused. Trying to consistently combo the earliest it can so that it doesn't need the tempo/protection that Remand gives.

Granted those are rather large generalities, but it lets other people analyze what direction you're trying to take the deck.

8) I don't think Solidarity will EVER be as good as it used to be. Counterbalance is a card that destroys the primary strategy of the deck and requires answering. The sheer fact that Solidarity players are FORCED, first and foremost, to answer that card puts a strain on this deck that I don't think it can handle.

I accept that. Until there emerges a time where Counterbalance is contained, I don't think I would choose to take Solidarity with me to a tournament. If the tact is completely obviated by one card, it might be time to look into other decks.

EDIT: Also, fuck yourself. I hate you.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'm going to come back to this tomorrow, but I want to point out that you had a conversation with Jack Elgin about Magic.

Also, too late. Still best friends forever.

[deviant]

Now that you're here Gearhart: have YOU tested the "Grip-splash" and found it ineffective? You apparently still think CB is insurmountable, so I'm just curious.

Oh, and Jack, I really have to ask: how much experience you have with Soli in the first place? (sorry if this comes out really dick-ish but I just would like to know :) ) Have you actually tested the Threshold mu, TES, and let's say Dragon Stompy without FoW? I'm asking this because it really seems like we can totally forget about winning TES, or any other faster combo deck for that matter, I'm personally very suspicious about cutting FoW improving our Threshold-mu, and I think we'd really miss them against Dragon Stompy.

To me it just seems like you should have something "concrete" to back up these suggestions 'cause, maybe I'm closed-minded here or something, cutting FoW seems like a really bad idea.

That being said, I'd be really happy to hear about anything that improves the Thresh-mu. If you say that your test results indicate that cutting Reset Improves that mu, I would still be happy, so don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to "protect" anything. I just really wouldn't feel comfortable going to a gun-fight only to find out I left my pistols at home, and took the bananas instead.

[Deep6er]

Yes, I've tested Krosan Grip. I found it fucking awful. If you don't have it in your opening hand then you can't answer an early Counterbalance. However, it's a fucking awful card the rest of the time. Drawing two is almost like a mulligan.

Out of testing many different cards, I have not yet found anything even remotely effective. Nothing.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I meant with Remand. I think maindeck bounce is an absolute necessity, at this point. If not Repeal, then Cryptic Command and/or Rescind. But I think the deck should rather focus on stalling a bit longer to go off, as it's not going to win going for the throat until such a time as Frantic Search gets unbanned.

@Deviant: The weekend that Dave got his face smashed in playing Solidarity for the very first time in the old 1.5 Tournament, back when the deck ran neither Brainstorm nor Cunning Wish nor Fetchlands nor Force of Will, I put the deck together on MWS. I play it pretty often, although I rarely enter into a tournament with it. It's a fun deck to relax with for me when I'm not building or testing a new monstrosity, and it's the only deck I've seriously considered entering tournaments with that I didn't build. I'm a big fan because it's a prison-control deck masquerading as a combo deck.

So I have some experience with the deck, is what I'm saying. I also know that the deck can exist without Force of Will. I'm not saying it should necessarily, but I think it can be advantageous.

Also, fuck TES. Seriously. Is that deck played by more than three people on the East Coast and I'm just missing something?

@ Dave: Blue based control isn't relevant and you know it. Shut the fuck up. The relevant threat here is decks like Thresh/Counterslivers. And I think bounce is stronger against them, particularly if the deck's running Twincast and Remand.

You could cut something else and just go utter MUC with a combo finish, but I'm not sure how effective that would be. And I'm leaning towards not very. Could be wrong though.