I agree with you on your points for best players and worst. Delver is tempting to keep because if it survives, it is important to us closing out games.
Narnam will be chumped for days by many decks, whereas Delver has plenty of evasion.
I did say I dont think MG is going to win any easy top 16s at major events. My winrate is at FNM and Xmage Rated. So its good in those types of events/environments. Im sure my percentages would drop closer to the 50% spot at GPs, for example. And obviously, 50% aint getting me to day 2 most of the time.
I dont think Im trying to win you over, in particular. Your goals are more about success at higher level competitions. So playing MG because its challenging is not a reason to sleeve it up for those events.
But are you referring to challenging in the it's-hard-to-win-with-this-bad-deck sense, or challenging in the this-deck-is-very-punishing-but-also-very-rewarding sense? If the latter, wouldn't you get more out of playing a superior deck? As it stands, you can play very strong games with MG and still lose because of the deck's internal consistency and power issues. DSJ is similarly challenging in terms of combat, lines, sequencing, etc. and actually competent enough to take down events if you play well enough. Why does that not appeal to you more? Not trying to pressure you into picking up DSJ or anything, just curious about your thought process.
I guess it can be reduced down to personal preference. I like that it is challenging in a punish-reward kind of way. At the same time, I enjoy playing Temur colors, and I enjoy trying to make them work. My personality in the MTG world is also to go against the current best deck. At least, that's what I evolved into. I always prefer playing the underdog deck.
Plus, deep down, I always assume the deck is one new set (or ban/unban) away from being thrust back into the power seat.
I did say I dont think MG is going to win any easy top 16s at major events. My winrate is at FNM and Xmage Rated. So its good in those types of events/environments. Im sure my percentages would drop closer to the 50% spot at GPs, for example. And obviously, 50% aint getting me to day 2 most of the time.
I dont think Im trying to win you over, in particular. Your goals are more about success at higher level competitions. So playing MG because its challenging is not a reason to sleeve it up for those events.
But seriously, I think the deck is fine. If your goal is to qualify for a PT, or top 8 a GP, etc...then there are definitely easier decks to pilot out there. And that's fine.
But if you want to play a tempo game, with a challenging deck, that provides no real linear path in every game, then this deck is exactly what you want. And that's fine, too.
Im enjoying a 60-70% win rate with it (online and FNM), and thats fine for me. I dont know if Id still rock it if I were on the SCG tour (probably still would).
The Eldrazi Tron matchup is not impossible for sure. But I dont find it a favorable one. Especially if you dont get pressure early. Its easy to say "just slam Moon and Master, GG". Its another thing to actually execute it. Mulliganing in these matchups just makes the fight a lot worse. I find Bant Eldrazi a far easier matchup, IMO.
Its a bad matchup. I have won plenty of game 1's, but it does not mean its a good matchup. We need responses for all of their major plays, and if we dont, we fall behind too quick. I like deprive for matches like this, and my playset of Denials. Post board, I bring in Pongify, Moon, EE (for Chalice), Huntmaster, Destructive Revelry.
Decks heavy on 2 drops or tokens I would bring EE in against. I do bring EE against Elves, but it is slow. I only bring it in if I am not removing anything more relevant. I would bring EE in against any DS deck.
On a lighter note: have any of you also had a bunch of salty opponents online? Who say our deck isnt tiered and stands no chance? Ive heard this salty complaint for almost 2 years now (Cockatrice and Xmage). Just had a match now vs Abzan (I won). I find it funny, and I entertain them once the salt starts pouring.
I used to play Condescend in my RUG Midrange list. It was an awesome card, and it never got worse as the games went on. Scry 2 is what you need, sometimes, to dig for the right answer to close the game. Blind cycling just gets you the top card on your deck. You see more with a scry 2. It essentially allows you to dig up to 3 cards deep (assuming you scry 2 to the bottom). Im not sure it has a place in RUG Delver.
Narnam will be chumped for days by many decks, whereas Delver has plenty of evasion.
I guess it can be reduced down to personal preference. I like that it is challenging in a punish-reward kind of way. At the same time, I enjoy playing Temur colors, and I enjoy trying to make them work. My personality in the MTG world is also to go against the current best deck. At least, that's what I evolved into. I always prefer playing the underdog deck.
Plus, deep down, I always assume the deck is one new set (or ban/unban) away from being thrust back into the power seat.
I dont think Im trying to win you over, in particular. Your goals are more about success at higher level competitions. So playing MG because its challenging is not a reason to sleeve it up for those events.
But seriously, I think the deck is fine. If your goal is to qualify for a PT, or top 8 a GP, etc...then there are definitely easier decks to pilot out there. And that's fine.
But if you want to play a tempo game, with a challenging deck, that provides no real linear path in every game, then this deck is exactly what you want. And that's fine, too.
Im enjoying a 60-70% win rate with it (online and FNM), and thats fine for me. I dont know if Id still rock it if I were on the SCG tour (probably still would).
I was being tongue and cheek about it. But yes, obviously.