I generally don't like running basics that arn't forests in my BUG build but then i'm not running Phyrexian Crusader so needing double B isn't an issue.
I'm running a GUW build of sorts so Angel's Grace is something i'll have a look at for that.
in the black version would it be a decent idea to run Crippling Blight in the sideboard for some match ups?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
in the black version would it be a decent idea to run Crippling Blight in the sideboard for some match ups?
No. I cannot think of a common matchup where I could rather have crippling blight over disfigure or dismember. Even if I ran both of those as a 4-of, I would probably want to run slaughter pact as another "cheap" removal spell before considering crippling blight.
Hey everybody. I have been playing this deck online for a little while now. I used to play BUG infect but sold all of the money cards so now I have switched to mono green. I just wanted to post my list and thoughts on the deck to see what everybody thinks.
The one main difference in my list from what I have been seeing is Gitaxian Probe. What is everybody's thought on this card? I personally love it. It seem perfect for this kind of deck with limited threats so you don't get caught going all in on one creature and it gets killed. The information it has provided me has been very valuable. It allows me to better play around my opponents removal and counters and lets me bait cards out of my opponents hand. I play Gitaxian Probe as a protection spell and not cantrip. This is why I cut down to the 2 Apostle's Blessing main and moved the other 2 to the sideboard against heavy removal decks games 2 and 3. So in a way I have 10 protection spells main and can go up to 12 after board.When I played BUG infect I only used 2 Apostle's Blessing main and it seemed to work. Sometimes I feel that card is to reactive. Now I could be completely wrong on this whole thing but that is why I posted looking for everybody's thoughts.
There are a couple other configurations I may want to try out but don't always have the time. I was considering going up to the full 4 Apostle's Blessing main and cutting 2 Forests. This would let me add 2 Spellskite to the sideboard in place of the blessings. I don't know how i feel about cutting down to 20 lands though. It seems like it would make hitting landfall for Groundswell harder, kicking Vines of Vastwood harder, and having mana to activate and pump Inkmoth Nexus harder.
Another configuration I was considering was cutting the Gitaxian Probes all together in favor of the full 4 Apostle's Blessing and 2 Blight Mamba main and 2 Spellskite in the sideboard. This way allows the full 8 hard protection spells as well as 2 additional threats. I just don't know if I would miss the information provided from Gitaxian Probe.
The one main difference in my list from what I have been seeing is Gitaxian Probe. What is everybody's thought on this card?
I can't comment on your mono g list, i don't play mono g so the only advise i'd be able to give is rebuy the money cards and get your hierarchs in there, but im assuming that isnt going to happen.
Gitax is a great card, i run 2 in both both my Infect decks, the ability to see what is in an opp hand is useful, upping it above 2 MD in my current build would be a stretch as there is also 2 PtE, Dismember and Apostle's in there, maybe in your list you could run the 3/3 split of gitax/blessing?
Come on Darth, MonoG Cathedral is the real deal now
The big issue with MonoG is that it runs 8 colorless lands, which is why 4 Apostle's Blessing is essential, because you can cast it for colorless to keep your guy alive or to provide a way through blockers. Also I think it really is a good idea to run 2 Dismember in the main deck, because of all the main deck Spellskites and Melira, Sylvok Outcasts that are in popular decks at the moment. Again it can be cast for colorless and provide a way through the one blocker they left untapped.
I do like the idea of Gitaxian Probe though, card draw and information are certainly beneficial to the plan of the deck. I just can't figure out where to fit it in.
Come on Darth, MonoG Cathedral is the real deal now
Im not going to dispute that it's a decent deck, if it's posting results then they speak for themselves, i just don't think i'll ever be able to tear myself away from running fetches and hierarchs in my infect decks so i figure if im running them im going to run an extra color or 2.
Its not a deck for me however, i like my multi color infect decka and im happy to keep working on them and trying to make them more interesting/effective.
someone explain viridian corrupter in the mainboard. isn't it really expensive to run? also since etched champion is protected from it, isn't it a futile attempt?
After Deathrite Shaman was banned in early February Infect did seem to drop off the face of the earth, until at the end of March when MonoG Cathedral made the top 8 of a couple of Modern Premier events. Waterd then picked up the deck and piloted it to 5 Premier top 8s in 3 weeks, including winning 1 of them: http://www.mtgtop8.com/archetype?a=196&meta=51&f=MO
That was enough for me to take notice, I mean a few players sneaking through to the top 8 with Infect is one thing, but the same player hitting 5 Premier top 8s in 3 weeks ... There was something going on here worth taking notice of.
So I shelved my fetches and forked out 0.10 tickets for 4 Cathedral of War and started playing what appeared to be a much weaker version of Infect, compared with what I had been playing. I have to say that when I first started playing it, the deck did seem like a pile of fluff. Slowly though I began to adjust my playing style to not just focus on going for the combo win, but to realizing that the deck had another mode, the long control game. Of course you could still go for the combo when the opportunity presented itself, but as we have been talking about in this thread, against certain match ups and in certain situations, you could let Cathedral of War and Pendelhaven do most of the work, while sitting back on your pumps and protection spells to counter your opponent when they tried to interfere with you. The land buffs meant that you didn't necessarily have to take the initiative in a pump vs. removal war, your opponent did.
It also meant that your Infect guys could take down blockers without wasting pump spells. For example, in a recent Premier game I played against UWR control, I had 2 Cathedral of War and 1 Pendelhaven along with a couple of forests and an Inkmoth Nexus on the board. My opponent was forced to chump block the Inkmoth with a Celestial Colonnade, and without even casting a pump spell the Inkmoth killed the Colonnade and survived, because with the land buffs it was a 4/5.
Taking what I have learned about playing this deck I managed to top 8 a Premier event on the weekend, finishing 4th with this list:
I decided to go with 4 Giant Growth instead of Might of Old Krosa, so that I could get maximum damage after blocks, but more importantly inline with the idea of the long control game, I wanted to have more cards that would keep my guys alive, especially against Lightning Bolt. I think Might of Old Krosa is more suited to decks running Blighted Agent and Plague Stinger, where you know you can get through, and are trying to win more explosively.
I chose to only run 1 Pendelhaven, because green mana is so valuable in a deck with 8 lands that tap for colorless, and drawing a 2nd Pendelhaven can compromise that.
In the Sideboard, I ran 2 Guttural Response, which was absolutely gold against the URx match ups (Twin, Delver and Control). For Infect decks that don't run blue, I cannot recommend this card enough.
Against BG The Rock, along with the 2 Sylvan Scrying, I have been boarding in all 4 Dismembers, to remove their threats and buy time. It is especially good to remove a Dark Confidant with either Dismember or Necropede, because that is their main card draw engine. I beat a BG deck in the rounds (2-0) with this plan, and lost to the same guy in the top 4 (1-2), who then went on to win the tournament.
Creeping Corrosion from the side, rescued a game for me against Affinity. Even though we run artifact creatures too, it is easy enough to play around and provides a much needed safety valve, in combination with the 4 Nature's Claim from the side.
I am really enjoying playing this deck, but it does take a shift in the usual way Infect is played. It is still fast, but has this long control game we keep talking about.
Its not a deck for me however, i like my multi color infect decka and im happy to keep working on them and trying to make them more interesting/effective.
According to the metadeta, the mono green infect build is the consistently more utilized and consistently competitive build.
I don't think you can make such a conclusion based on a 0.69% sliver of the meta. After a string of good results, Infect as an archetype seems to have fallen back to random 3-1's every now and then.
I'm not, that's simply the sliver of the most commonly used decks in the meta that infect occupies. That's still a large portion of players using infect. From all of the collated data, RUG Splinter Twin is the most utilized deck, at 11.93%. Between that, and mono green infect, there is no other infect build utilized. Ergo, the mono green infect build is the more commonly utilized and effective build.
Magnus, excellent write-up. My next question to you or really anyone else involves spellskites. I sorta went half-in on the skite plan and currently have two in my board. They've over-performed to be honest. What are your thoughts on this card (and wild defiance) against certain decks. I would never main wild defiance but playing the 'control game against control' I've had success being patient and landing a defiance. Once it's landed it completely invalidates bolts and most any type of direct damage. Also lets you finish in one turn once you see the small chance to do so. People say it's slow but in those games we are playing the more slow role as is.
Also sweet idea with the scrying, those are going in for certain. The logic behind when you want to win with inkmoths is very useful information/something to think about.
@Ultra_Magnus
Excellent report, and I appreciated hearing from someone who switched to mono-green for non-budgetary reasons. An oft repeated mantra of people who have a lot of experience playing the deck has been that it has a long game/is not simply a "glass cannon" (debates about exactly what glass cannon means aside)
This has also been my experience, playing with the U/G version, with notable exception of the combo mirror vs storm or similar.
That said, and considering your experience, I hope to get your opinion on why the mono-green list you piloted cannot be improved by the addition of fetchlands/hierarch/more colors.
Argument 1) Monogreen is more more resilient (due to 4 cathedral)
Counterargument: U/G can run more cathedral if it wants to, and often does run 1-2 cathedral in current lists. Alongside hierarch, it has just as much exalted, if not more, than mono-green.
Now, there are certainly many counter-counter arguments to be made on both sides, but likely the truth is that both U/G and monoG infect have a favourable matchup vs UWR control, or can have a favourable matchup as desired (using cards like giant growth over might of old krosa for example)
Argument 2) Monogreen is better vs blood moon
Counterargument: None really, this is simply the truth. However, the difference may be smaller than you think. The two decks most likely to side in blood moon are twin and storm. I would argue that U/G is better vs storm, as speed is the most important thing in that match, and storm doesnt have tons of removal and if it boards echoing truth and bolt and blood moon, it will have a very difficult time actually comboing, so blood moon isnt really a problem in that match. I would expect to see blood moon vs twin, but either version of infect will likely side a couple copies of nature's claim anyways, as it kills spellskite and twin, so moon can be answered
Argument 3) Monogreen is better positioned in the meta, as evidenced by more success online
Counterargument: Without knowing how many players are playing each type of infect deck, its very difficult to evaluate the results. Right now, monoG infect is one of the most cost effective options online in terms of decks with a chance to win for a low price, which I expect to massively increase the number of players who try it out, compared to the number who are willing to buy fetches and hierarchs for a deck that has no apparent results.
Other questions about (non-budget) mono-green:
1)Why not run noble hierarch, perhaps over mutagenic growth (in my experience the 'weak link' in the deck)? Hierarch really helps inkmoth become a threat quickly, and allows for turn 2 infect creatures with protection backup. Also, it seems like it would really improve creeping corrosion. Also, with 8 exalted triggers and 4 rancor I would think you would actually kill with hierarch a non-negligible amount of the time
2)Why not some small number of fetchlands? Sometimes you want to save an infect guy from flame slash/mainphase galvanic blast, and other times you want to play a land to leave up mana for vines/blessing, but would like landfall later for groundswell in case they dont have the removal spell. Finally, I find that fetches are quite useful against twin, as they cant tap you out, allowing you to leave up mana for either vines or dismember.
Now, my infect list only has 5 maindeck blue spells, and one of them is gitaxian probe so it doesnt count. My sideboard only has 3 blue spells (1 spell pierce 2 twisted image). Its not that the deck necessarily needs a ton of blue spells, but that the cost of adding those blue spells is relatively low.
If you say that it is reasonable to replace mutagenic growth with hierarch, then you have to ask, why not add blighted agent at that point? You can still play 4 cathedral if you want.
Effectively, the question becomes: would you rather start the match at 17 and have blighted agent, or start the match at 20 and have necropede?
Agent is enough better I suspect that the 3 life difference would swing things in favor of necropede if you are playing against zoo or burn. Also, necropede may be very good if you are playing against U/R delver due to cards like grim lavamancer.
Anyways, my theorycraft conclusions are that monogreen probably wants to play some small number of fetches, and possibly noble hierarch, and that it has similar across the board matches against everything, except it has slightly weaker matches against combo, but possibly slightly stronger matches against zoo, burn, and possibly delver maindeck.
Postboard, I suspect the monoG's greater susceptibility to artifact hate such as ancient grudge to make it a worse deck as compared to U/G against most decks.
However, I just checked online, and both U/R delver and monored burn are *massively* more popular/successful than they have been, historically speaking. These so happen to be two of the decks were monoG is likely better than its multicolored counterpart, for the reasons above (and other reasons, like electrolyze being good vs hierarch specifically).
The re-rise of jund also favors a return to a greater number of cathedral regardless of monoG or U/G.
My preliminary conclusion is that the decks are pretty similar in powerlevel, and that recent meta shifts favor MonoG as compared to U/G (or B/U/G)online specifically, but that red burn and izzet delver are not actually as good as their online representation would suggest, but overplayed due to budget considerations that may or may not be present in a grand prix, or your local meta.
Obviously, a lot of that is theory (Im a physics PhD student so you'll have to bear with me) so it might be a bunch of hot air. I would be interested in hearing if any mono-green infect players have tested hierarch, and what they used hierarch over, and their feelings about its merits.
Also, if there are obvious holes in my thinking, let me know.
Other questions about (non-budget) mono-green:
1)Why not run noble hierarch, perhaps over mutagenic growth (in my experience the 'weak link' in the deck)? Hierarch really helps inkmoth become a threat quickly, and allows for turn 2 infect creatures with protection backup.
A mono G player will be able to respond to your questions better than myself but Mutagenic Growth, that's free pump, well if you have the life, it's not something you should want to cut out of your deck completely.
Argument 3) Monogreen is better positioned in the meta, as evidenced by more success online
Counterargument: Without knowing how many players are playing each type of infect deck, its very difficult to evaluate the results. Right now, monoG infect is one of the most cost effective options online in terms of decks with a chance to win for a low price, which I expect to massively increase the number of players who try it out, compared to the number who are willing to buy fetches and hierarchs for a deck that has no apparent results.
I understand this query was posed to a different member, however I do wish to point out the inherent fallacies:
Without knowing how many players are playing each type of infect deck, its very difficult to evaluate the results.
This is incorrect because MtGG collates its data from all of the events taking place daily on MTGO. By their own admission, "...We scan through MTGO Daily Event results to bring you the latest information on the metagame!...". This means their data is an accurate and up to date reflection of which decks, cards and builds are currently not only popular, but effective. Of those decks, Mono Green Infect clocks in at #31. Meaning, out of all of the different decks, strategies and cards used effectively, Mono Green Infect is the 31st most successful.
They do track other players who utilize the mutlicolored infect builds, but those build either don't place often enough, or simply don't get results as consistently as often as the Mono Green Infect build does.
The next closest infect build is "Black Infect", which clocks in at #56. Statistically, Black Infect is the second most successful Infect deck, and it's listed at# 56.
Right now, monoG infect is one of the most cost effective options online in terms of decks with a chance to win for a low price, which I expect to massively increase the number of players who try it out, compared to the number who are willing to buy fetches and hierarchs for a deck that has no apparent results.
This is also incorrect. Sure, there may be a few players who opt for Mono Green Infect because it's cheap to build and can win and place consistently (like myself), but mono red burn is easier to use, places more consistently, is far superior and costs exactly the same. However, these are the only 2 budget decks in the entirety of the Modern Metagame. The most successful decks, which utilize the Hierarchs and fetches dominate the meta, meaning that price is not a factor for competitive modern players. Of the current meta, excluding burn the cheapest deck build is BlueRed delver, for $296.71, which is still astronomically high for someone who considers budget builds.
It's not the cost of the cards limiting the alternate infect builds from placing, it's their inherent inferiority compared to the other competitive modern decks, mono green infect included.
Either you do not understand my concern, or you do not understand the relevant mathematics. I will explain in more detail.
Say 20 players play monoG infect in dailies in a week, and 5 players play U/G infect. Now, if a deck is 'average' (50% to win), it will 3-1 25% of the 4 round events it plays in, and 4-0 6.25% of the dailies it plays in. Thus, we would expect ~5 monoG infect players to 3-1, and ~1.25 U/G players to 3-1. Since there is no such thing as fractional numbers of players, we would expect ~1 3-1. For ever 4 3-1 players, we expect one 4-0 player, so we expect ~1.25 4-0 monoG infect players (i.e. 1), and most likely 0 4-0 U/G infect players.
So, in a typical week, we would expect ~5 3-1s and ~1 4-0 from monoG, but only ~1 3-1 and 0 4-0s from U/G. However, we assumed the decks were equally good (50% to win).
So, if we see a week where ~5 people 3-1 with monoG, and ~1 person 3-1s with U/G, can we conclude that monoG is better? Absolutely not. What we can conclude is that we will be more likely to play against monoG if trends continue.
The only way I know of to actually tell if a deck is any good or not, is if there is a *substantial* amount of data, and then you can compare the ratio of the number of people that 3-1 to the number of people who 4-0. As mentioned earlier, if a deck is 50% to win, this ratio will be 4:1, or 1/(4+1)=20% of the decks 3-1/4-0 results will be 4-0. If there are more 4-0s than that, the deck is above average, while if there is less, the deck is below average.
On price not being a factor online - your argument is flawed. I am fully aware that the top decks are not budget, but look at it this way - lets say 10% of the people that play online, have a significant budget. In that case, the top decks will not be budget, but, the budget decks will have proportionally more people playing them compared to if they werent budget. There are a variety of confounding factors, one of which is simply how fast the deck is, I have heard that very fast decks are more popular online, especially among the subset of people that queue multiple games.
Anyways, I am not saying your conclusions are necessarily incorrect, just that you are making those conclusions based insufficient data. I am not trying to claim other versions of infect are better, because I dont see the data being there to make a conclusion either way.
I think there is a flaw in judging competitive decks from their performance online.
Many people will spend a ticket to just play casually after work. With their 5-10 ticket infect deck.
That's like judging a cars performance 0-60 on how fast the average driver takes that particular car on the on ramp.
Conditions aren't optimal, not being driven it's absolute best or for sport. Just casual in nature.
I thing heirarch is inherently better/more suited for the meta. But it's usefulness to the deck does not warrant the massive price increase. We're talking a $200+ difference for a play set for paper. Idk what online prices are, usually a lot more reasonable but if you're running hierarch in a local tournament....
I think there is a flaw in judging competitive decks from their performance online.
Many people will spend a ticket to just play casually after work. With their 5-10 ticket infect deck.
That's like judging a cars performance 0-60 on how fast the average driver takes that particular car on the on ramp.
Conditions aren't optimal, not being driven it's absolute best or for sport. Just casual in nature.
I thing heirarch is inherently better/more suited for the meta. But it's usefulness to the deck does not warrant the massive price increase. We're talking a $200+ difference for a play set for paper. Idk what online prices are, usually a lot more reasonable but if you're running hierarch in a local tournament....
I love Hierarch. I played him in the only two dailies I ran with the deck, and with the winnings I basically was able to refund 1 Hierarch. Nevermind all the tickets that I've won in 8-mans and 2-mans. There are many games where I've specifically noted that if he were a Forest or Dismember (the 4 cards I removed for him), then I wouldn't have been able to win. Similarly, I haven't found an opening hand where I have him and mulligan but would not have if he were a Forest or Dismember.
Still, I'm not sure that he's better. He makes the deck more susceptible to Zealous Persecution, Supreme Vedict, and Anger of the Gods than it was before. It would take a lot more events for me to determine for sure.
Also, no one plays 5-10 tickets in ticketed events. Yes, people play brews often in the 2-mans, and yes, the mono-green deck punishes brews (generally), but it's still a pretty competitive environment: there is plenty of storm, burn, 8-rack, tron (of all varieties), and bad match-ups such as Zoo and Pod. If you can't generally give a ballpark figure for the value of Hierarch online, why try to make blanket statements about the ticketed event atmosphere? Let's take ourselves about 10% less authoritatively on subjects that we have no authority, please.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No Plague Stinger or Inquisition of Kozilek?
I generally don't like running basics that arn't forests in my BUG build but then i'm not running Phyrexian Crusader so needing double B isn't an issue.
I'm running a GUW build of sorts so Angel's Grace is something i'll have a look at for that.
GL in your tourney,
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
No. I cannot think of a common matchup where I could rather have crippling blight over disfigure or dismember. Even if I ran both of those as a 4-of, I would probably want to run slaughter pact as another "cheap" removal spell before considering crippling blight.
12 Forest
2 Pendelhaven
4 Cathedral of War
4 Inkmoth Nexus
Creatures
4 Glistener Elf
4 Necropede
4 Ichorclaw Myr
4 Might of Old Krosa
4 Groundswell
4 Mutagenic Growth
4 Rancor
4 Vines of Vastwood
2 Apostle's Blessing
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Nature's Claim
4 Dismember
4 Tormod's Crypt
2 Apostle's Blessing
1 Viridian Corrupter
The one main difference in my list from what I have been seeing is Gitaxian Probe. What is everybody's thought on this card? I personally love it. It seem perfect for this kind of deck with limited threats so you don't get caught going all in on one creature and it gets killed. The information it has provided me has been very valuable. It allows me to better play around my opponents removal and counters and lets me bait cards out of my opponents hand. I play Gitaxian Probe as a protection spell and not cantrip. This is why I cut down to the 2 Apostle's Blessing main and moved the other 2 to the sideboard against heavy removal decks games 2 and 3. So in a way I have 10 protection spells main and can go up to 12 after board.When I played BUG infect I only used 2 Apostle's Blessing main and it seemed to work. Sometimes I feel that card is to reactive. Now I could be completely wrong on this whole thing but that is why I posted looking for everybody's thoughts.
There are a couple other configurations I may want to try out but don't always have the time. I was considering going up to the full 4 Apostle's Blessing main and cutting 2 Forests. This would let me add 2 Spellskite to the sideboard in place of the blessings. I don't know how i feel about cutting down to 20 lands though. It seems like it would make hitting landfall for Groundswell harder, kicking Vines of Vastwood harder, and having mana to activate and pump Inkmoth Nexus harder.
Another configuration I was considering was cutting the Gitaxian Probes all together in favor of the full 4 Apostle's Blessing and 2 Blight Mamba main and 2 Spellskite in the sideboard. This way allows the full 8 hard protection spells as well as 2 additional threats. I just don't know if I would miss the information provided from Gitaxian Probe.
I can't comment on your mono g list, i don't play mono g so the only advise i'd be able to give is rebuy the money cards and get your hierarchs in there, but im assuming that isnt going to happen.
Gitax is a great card, i run 2 in both both my Infect decks, the ability to see what is in an opp hand is useful, upping it above 2 MD in my current build would be a stretch as there is also 2 PtE, Dismember and Apostle's in there, maybe in your list you could run the 3/3 split of gitax/blessing?
No Pithing Needle SB?
The big issue with MonoG is that it runs 8 colorless lands, which is why 4 Apostle's Blessing is essential, because you can cast it for colorless to keep your guy alive or to provide a way through blockers. Also I think it really is a good idea to run 2 Dismember in the main deck, because of all the main deck Spellskites and Melira, Sylvok Outcasts that are in popular decks at the moment. Again it can be cast for colorless and provide a way through the one blocker they left untapped.
I do like the idea of Gitaxian Probe though, card draw and information are certainly beneficial to the plan of the deck. I just can't figure out where to fit it in.
Im not going to dispute that it's a decent deck, if it's posting results then they speak for themselves, i just don't think i'll ever be able to tear myself away from running fetches and hierarchs in my infect decks so i figure if im running them im going to run an extra color or 2.
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern/full
Its not a deck for me however, i like my multi color infect decka and im happy to keep working on them and trying to make them more interesting/effective.
That was enough for me to take notice, I mean a few players sneaking through to the top 8 with Infect is one thing, but the same player hitting 5 Premier top 8s in 3 weeks ... There was something going on here worth taking notice of.
So I shelved my fetches and forked out 0.10 tickets for 4 Cathedral of War and started playing what appeared to be a much weaker version of Infect, compared with what I had been playing. I have to say that when I first started playing it, the deck did seem like a pile of fluff. Slowly though I began to adjust my playing style to not just focus on going for the combo win, but to realizing that the deck had another mode, the long control game. Of course you could still go for the combo when the opportunity presented itself, but as we have been talking about in this thread, against certain match ups and in certain situations, you could let Cathedral of War and Pendelhaven do most of the work, while sitting back on your pumps and protection spells to counter your opponent when they tried to interfere with you. The land buffs meant that you didn't necessarily have to take the initiative in a pump vs. removal war, your opponent did.
It also meant that your Infect guys could take down blockers without wasting pump spells. For example, in a recent Premier game I played against UWR control, I had 2 Cathedral of War and 1 Pendelhaven along with a couple of forests and an Inkmoth Nexus on the board. My opponent was forced to chump block the Inkmoth with a Celestial Colonnade, and without even casting a pump spell the Inkmoth killed the Colonnade and survived, because with the land buffs it was a 4/5.
Taking what I have learned about playing this deck I managed to top 8 a Premier event on the weekend, finishing 4th with this list:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Digital/MagicOnlineTourn.aspx?x=mtg/digital/magiconline/tourn/7095543
1 Pendelhaven
4 Cathedral of War
4 Inkmoth Nexus
4 Glistener Elf
4 Ichorclaw Myr
4 Necropede
4 Mutagenic Growth
4 Giant Growth
4 Groundswell
4 Vines of Vastwood
4 Apostle's Blessing
2 Dismember
4 Tormod's Crypt
4 Nature's Claim
2 Sylvan Scrying
2 Guttural Response
2 Dismember
1 Creeping Corrosion
I decided to go with 4 Giant Growth instead of Might of Old Krosa, so that I could get maximum damage after blocks, but more importantly inline with the idea of the long control game, I wanted to have more cards that would keep my guys alive, especially against Lightning Bolt. I think Might of Old Krosa is more suited to decks running Blighted Agent and Plague Stinger, where you know you can get through, and are trying to win more explosively.
I chose to only run 1 Pendelhaven, because green mana is so valuable in a deck with 8 lands that tap for colorless, and drawing a 2nd Pendelhaven can compromise that.
In the Sideboard, I ran 2 Guttural Response, which was absolutely gold against the URx match ups (Twin, Delver and Control). For Infect decks that don't run blue, I cannot recommend this card enough.
I also ran 2 Sylvan Scrying in the side for finding Inkmoth Nexus and sometimes Pendelhaven. This came in against Control or BG The Rock, where Inkmoth is your main win condition. In these match ups, I sided out 2 Ichorclaw Myr for it. Previously I was siding out 2 Necropede, but the pede is just so good against these removal heavy decks because it kills their guys when they remove it, including Snapcaster Mage, Vendilion Clique, Young Pyromancer, Pestermite, Grim Lavamancer and Dark Confidant.
Against BG The Rock, along with the 2 Sylvan Scrying, I have been boarding in all 4 Dismembers, to remove their threats and buy time. It is especially good to remove a Dark Confidant with either Dismember or Necropede, because that is their main card draw engine. I beat a BG deck in the rounds (2-0) with this plan, and lost to the same guy in the top 4 (1-2), who then went on to win the tournament.
Creeping Corrosion from the side, rescued a game for me against Affinity. Even though we run artifact creatures too, it is easy enough to play around and provides a much needed safety valve, in combination with the 4 Nature's Claim from the side.
I am really enjoying playing this deck, but it does take a shift in the usual way Infect is played. It is still fast, but has this long control game we keep talking about.
I understand, and I respect that.
I'm not, that's simply the sliver of the most commonly used decks in the meta that infect occupies. That's still a large portion of players using infect. From all of the collated data, RUG Splinter Twin is the most utilized deck, at 11.93%. Between that, and mono green infect, there is no other infect build utilized. Ergo, the mono green infect build is the more commonly utilized and effective build.
Also sweet idea with the scrying, those are going in for certain. The logic behind when you want to win with inkmoths is very useful information/something to think about.
Excellent report, and I appreciated hearing from someone who switched to mono-green for non-budgetary reasons. An oft repeated mantra of people who have a lot of experience playing the deck has been that it has a long game/is not simply a "glass cannon" (debates about exactly what glass cannon means aside)
This has also been my experience, playing with the U/G version, with notable exception of the combo mirror vs storm or similar.
That said, and considering your experience, I hope to get your opinion on why the mono-green list you piloted cannot be improved by the addition of fetchlands/hierarch/more colors.
Argument 1) Monogreen is more more resilient (due to 4 cathedral)
Counterargument: U/G can run more cathedral if it wants to, and often does run 1-2 cathedral in current lists. Alongside hierarch, it has just as much exalted, if not more, than mono-green.
Now, there are certainly many counter-counter arguments to be made on both sides, but likely the truth is that both U/G and monoG infect have a favourable matchup vs UWR control, or can have a favourable matchup as desired (using cards like giant growth over might of old krosa for example)
Argument 2) Monogreen is better vs blood moon
Counterargument: None really, this is simply the truth. However, the difference may be smaller than you think. The two decks most likely to side in blood moon are twin and storm. I would argue that U/G is better vs storm, as speed is the most important thing in that match, and storm doesnt have tons of removal and if it boards echoing truth and bolt and blood moon, it will have a very difficult time actually comboing, so blood moon isnt really a problem in that match. I would expect to see blood moon vs twin, but either version of infect will likely side a couple copies of nature's claim anyways, as it kills spellskite and twin, so moon can be answered
Argument 3) Monogreen is better positioned in the meta, as evidenced by more success online
Counterargument: Without knowing how many players are playing each type of infect deck, its very difficult to evaluate the results. Right now, monoG infect is one of the most cost effective options online in terms of decks with a chance to win for a low price, which I expect to massively increase the number of players who try it out, compared to the number who are willing to buy fetches and hierarchs for a deck that has no apparent results.
Other questions about (non-budget) mono-green:
1)Why not run noble hierarch, perhaps over mutagenic growth (in my experience the 'weak link' in the deck)? Hierarch really helps inkmoth become a threat quickly, and allows for turn 2 infect creatures with protection backup. Also, it seems like it would really improve creeping corrosion. Also, with 8 exalted triggers and 4 rancor I would think you would actually kill with hierarch a non-negligible amount of the time
2)Why not some small number of fetchlands? Sometimes you want to save an infect guy from flame slash/mainphase galvanic blast, and other times you want to play a land to leave up mana for vines/blessing, but would like landfall later for groundswell in case they dont have the removal spell. Finally, I find that fetches are quite useful against twin, as they cant tap you out, allowing you to leave up mana for either vines or dismember.
Now, my infect list only has 5 maindeck blue spells, and one of them is gitaxian probe so it doesnt count. My sideboard only has 3 blue spells (1 spell pierce 2 twisted image). Its not that the deck necessarily needs a ton of blue spells, but that the cost of adding those blue spells is relatively low.
If you say that it is reasonable to replace mutagenic growth with hierarch, then you have to ask, why not add blighted agent at that point? You can still play 4 cathedral if you want.
Effectively, the question becomes: would you rather start the match at 17 and have blighted agent, or start the match at 20 and have necropede?
Agent is enough better I suspect that the 3 life difference would swing things in favor of necropede if you are playing against zoo or burn. Also, necropede may be very good if you are playing against U/R delver due to cards like grim lavamancer.
Anyways, my theorycraft conclusions are that monogreen probably wants to play some small number of fetches, and possibly noble hierarch, and that it has similar across the board matches against everything, except it has slightly weaker matches against combo, but possibly slightly stronger matches against zoo, burn, and possibly delver maindeck.
Postboard, I suspect the monoG's greater susceptibility to artifact hate such as ancient grudge to make it a worse deck as compared to U/G against most decks.
However, I just checked online, and both U/R delver and monored burn are *massively* more popular/successful than they have been, historically speaking. These so happen to be two of the decks were monoG is likely better than its multicolored counterpart, for the reasons above (and other reasons, like electrolyze being good vs hierarch specifically).
The re-rise of jund also favors a return to a greater number of cathedral regardless of monoG or U/G.
My preliminary conclusion is that the decks are pretty similar in powerlevel, and that recent meta shifts favor MonoG as compared to U/G (or B/U/G)online specifically, but that red burn and izzet delver are not actually as good as their online representation would suggest, but overplayed due to budget considerations that may or may not be present in a grand prix, or your local meta.
Obviously, a lot of that is theory (Im a physics PhD student so you'll have to bear with me) so it might be a bunch of hot air. I would be interested in hearing if any mono-green infect players have tested hierarch, and what they used hierarch over, and their feelings about its merits.
Also, if there are obvious holes in my thinking, let me know.
A mono G player will be able to respond to your questions better than myself but Mutagenic Growth, that's free pump, well if you have the life, it's not something you should want to cut out of your deck completely.
I understand this query was posed to a different member, however I do wish to point out the inherent fallacies:
This is incorrect because MtGG collates its data from all of the events taking place daily on MTGO. By their own admission, "...We scan through MTGO Daily Event results to bring you the latest information on the metagame!...". This means their data is an accurate and up to date reflection of which decks, cards and builds are currently not only popular, but effective. Of those decks, Mono Green Infect clocks in at #31. Meaning, out of all of the different decks, strategies and cards used effectively, Mono Green Infect is the 31st most successful.
They do track other players who utilize the mutlicolored infect builds, but those build either don't place often enough, or simply don't get results as consistently as often as the Mono Green Infect build does.
The next closest infect build is "Black Infect", which clocks in at #56. Statistically, Black Infect is the second most successful Infect deck, and it's listed at# 56.
This is also incorrect. Sure, there may be a few players who opt for Mono Green Infect because it's cheap to build and can win and place consistently (like myself), but mono red burn is easier to use, places more consistently, is far superior and costs exactly the same. However, these are the only 2 budget decks in the entirety of the Modern Metagame. The most successful decks, which utilize the Hierarchs and fetches dominate the meta, meaning that price is not a factor for competitive modern players. Of the current meta, excluding burn the cheapest deck build is BlueRed delver, for $296.71, which is still astronomically high for someone who considers budget builds.
It's not the cost of the cards limiting the alternate infect builds from placing, it's their inherent inferiority compared to the other competitive modern decks, mono green infect included.
Either you do not understand my concern, or you do not understand the relevant mathematics. I will explain in more detail.
Say 20 players play monoG infect in dailies in a week, and 5 players play U/G infect. Now, if a deck is 'average' (50% to win), it will 3-1 25% of the 4 round events it plays in, and 4-0 6.25% of the dailies it plays in. Thus, we would expect ~5 monoG infect players to 3-1, and ~1.25 U/G players to 3-1. Since there is no such thing as fractional numbers of players, we would expect ~1 3-1. For ever 4 3-1 players, we expect one 4-0 player, so we expect ~1.25 4-0 monoG infect players (i.e. 1), and most likely 0 4-0 U/G infect players.
So, in a typical week, we would expect ~5 3-1s and ~1 4-0 from monoG, but only ~1 3-1 and 0 4-0s from U/G. However, we assumed the decks were equally good (50% to win).
So, if we see a week where ~5 people 3-1 with monoG, and ~1 person 3-1s with U/G, can we conclude that monoG is better? Absolutely not. What we can conclude is that we will be more likely to play against monoG if trends continue.
The only way I know of to actually tell if a deck is any good or not, is if there is a *substantial* amount of data, and then you can compare the ratio of the number of people that 3-1 to the number of people who 4-0. As mentioned earlier, if a deck is 50% to win, this ratio will be 4:1, or 1/(4+1)=20% of the decks 3-1/4-0 results will be 4-0. If there are more 4-0s than that, the deck is above average, while if there is less, the deck is below average.
A detailed study of this "conversion percentage" could be found, up until very recently, on this column http://puremtgo.com/articles/overdriven-90
On price not being a factor online - your argument is flawed. I am fully aware that the top decks are not budget, but look at it this way - lets say 10% of the people that play online, have a significant budget. In that case, the top decks will not be budget, but, the budget decks will have proportionally more people playing them compared to if they werent budget. There are a variety of confounding factors, one of which is simply how fast the deck is, I have heard that very fast decks are more popular online, especially among the subset of people that queue multiple games.
Anyways, I am not saying your conclusions are necessarily incorrect, just that you are making those conclusions based insufficient data. I am not trying to claim other versions of infect are better, because I dont see the data being there to make a conclusion either way.
Many people will spend a ticket to just play casually after work. With their 5-10 ticket infect deck.
That's like judging a cars performance 0-60 on how fast the average driver takes that particular car on the on ramp.
Conditions aren't optimal, not being driven it's absolute best or for sport. Just casual in nature.
I thing heirarch is inherently better/more suited for the meta. But it's usefulness to the deck does not warrant the massive price increase. We're talking a $200+ difference for a play set for paper. Idk what online prices are, usually a lot more reasonable but if you're running hierarch in a local tournament....
I love Hierarch. I played him in the only two dailies I ran with the deck, and with the winnings I basically was able to refund 1 Hierarch. Nevermind all the tickets that I've won in 8-mans and 2-mans. There are many games where I've specifically noted that if he were a Forest or Dismember (the 4 cards I removed for him), then I wouldn't have been able to win. Similarly, I haven't found an opening hand where I have him and mulligan but would not have if he were a Forest or Dismember.
Still, I'm not sure that he's better. He makes the deck more susceptible to Zealous Persecution, Supreme Vedict, and Anger of the Gods than it was before. It would take a lot more events for me to determine for sure.
Also, no one plays 5-10 tickets in ticketed events. Yes, people play brews often in the 2-mans, and yes, the mono-green deck punishes brews (generally), but it's still a pretty competitive environment: there is plenty of storm, burn, 8-rack, tron (of all varieties), and bad match-ups such as Zoo and Pod. If you can't generally give a ballpark figure for the value of Hierarch online, why try to make blanket statements about the ticketed event atmosphere? Let's take ourselves about 10% less authoritatively on subjects that we have no authority, please.