I fail at none of those things. You fail at making a point, though. No one said it's in all the decks, nor at this time.
How in the world did you deduce that from what I wrote? Yes, I have reasons; no, they do not rely on me directly playing Legacy in order to have them. This should not be a difficult concept for either of you to grasp.
You said it is warping the format...finding 4 total TNN in the top 8 decks is clearly NOT warping the format. Again you do not understand.
Because several thousand years ago humans developed this thing called language, and then a few thousands years ago they developed this thing called writing, and then a few hundred years ago they developed this thing called the printing press, and then a few decades ago they developed this thing called the Internet. By harnessing these tools in conjunction, I can access information gathered by other people and learn things that are true without ever having to directly experience them myself! Ain't life grand?
THen you fail at writing, reading, and harnessing conjunctions.
I'm quite new to merfolk and have a few questions:
I've seen some lists running Ponder (Alexander Dochnal's), and I'm wondering why we don't run the fetchland + Brainstorm/Ponder route. Wouldn't being able to shuffle away land heavy hands and swap them for blue cards to pitch to Force of Will or Lords to be cast better? (I run no 3cmc creatures so the 3rd land drop isn't as important). Also library manipulation, etc.
Also why is Mutavault that good to be a 4 of? It potentially prevents a lord from coming down T2 (without AEther Vial), and is a wasteland target. Cutting it would mean the deck would have wasteland protection (no Cavern). Also it lets us cast Spell Pierce more consistently, as well as making the Brainstorm route mentioned above more viable.
Am I completely off or is there some merit to my thoughts?
using fetchlands opens you up to stifle especially since RUG is pretty prevalent.
Mutavault gets big pretty quick with the lords, however since the printing of TNN, i have dropped the mutavault count to 3 since i cannot support the UU.
I'm actually thinking of just playing caverns over mutavault. But still debating because muta helps block many protection from color creatures.
I've played Bant forever, I love the deck. Sam's list is Reid's list, if you don't know that then you're not really paying attention to how they operate or why they have the structure they do.
Every single one of your arguments boils down to making the wrong play whether it's keeping bad hands or using Zenith incorrectly. None of it is because Arbor is bad, or there aren't enough Zeniths, or creatures not being good enough. It's a Brainstorm deck with 9 different cards that tutor for something, which means it's super read dependent.
If you have to always hold up for a certain play then you're doing it wrong, you're going to be have to switch gears depending on your read. That's why having Arbor as a Zenith for 0 target is good.
All you are saying is that you are wrong. All conclusions with no substance.
I've provided examples on the need to play tight with the gsz because you are playing a reactive style with Bant.
Then you make an argument that this I should read the board state to determine what I should be doing next. But you also say that when reading the board state you should search the arbor. Does this even make any sense?
At one point you say play a reactive style. Then you say because you play a reactive style you should play proactive by dropping a arbor. What are you saying or are you just talking.
I am not sure whether I am right or wrong but I can say is that I provide arguments with examples instead of your conclusory arguments.
If your purpose is to ramp and play a proactive style. Then so be it play the arbor with 3 gsz. But if you want a reactive style you need silver bullets with 4 gsz so that you can drop arbor and use gsz more freely. But not both.
I've played Bant forever, I love the deck. Sam's list is Reid's list, if you don't know that then you're not really paying attention to how they operate or why they have the structure they do.
Every single one of your arguments boils down to making the wrong play whether it's keeping bad hands or using Zenith incorrectly. None of it is because Arbor is bad, or there aren't enough Zeniths, or creatures not being good enough. It's a Brainstorm deck with 9 different cards that tutor for something, which means it's super read dependent.
If you have to always hold up for a certain play then you're doing it wrong, you're going to be have to switch gears depending on your read. That's why having Arbor as a Zenith for 0 target is good.
The inclusion of the TNN over the knights and jaces make the deck a different build for blue count purposes and overall game plan. Those changes make the deck different. Reid Duke also runs 4 gsz, therefore like I said before, running 4 gsz, you can afford to do the arbor fetch.
Since you find that both of these decks identical, its not surprising you also don't see the game plan and the card choices...net decking does that to you.
He also plays more utility with teeg, ooze, knights, and pridemage. He even runs 1 horizon canopy, life from the loam, and 4 wastelands to build around knight.
What i'm saying is, if you have a utility package, you cannot run 3 gsz and use it on arbor. but if you have 4 gsz, you can use it on arbor since you will get another to back up your utility plan in the MD.
This is my biggest criticism with the 3 gsz and the arbor build that sam black utilizes.
In sam black's case, he changed the deck completely to make it into a beater over a maverick/utility style. So in essence, he can use the gsz to ramp because he isn't doing the utility build.
So the next question is, is that what you want to turn bant into? a deck that ramps with green instead of doing the maverick style utility build?
None of the issues you brought up have anything to do with the structure of the deck at all. They are solely play and playstyle dependent, if you're on TA, then stick with it, not sure what else to say. I have the luxury of testing with some one that top 16'ed the GP with TA while running variations of Stoneblade so maybe that's why my perspective is different.
It certainly does to determine why the cards are included. Since you netdeck the best deck that won the tournament, you probably don't realize it.
I'm sure you found duke reid's deck ideal before you saw Sam black's list.
My counter-suite is specifically for where I play, your arguments against Zenith hands and Dryad Arbor show a lack of familiarity or usage of the deck. Not sure what else you want out of this shell when its power and consistency is predicated on being able to maximize Zeniths at every stage of the game. Acceleration is a primary function of it.
Don't think so. From experience I ran a list of 3 gsz and 1 arbor in 2 tournaments.
Of course this was before the TNN was printed so you couldn't run a 4 FOW, SFM, and the GSZ package altogther.
I replaced a GSZ with a ponder for the extra 19th blue source. I did the GSZ to arbor multiple times in the tournament. But two games against dredge, I wish I had my GSZ in my hand to get the scavenging ooze. I had a ponder in hand and thats not what I wanted. Had I didn't waste my gsz on turn 1 for that arbor, I would have had my gsz for the ooze.
In another situation, There was a batterskull on turn 3, again I wish it was a gsz in my hand.
Ever since, I always ran 4 gsz because I wanted it that badly. There's really no reason to just waste the gsz when you only have 3 of them.
Then the most recent time when i was testing your guy's theory on the deck with 3 gsz, I kept getting 2 for 1 on turn 2 against golgari charms. (this probably had more to do with the current meta then anything else, but the point is i used the gsz again for arbor turn 1 and then dropped a TNN turn 3).
I could have slow played with the daze back up and sfm in hand and one mana free for their daze. Thats why i came to the conclusion that this deck is on the slower side of decks compared to Team America or RUG where I can drop bombs (like what all you guys are advocating to do with this deck). With this deck, I really have to act reactively to see what the situation on the board is to decide what to do next.
Point was... i Usually slow play this deck, but i wanted to see how you guys' play style was and be proactive instead of reactive. I discovered this is not the deck for it.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Watch Sam's games against Wescoe or Reid's games against Friedman. That's a pretty good tutorial on how to play both aggro and control with the list without taking away strong elements for worse options.
You're saying I dn't know how to play the deck when you run 2 dazes and 2 spell pierce. OK.
I think the issue is still that you're not suited to play the deck. There's a reason Arbor goes in every Zenith deck.
Has anyone made any significant changes to Bant lately? I've dropped Jace totally for another Stoneforge along with a counter-suite of double daze, double pierce, and full set of Force.
So because I play differently by playing a more reactive style, i don't know how to play the deck?
If i'm into ramping and building board presence with a deck, I'm playing team america. This deck is a grinder.
This. +1,000
Pretty much my EXACT logic with any GSZ deck. Not to mention what you described is exactly my conclusion on HOW to play GSZ
I have the exact opposite feeling.
One time i ran 3 GSZ because I wanted to pack an extra blue card in the deck to make it to 19.
I ran a dryad arbor as well. I gsz on several occasions for the turn 1 arbor. It really felt lackluster to me because there were times when I really, really wanted ot save my gsz because I needed it to answer an artifact or get a knight. When I saw my gsz from drawing it, it was a savings grace. After that tournament, I feel like I either play 4 gsz for dryad arbor or if i only run 3, I would not run the dryad arbor because i need it for more utility other than mana ramping.
You said it is warping the format...finding 4 total TNN in the top 8 decks is clearly NOT warping the format. Again you do not understand.
corrected
THen you fail at writing, reading, and harnessing conjunctions.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=6493&d=237262
i found a total of 4 TNN in the MD in the top 8
using fetchlands opens you up to stifle especially since RUG is pretty prevalent.
Mutavault gets big pretty quick with the lords, however since the printing of TNN, i have dropped the mutavault count to 3 since i cannot support the UU.
I'm actually thinking of just playing caverns over mutavault. But still debating because muta helps block many protection from color creatures.
All you are saying is that you are wrong. All conclusions with no substance.
I've provided examples on the need to play tight with the gsz because you are playing a reactive style with Bant.
Then you make an argument that this I should read the board state to determine what I should be doing next. But you also say that when reading the board state you should search the arbor. Does this even make any sense?
At one point you say play a reactive style. Then you say because you play a reactive style you should play proactive by dropping a arbor. What are you saying or are you just talking.
I am not sure whether I am right or wrong but I can say is that I provide arguments with examples instead of your conclusory arguments.
If your purpose is to ramp and play a proactive style. Then so be it play the arbor with 3 gsz. But if you want a reactive style you need silver bullets with 4 gsz so that you can drop arbor and use gsz more freely. But not both.
The inclusion of the TNN over the knights and jaces make the deck a different build for blue count purposes and overall game plan. Those changes make the deck different. Reid Duke also runs 4 gsz, therefore like I said before, running 4 gsz, you can afford to do the arbor fetch.
Since you find that both of these decks identical, its not surprising you also don't see the game plan and the card choices...net decking does that to you.
He also plays more utility with teeg, ooze, knights, and pridemage. He even runs 1 horizon canopy, life from the loam, and 4 wastelands to build around knight.
What i'm saying is, if you have a utility package, you cannot run 3 gsz and use it on arbor. but if you have 4 gsz, you can use it on arbor since you will get another to back up your utility plan in the MD.
This is my biggest criticism with the 3 gsz and the arbor build that sam black utilizes.
In sam black's case, he changed the deck completely to make it into a beater over a maverick/utility style. So in essence, he can use the gsz to ramp because he isn't doing the utility build.
So the next question is, is that what you want to turn bant into? a deck that ramps with green instead of doing the maverick style utility build?
It certainly does to determine why the cards are included. Since you netdeck the best deck that won the tournament, you probably don't realize it.
I'm sure you found duke reid's deck ideal before you saw Sam black's list.
On the third point, the sam black list doesn't run that many silver bullets so his gsz really isn't all that necessary
Don't think so. From experience I ran a list of 3 gsz and 1 arbor in 2 tournaments.
Of course this was before the TNN was printed so you couldn't run a 4 FOW, SFM, and the GSZ package altogther.
I replaced a GSZ with a ponder for the extra 19th blue source. I did the GSZ to arbor multiple times in the tournament. But two games against dredge, I wish I had my GSZ in my hand to get the scavenging ooze. I had a ponder in hand and thats not what I wanted. Had I didn't waste my gsz on turn 1 for that arbor, I would have had my gsz for the ooze.
In another situation, There was a batterskull on turn 3, again I wish it was a gsz in my hand.
Ever since, I always ran 4 gsz because I wanted it that badly. There's really no reason to just waste the gsz when you only have 3 of them.
Then the most recent time when i was testing your guy's theory on the deck with 3 gsz, I kept getting 2 for 1 on turn 2 against golgari charms. (this probably had more to do with the current meta then anything else, but the point is i used the gsz again for arbor turn 1 and then dropped a TNN turn 3).
I could have slow played with the daze back up and sfm in hand and one mana free for their daze. Thats why i came to the conclusion that this deck is on the slower side of decks compared to Team America or RUG where I can drop bombs (like what all you guys are advocating to do with this deck). With this deck, I really have to act reactively to see what the situation on the board is to decide what to do next.
Point was... i Usually slow play this deck, but i wanted to see how you guys' play style was and be proactive instead of reactive. I discovered this is not the deck for it.
You're saying I dn't know how to play the deck when you run 2 dazes and 2 spell pierce. OK.
So because I play differently by playing a more reactive style, i don't know how to play the deck?
If i'm into ramping and building board presence with a deck, I'm playing team america. This deck is a grinder.
Can be cast for free, just can't do -15 life to kill emmy or something.
I have the exact opposite feeling.
One time i ran 3 GSZ because I wanted to pack an extra blue card in the deck to make it to 19.
I ran a dryad arbor as well. I gsz on several occasions for the turn 1 arbor. It really felt lackluster to me because there were times when I really, really wanted ot save my gsz because I needed it to answer an artifact or get a knight. When I saw my gsz from drawing it, it was a savings grace. After that tournament, I feel like I either play 4 gsz for dryad arbor or if i only run 3, I would not run the dryad arbor because i need it for more utility other than mana ramping.