Mnesci thanks for the thorough analysis of my post.
So I'm now led to believe that the only point left against deprive is that you're forced to fetch aggressively. Well, as far as my playstyle goes, I like to fetch very aggressively on the blind and I'd fetch like that even if I didn't have deprive in hand, or even in the deck, It doesn't make any difference since we really really need blue mana regardless.
I have an amazing win ratio against burn, like 85%. I usually take an average of 4-6 damages per game from lands and I'm not afraid of doing so, bacause the truth is that having access to better mana actually SAVES you life by the end of the game, and this is the focal point here. How many times did you pass the turn without playing a cantrip in order to keep countermagic up because you fetched for basic island/st. ground instead of pool/vents? Well those turns you pass COST YOU LIFE!
Well maybe it's just my personal preference, but fetching aggressively most of the times has led me to the best results. The only times where I fetch for basics is when I already have 3+ lands in hand.
Be a man. Next time, look straight into the burn opponent's eyes and prudly say: fetch, shock, seventeen, delver pass. Fetch, shock, 3 more, goyf go. I'm not afraid!!!
Makes sense. We do this in Counter-Cat and it works fine.
After more games with a tweaked build I believe I've had a revelation about RUG Delver, although I know most of you guys may disagree with me. I think we're too inconsistent without Probe. Traverse and Sleight are really poor replacements for what amounts to extra (and better) Scours. Our options are to play awful cantrips like Bauble that don't synergize enough with the deck and hurt Delver, or to cut Mandrills in some number. The former option gives us more consistency problems, and the latter hurts our ability to run Denial, which is one of the main draws to the deck IMO.
So yeah I'm not feeling optimistic
Obviously, I disagree. If anything I find Traverse makes us far more inconsistent, regardless of its ability to fetch for threats. Its why Traverse never really caught on for me. I think the Traverse build had a narrow window where it was good, but for me, the traverseless build allows us to be more consistent.
Obviously, nothing is as good as having Probe. But Sleight has done a good job in its place.
In terms of aggressive fetching, Im probably between you and Blaze. What's in my hand really does dictate a lot of my fetching. I remove Deprive against decks like Burn, Merfolk, X Zoo, Elves, and the like.
Alright, I see there's quite a bit of confusion concerning Deprive here so I'll try to clarify why the card is better than leak once and for all.
The additional U of deprive is not a real cost since most of the times you just want to go breeding pool, steam vents and island anyway (the more blue mana the merrier, since it's pretty common to chain cantrips and needing to keep denial up).
the returning of a land is not a cost, it's a perk!!! so many times deprive has let me play an additional land post-combat that I couldn't have played otherwise. Also relevant, it frees our land from spreading seas.
it doesn't play badly with blood moon since 90% of the matches where blood moon comes in, you side deprives out. Notable exceptions are classic tron, UWx and Valakut decks, where if you are able to stick a blood moon you couldn't care less about a dead deprive in hand anyway, and half of the times I have the 2 islands out too.
We don't care about the extra shock damage from lands anyway since our deck is structured to be ahead and stay ahead on board. when our life total starts to matter, it's usually too late. Plus, against aggressive decks, deprive's the first card to go.
deprive's NEVER a dead card, while mana leak loses value faster than a drag racer.
Once, I was torn just like you. So I kept actual track (excel sheet, 100ish matches) of all the cases where I'd rather have drawn leak instead of deprive and deprive won the comparison hands down.
Essentially this is what I was saying, but in a long, laborious, and fragmented way.
Landing blood moon vs bogles or ad nausem usually is a death blow, anyways. If Moon and Deprive are in my opening hand, I got for Moon, first. But like I said, I usually side-out some or all of my deprives in Moon matchups anyways.
As for the issues with fetching for shock lands, I agree, it is a knock against Deprive. Not enough to dissuade me from using it completely, though. Dont forget I also run 1x pierce and an extra Denial compared to you two, so I am not completely out of answers in the two matchups you just brought up.
That's true, Denial and Pierce definitely pull the weight lost in the AN matchup. But what about other decks, like Scapeshift? Pierce and Denial won't stop Primeval Titan, which can still beat us through a Moon. So can Wurmcoil Engine out of Tron. I disagree with the notion that Leak and Moon never play nice together; against big mana decks, they're best buds.
To be clear, I don't mean to knock the card either. Just want to fully wrap my head around its use.
I didnt want my comment about Moon and Leak to sound like I was dismissing Leak altogether. I played with Leak far longer than I played with Deprive. So Im trying to compare my experiences with the older version, and this version. 1U is easier to cast than UU. Lets just be clear I am on board with this notion (Im not an idiot :)).
I concede that I am giving up a potential hard counter using Deprive and Moon in the same deck in certain match-ups.
In regards to your PT and WCE comments. I have actually played an abnormal amount of matches against Primetime decks, and my win rate is actually above 75%. Denial plays a big role to stop scapeshift, and moon turns off valakut. Simic charm helps me beat titan (or bounce it), and pongify just kills it outright. And so long as I cut them off double green for a turn or two, I win anyways (especially in the air). Narnam plays a nice role here as well.
Tron is just a horrible matchup in general. I am not sure how much my winrates will change swapping back to Leak. I can say my win rates vs Eldrazi Tron are a bit better than regular Tron. I attribute that in part to being able to Deprive Smashers against opponents with leak protection.
That is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to know. Thanks!
If you guys are cognisant of that and have liked Deprive, I will gladly try it out.
Great. Like I mentioned a few times before, like with Traverse, it takes a bit to get used to it. It definitely alters plays and sequencing. And Ive learned a lot since Ive started playing with it (that means I made a lot of boo-boos )
Like Traverse doesn't work for me, Deprive might not work for you. In general, though, it has been a great card to have access to. I have definitely won games where I would have lost with Mana Leak.
So you know, I always look at how I lost, and ask myself if 2 extra life (or X extra life) would have made a difference. Thus far, I cant remember a match like that in the case of deprive, apart from obvious game 1's vs burn. But that doesn't mean anything.
Landing blood moon vs bogles or ad nausem usually is a death blow, anyways. If Moon and Deprive are in my opening hand, I got for Moon, first. But like I said, I usually side-out some or all of my deprives in Moon matchups anyways.
As for the issues with fetching for shock lands, I agree, it is a knock against Deprive. Not enough to dissuade me from using it completely, though. Dont forget I also run 1x pierce and an extra Denial compared to you two, so I am not completely out of answers in the two matchups you just brought up.
Running a split of Deprive/Leak probably leads to having games where you fetched for one, drew the other and either lost life or can't cast your counter.
I can't understand what you mean here: you usually fetch according to what you have in hand. In any case by turn three you should have UU anyway often with a basic available for bounce. Can you make an example of a wrong way of fetching?
Loosing life in many matches (either due to fetching for shock or to bounce a shock) is more than acceptable if you manage to get rid of a menace imho.
I can see instead the moon-deprive clash.
I keep plenty of hands with just two lands, or one land plus Serum Visions/Traverse. There are many games where you find your third land drop quite late, or not at all. With these, you either lose out on UU, or you have to fetch Steam Vents and Breeding Pool, which can really hurt against aggressive decks.
I will make up a super contrived scenario to demonstrate what I am thinking of. I have no idea how often this kind of thing happens in games, and it absolutely doesn't prove my point due to how rare it could be.
Let's say our opening seven is two fetches, Mandrills, Scour, Bolt, Leak, and Denial. You play a fetch and pass. The opponent plays a Goblin Guide that you Bolt, getting a Steam Vents.
What do you fetch now? You can Scour, get a Green source and play Mandrills, or hold up Leak. Either way, you should probably get an untapped land. So, do you get a Basic Forest or a Breeding Pool? You don't really need UU or UR yet, so you could save yourself some life. But if you draw Deprive later, you might not be able to cast it.
Also, if we are playing Deprive over Leak entirely, Deprive is in our hand instead. You probably get the Breeding Pool, taking some extra damage. That may very well cost you the game.
In a certain percentage of games, you will lose due to having to shock due to running Deprive (or just not being able to cast it, or some other U spell because your mana was spoken for that turn). In a certain percentage of games, you will lose due to Mana Leak not countering something late. My worry with Deprive is whether or not people have considered losing due to shocking because you could lose the game (due to running Deprive over Leak) even if you don't see the card.
I never fetch in anticipation for Deprive. And Ill fetch for Deprive when it is in my hand, if circumstances allow (if there is a better play, I will fetch for the better play). It is rare that I get stuck on 2 lands forever, and if I do, Im losing anyways (most likely), Deprive or not.
Running a split of Deprive/Leak probably leads to having games where you fetched for one, drew the other and either lost life or can't cast your counter.
I can't understand what you mean here: you usually fetch according to what you have in hand. In any case by turn three you should have UU anyway often with a basic available for bounce. Can you make an example of a wrong way of fetching?
Loosing life in many matches (either due to fetching for shock or to bounce a shock) is more than acceptable if you manage to get rid of a menace imho.
I can see instead the moon-deprive clash.
Again with about 100 matches played for myself, I find Deprive just fine. Fetching to 14-16 life is common in most games, so Im not afraid of it. Matches where life total is a lot more important (like Burn) I usually get rid of Deprive anyways. Same for super aggro decks where the tempo loss is not justifiable or in my favor, and my other answers are more efficient anyways.
Again, this might boil down to playstyle, or bias.
As for fastlands, I like my 1-of right now. Though I could see running another wooded foothills in its place.
And Ill circle back to inst/sorc cut-offs. What are your cut-offs for inst/sorc in the main? (asking everyone). I think 27 is bare minimum.
I tend to side-out Deprive when Blood Moon comes into play. It actually affords me less intrusive side-boarding actions by being able to swap one with the other. Blood Moon tends to grind games anyway, where leak is very weak.
So what's the consensus? 1-2 Narnam Renegade? And cutting snapcasters for them? I suppose I will finally have to give them a spin.
I ran 1 snap before and made space by removing him and another card. Though like I said before, I am not 100% sold on removing snap from the 75. So far, its been fine, and I cant remember games from recent memory where I really wanted him but drew Narnam instead. Again, with only 1 snap in the deck, you rarely draw him in most games, anyways.
If you make 30% of the meta for any particular tournament 8-rack, I assure you 8-rack will end-up in top8/16. Decks actually showing up have a chance of being ranked in Tiers. The fact that a deck does not show up, does not invalidate its viability. Tiers miss this fact. If 30% of the decks brought to a tournament are DS decks, then obviously we will see DS in the top8/16.
There is a skewing factor that the tier system does not take into account. And for the most part, it cannot. So we widen the criteria, or we make the disclaimers more clear.
I understand YOU prefer the bigger picture, but the majority of regular Modern players do not. I hear it all the time at my LGS. People talk about tiers as though decks outside of Tier 1 should lose to Tier 1. I hear people walking up and asking to build "this list" which ends up being a tier 1 list net decked from the most recent event(s).
People here on MTGS live in a bubble, and we rarely realize that what we think differs greatly from general Modern players (or magic players in general).
So, regardless of how YOU think tiers should be looked at (which I may agree with you on that), the fact of the matter is, for most people, they will look at tiers as a strict indicator of what is good and what is bad. If its not tiered, its some random rogue brew with no viability (until some pro decides to take it to a top 8 finish).
Tiers are an important tool for metagame construction and analysis. A data driven approach is always the best (if you can avoid collection bias and preferential bias) for more a rigorous explanation of the metagame itself. However, it is still incumbent upon the individual to understand what that tiering system means, and be able to apply it's lessons in a subjective context for their local metagame.
You are asking for a lot. lol
In a vacuum, of course Tier analysis is necessary. Im not asking to get rid of Tiers. But either we make it clear what they are meant to indicate, or we widen the criteria. Because at the end of the day, 10-20 people of MTGS understanding the nuance of the Tiering system, is not sufficient.
Obviously, I disagree. If anything I find Traverse makes us far more inconsistent, regardless of its ability to fetch for threats. Its why Traverse never really caught on for me. I think the Traverse build had a narrow window where it was good, but for me, the traverseless build allows us to be more consistent.
Obviously, nothing is as good as having Probe. But Sleight has done a good job in its place.
Essentially this is what I was saying, but in a long, laborious, and fragmented way.
I didnt want my comment about Moon and Leak to sound like I was dismissing Leak altogether. I played with Leak far longer than I played with Deprive. So Im trying to compare my experiences with the older version, and this version. 1U is easier to cast than UU. Lets just be clear I am on board with this notion (Im not an idiot :)).
I concede that I am giving up a potential hard counter using Deprive and Moon in the same deck in certain match-ups.
In regards to your PT and WCE comments. I have actually played an abnormal amount of matches against Primetime decks, and my win rate is actually above 75%. Denial plays a big role to stop scapeshift, and moon turns off valakut. Simic charm helps me beat titan (or bounce it), and pongify just kills it outright. And so long as I cut them off double green for a turn or two, I win anyways (especially in the air). Narnam plays a nice role here as well.
Tron is just a horrible matchup in general. I am not sure how much my winrates will change swapping back to Leak. I can say my win rates vs Eldrazi Tron are a bit better than regular Tron. I attribute that in part to being able to Deprive Smashers against opponents with leak protection.
Great. Like I mentioned a few times before, like with Traverse, it takes a bit to get used to it. It definitely alters plays and sequencing. And Ive learned a lot since Ive started playing with it (that means I made a lot of boo-boos
Like Traverse doesn't work for me, Deprive might not work for you. In general, though, it has been a great card to have access to. I have definitely won games where I would have lost with Mana Leak.
As for the issues with fetching for shock lands, I agree, it is a knock against Deprive. Not enough to dissuade me from using it completely, though. Dont forget I also run 1x pierce and an extra Denial compared to you two, so I am not completely out of answers in the two matchups you just brought up.
I never fetch in anticipation for Deprive. And Ill fetch for Deprive when it is in my hand, if circumstances allow (if there is a better play, I will fetch for the better play). It is rare that I get stuck on 2 lands forever, and if I do, Im losing anyways (most likely), Deprive or not.
Again with about 100 matches played for myself, I find Deprive just fine. Fetching to 14-16 life is common in most games, so Im not afraid of it. Matches where life total is a lot more important (like Burn) I usually get rid of Deprive anyways. Same for super aggro decks where the tempo loss is not justifiable or in my favor, and my other answers are more efficient anyways.
Again, this might boil down to playstyle, or bias.
As for fastlands, I like my 1-of right now. Though I could see running another wooded foothills in its place.
And Ill circle back to inst/sorc cut-offs. What are your cut-offs for inst/sorc in the main? (asking everyone). I think 27 is bare minimum.
I ran 1 snap before and made space by removing him and another card. Though like I said before, I am not 100% sold on removing snap from the 75. So far, its been fine, and I cant remember games from recent memory where I really wanted him but drew Narnam instead. Again, with only 1 snap in the deck, you rarely draw him in most games, anyways.
There is a skewing factor that the tier system does not take into account. And for the most part, it cannot. So we widen the criteria, or we make the disclaimers more clear.
You are asking for a lot. lol
In a vacuum, of course Tier analysis is necessary. Im not asking to get rid of Tiers. But either we make it clear what they are meant to indicate, or we widen the criteria. Because at the end of the day, 10-20 people of MTGS understanding the nuance of the Tiering system, is not sufficient.