your sideboard has 14, I assume the 15th is the dismember?
also, wouldn't countersquall be almost better, since it also helps the plan against the grindy matchups where you try to attrition them and slowly kill them instead of comboing? I don't think the extra black mana would have much of an impact since it doesn't really change your commitment to black.
I'm not a fan of taking out the combo completely. Maindeck, I have 4 exarchs, 4 twins and 2 pestermites. post board, the lowest I ever went was removing 4 exarchs 3 twins against decks without red, or removal 2 pestermites, 2 exarchs against decks with red. sometimes the only out you have is the combo.
Go for the throat is a terminate that can't be redirected by Spellskite. I'm not sure how much it matters, but having that option is nice. The non artifact clause doesn't affect too many matchups.
I am probably taking it out for dismember though its a change I already intended to make but havent done so yet.
guess it's true that they have a lot of removal. but lavamancer's not as dead a creature though, since it demands removal asap. just not as good as tasigur in that particular matchup, which is fair.
i think it essentially boils down to a meta call. lavamancer just happens to be exceptional in my meta. if i start seeing more jund/abzan/grixis control though i will bring the tasigurs back to the main.
is vandalblast or shatterstorm better in the board? shatterstorm can wipe affinity a turn earlier, but vandalblast can get rid of a turn 1 amulet/expedition map. i would guess vandalblast is preferred since you already have the edge over affinity, and vandalblast gives you the early interaction with amulet and tron instead.
night of soul's betrayal has a slight disadvantage of killing our own combo. 0/3 and 1/0 creatures don't really win games. think about it. with night out, the only creatures you have left are basically the two tasigurs.
Hm. lavamancer has been very good for me, but maybe it's my meta, where there's a lot of coco, affinity, burn and twin. this meta also explains why im so bullish on the game 1 combo. I agree with the bad matchups for lavamancer, but i don't agree with it being bad against grixis. it's the same reason why i liked it against jund/junk in the first place: for the reach, and more importantly, so that our bolt can kill their anglers and tasigurs and goyfs and rhinos.
lavamancer does put the strain on your yard, but then again i don't maindeck tasigurs. I used to maindeck tasigurs alongside lavamancer, and it wasn't so bad: unless i had a turn one grim lavamancer that was constantly eating up the yard, in which case i'm probably already ahead, tasigur does come down quite reliably, and thereafter the lavamancer filters the yard out for stronger tasigur activations, while the tasigur activations fill up the yard for lavamancer.
I have to say this though: my friend has a burn deck, so i test against burn quite often, and in all my games, lavamancer has without a doubt been the best card we have against them. it nullifies their aggro, and this buys so much time just by itself if you protect it.
I really want some lifegain though. our only hope is for a decent black lifelinker. basically the only options now are vampiric link and dragon's claw. and both are only mediocre at best.
if i had to tune for a more balanced meta, i guess the lavamancer and a single dispel can come out for the two maindeck tasigurs. i agree, lavamancer is mediocre in a jund/junk/tron/griselbrand/bloom meta, tasigur is ridiculous and needs to be in the 75. but my meta favors the lavamancer over the tasigurs. Essentially a swap with the sideboard, because i think we stiill want 3 dispels in the 75, and grim lavamancer should be in the 75 too.
displacement wave mainly just because it blows tokens out, and is decent against bogles. If it were an instant, i would consider one copy in the board almost necessary. as a sorcery, not surprisingly, it underperformed for me so i swapped it for a curse of death's hold.
I feel the curse is rather well positioned - if you live long enough to land it, it basically invalidates the coco decks, infect, affinity, tokens to some extent, etc.
I know Tasigur is sick against jund/abzan, but i feel that by focusing more on the combo game one, you win a lot more game ones at the expense of your jund/abzan matchups. Postboard, I always feel favoured against jund/abzan anyway so i'm content with leaving tasigurs in the board.
More importantly, having the kommands already helps us grind them out a lot. pre board these decks dont have a lot of lifegain available, and between bolts, kommands and snaps we can often win the attrition by burning them out. that's the reason behind having electrolyze and lavamancer: electrolyze provides a little more reach, as does lavamancer. lavamancer also has the advantage of making our bolts live against liliana, tasigur, rhino and usually, goyfs as well. Lavamancer is really good, it used to be in my board but i shifted it main because i realized i was bringing it in in every single match except tron/bloom.
If i wanted tasigurs back main, i would cut either the dispel or snare. maybe a 1-1 split instead of 2-2. but dispel is live against almost every deck, as is snare, and i'm not sure it's right to take away our early game explosiveness for late game attrition given that we are already capable enough to play the attrition game without tasigur. the tasigur and keranos just pushes us over the top.
What i want to know though is how to play the burn matchup. without any lifegain we seem to suffer a lot against them if they get even just a decent hand.
I beat abzan midrange, abzan coco and affinity. Lost to abzan coco(misplayed) and infect.
A few major differences:
1) no maindeck Tasigur. My goal was to have the best twin maindeck and try to force the combo through game one. The clique and Lavamancer were able to get there together with the snap/kommand/bolt synergies if the combo failed anyway. I've been happy with this set up, and every time I tried bringing Tasigur back to the main I regretted it the next event I played.
In this sense, the maindeck is almost pure UR, with terminates only instead of roast, and Kommand.
2) grim Lavamancer main. This wrecks so many strategies, makes your bolts better, and helps your plan B since I don't have tasigurs.
I think the grixis board is worth looking at, but just that the numbers may need a bit of changing. I started out with grixis twin, but the more i played the deck i felt that every tweak made it play more like UR than grixis. In the end I ended up at a slightly modified version of LSV/PVDDR's lists
So far, with my latest list i feel my worst matchup is probably burn, and even then it is still a 50-50 chance.
I don't understand how we can have 3 tasigurs in the board. Even dedicated grixis control/delver/twin run a maximum of 2. 2 is enough if we're thinking of a grixis board.
Basically, having that sideboard doesn't actually take up much slots. the only sideboard cards for black are 2 kommands and 2 tasigurs.
I don't like shackles; in the meta it makes kommand a lot better against you.
I tried this list at GP Singapore, but didn't do very well, went 1-3 drop. Played against 3 twin decks and G devotion with a multitude of splashes.
Ended up 3-2 in a modern side event. Beat bogles, burn and twin. Lost to burn and BW tokens.
Before anyone asks, i chose to play kommands in the board, since game 1 i wanted to be able to force the combo ASAP through rather than play a grindy game that kommand excels at. I had a duress and IoK in the board for the GP, but cut those 2 for 2 pact of negations in the board instead. The pacts ended up instrumental in my 3 wins for the side event.
I cut the Tasigurs to 1 because one is really all i wanted to draw every game, and replaced it with a clique, which can help disruption, and is also a respectable clock in itself. I found i was bringing in lavamancer in almost every game 2, and i figured one maindeck would be good against all the CoCo decks running around. Against burn it kills all their creatures. Against twin, it helps your plan B, and it also helps kill opposing exarchs in conjunction with bolt. One spellskite main to protect the combo especially against BGx decks, and since we have kommand main to recur creatures in addition to spellskite protecting them, i think cutting one exarch is decent. i want pestermite because it helps our plan B better, and also since spellskite happends to negate it's biggest weakness which is dying to bolt. I'm not very certain about this, but i know I want cliques main, and only 1 tasigur.
Spell Snare and dispel were amazing in every game. i think 2 of each is the right number, unless CoCo/CoC decks lose popularity, in which case i could cut a dispel. But that seems unlikely as people are still trying to find the most broken CoCo deck.
Pact of negation was amazing in almost every matchup. It helps us play turn 4 twin with counter backup. Even if the game grinds, it becomes amazing especially with snapcaster.
4/3/4 of probe, scour and visions is better; so far i'm not always happy to draw a thought scour. In fact it's only in there because it's nuts when in our opening hand with tasigur, and im willing to concede to that to play a few. But drawing one mid game is so sad.
4 probes are a must. I don't see any viable reason to go less than 4 in your starting 60
A lot of the same shell here: 4/4/3/3 creature split, with 4 pyro and 3 snaps
2/1 split of cut and terminate
2/2/1/1 split of counters, though i think the mana leaks shouldn't be there.
4 thought scour, which is a bit to much since it's only 3 snaps and 3 tasigurs.
We need a good looting effect to make use of extra tasigurs, and to get more value out of deprives. Currently, I think thirst is a good choice, because looting and izzet charm sets us down cards. tormenting voice might be good if it were an instant.
Counterspell-wise I've gone down to 2/2/2/1 of deprive, remand, snare and cryptic. I don't think stubborn denial is where we want to be, because unless you have a delve creature out it becomes very very useless most of the time. Think of it as a card that as a 1-mana negate 30% of the time and a bad force spike 70% of the time.
These are not always the case, but the counter spells that have by default been very good are those fulfil two criteria: They do not jumping through loops, and they are very good in at least one point of the game.
1) Mana Leak and spell pierce becomes less useful as the game goes on, but makes up for it by being absurd in the early game.
2) Deprive is good most of the time you have at least 2 lands
3) remand cantrips
4) Cryptic is not so good early on, but can turn games around late game
5) Spell Snare counters most threats in the format for 1 mana
In comparison, denial is only good when you have a big creature out. That itself fails the first criteria. And by virtue of it needing you to resolve 1 (Fat) creature first, or to keep one on the field, it isn't very good in the second criteria.
tl;dr I'm not sold on stubborn denial.
Tasigur's activated ability is absurd, but it hink 2/1 split with angler is the right way to go, since the decks that tasigur's ability is good against are the decks that tend to give enough time to draw him anyway
I will try dismember over terminate, but I think the life really matters a lot.
I think 4 Snaps and 3 Pyros are a good call - if you can stick the first pyro long enough to land a second pyro you're probably far ahead anyway. I think pyro is still a necessity though, it's too powerful to be replaced so easily.
I've been trying to take everyone's opinions into account, and this is the list I'm trying for now:
Holy s**t it was tough cutting the fourth pyro. but i don't think the meta is favourable to peezy and his tokens, and i think we want more resilient threats.
Notes after testing:
I loved thought scour in my opening 7, but hated it every turn after that. It's good, and i understand that the extra snap and angler put a slightly larger strain on our yard, buti used to run lavamancer alongside 3 tasigurs, 3 snaps and 2 cuts, and never had a problem with 2 scours. I may then consider 2 scours again, and going back up to either 3 deprives, the fourth pyro.
agree with everything except deathmark. 1 mana kill spell is very very useful, especially against all the junk decks.
Been swamped with work recently, anyone can give a quick update on what's been going on in the past 3 pages?
I've seen people try kolaghan's command, and i;m convinced that we need at least 1 in our 75, and that it could have a slot in our mainboard. Problem is i can't decide on what to take out for it. Maybe it's time for my lone grim lavamancer to go from the main deck, but that card has worked so well in so many matchups that i would hate t take it out. 2 Electrolyze and 1 command seems like the right place to be.
I think skite is necessary as a hedge against twin, bogles and to some extent burn. It's in becauyse of it's versatility in a huge number of matchups.
I've been testing ashiok too, and as much as it's my favourite walker to date, it's simply too slow in doing anything.
I think in general it's a combination of bringing in counters such as dispel, negate, flashfreeze, deprive etc. Along with dragon's claw and spellskites, as well as hoping they have a bad draw and we have a good draw.
In general the cards coming out are the remands, mana leaks, other conditional counters, along with (imo) gitaxian probes although some people like to keep these in.
This has worked very well in fighting burn. counter everything and kill all their creatures. Block aggressively, since they barely have any form of card advantage.
I think we've developed the deck quite far - to summarize, and for those new to the thread,
Creature base is mostly fixed with the most effective being 4-4-3-3. I know there's testing on delve builds, but those have put tournament results yet, and it's mostly in the theory crafting stage. To be honest, i feel that the delve builds are weaker because you no longer have the option to overload your opponent's removal with multiple cheap threat. Sure, your first angler will cost 1 mana, but the 2nd and 3rd? it gets a lot harder, and you end up putting a lot of your hopes on hoping that first 2-3 anglers can do the job. Against some decks, it does. Most decks are generally well equipped to deal with multiple X/5 creatures due to the prevalence of rhino and goyf in the format though.
Removal i think the most common number appears to be 3-4, split between cuts and terminate. Cuts are generally favoured for costing 1 mana potentially, and making tasigur activations better.
Burn seems to be about 6-7, with 4 bolts, and 2-3 electrolyzes.
Counter's we're hovering around 4-7. I feel that we still want to have 7 counterspells, but i see a lot of people just playing 4 deprives and nothing else, which i don't feel is right, since we don't really want to draw too many deprives. I would sill go 3-2-2 for counterspells to get a more even split of counters.
Card draw ranges from 1-2, being either thirst for knowledge or cryptic.
Mana base hasn't changed much, so this means the only facet of this deck we have trouble finalizing is the sideboard. Honestly i think this is up to the meta, and i don't really think it's possible to agree on a perfect sideboard.
2 Spellskite
2 Dragon's Claw
2 Engineered Explosives
2 Rakdos Charm
1 Flashfreeze
1 Dispel
1 Jace, Architect of Thought
1 Keranos, God of Storms
1 Deathmark
1 Monastery Siege
1 Rending Volley
I REALLY REALLY want to fit in an izzet staticaster and a tombstalker in there, but after hearing your arguments, perhaps i should just cut the claws for them and just concede the burn matchup. The fact that burn is so popular is actually hurting us too.
idrareb - I see you have anglers and keranos in the board, aren't you probably better off siding out delvers for these late game threats? For me i side out delvers for keranos, jace, and siege, all of which do a better job of helping me win in the long game. If i decide to throw in those tombstalkers, then it's another reason to take another delver out. Of course, if you aren't bringing in any threats, siding out delvers may be a problem. But most sideboards have a couple of big threats like keranos/batterskull, and i could see taking out 2 delvers for them.
I think the focus is on maintaining the threat density, so if you board in more threats, it's probably better to take those delvers out.
Also, i see you finally went down to 18 lands - how's it going?
Okay, noted on electrolyze, but still find cheaper interaction is better. But probe does sound worse in this matchup too, so prolly changing the sideboard plan to probes for the artifact hate
I play 1 deathmark in the board, it's amazing, but you don't really need too many of it. AND FINALLY SOMEONE WHO DISCOVERED THE INSANITY THAT IS LAVAMANCER.
I know the T2 aberration wins games, but they often have a bolt/path for him, and even in games with a turn 2 flip, it'll often boil down to top deck wars and the remaining delvers become liabilities. I agree, it is a very difficult boarding decision, but against control/twin/junk/jund, all your other cards are so good that I would believe that delvers are the best cut. I'm still looking for opinions, what else would you cut against these decks? I think post board we have a higher chance winning by dragging the game than by trying to go under and running out of gas as they answer our threats one by one.
EDIT: Most of the cards we bring in for these matchups are not instants/sorceries, which decreases the chance of a delver flip anyway. And it's not like we can alter our sideboard much to counter this - most of the options that help us win these matchups are permanent based card advantage(Keranos, Sieges, Jace, etc.)
Blood moon is definitely good, but we have much better sideboard options with black on the table, and all of those options can be as good as blood moon too. It's more of a personal preference, i guess.
I think what a lot of people don't really get is that you need to plan a sideboard based on what you want are willing to take out. No point playing 5 pieces of affinity hate when you don't have 5 bad cards to take out; that's just wasting the sideboard. Generally in a lot of matchups i think Remands, Delvers, Electrolyzes would be the first few cards to take out.
also, wouldn't countersquall be almost better, since it also helps the plan against the grindy matchups where you try to attrition them and slowly kill them instead of comboing? I don't think the extra black mana would have much of an impact since it doesn't really change your commitment to black.
I'm not a fan of taking out the combo completely. Maindeck, I have 4 exarchs, 4 twins and 2 pestermites. post board, the lowest I ever went was removing 4 exarchs 3 twins against decks without red, or removal 2 pestermites, 2 exarchs against decks with red. sometimes the only out you have is the combo.
I am probably taking it out for dismember though its a change I already intended to make but havent done so yet.
i think it essentially boils down to a meta call. lavamancer just happens to be exceptional in my meta. if i start seeing more jund/abzan/grixis control though i will bring the tasigurs back to the main.
is vandalblast or shatterstorm better in the board? shatterstorm can wipe affinity a turn earlier, but vandalblast can get rid of a turn 1 amulet/expedition map. i would guess vandalblast is preferred since you already have the edge over affinity, and vandalblast gives you the early interaction with amulet and tron instead.
Hm. lavamancer has been very good for me, but maybe it's my meta, where there's a lot of coco, affinity, burn and twin. this meta also explains why im so bullish on the game 1 combo. I agree with the bad matchups for lavamancer, but i don't agree with it being bad against grixis. it's the same reason why i liked it against jund/junk in the first place: for the reach, and more importantly, so that our bolt can kill their anglers and tasigurs and goyfs and rhinos.
lavamancer does put the strain on your yard, but then again i don't maindeck tasigurs. I used to maindeck tasigurs alongside lavamancer, and it wasn't so bad: unless i had a turn one grim lavamancer that was constantly eating up the yard, in which case i'm probably already ahead, tasigur does come down quite reliably, and thereafter the lavamancer filters the yard out for stronger tasigur activations, while the tasigur activations fill up the yard for lavamancer.
I have to say this though: my friend has a burn deck, so i test against burn quite often, and in all my games, lavamancer has without a doubt been the best card we have against them. it nullifies their aggro, and this buys so much time just by itself if you protect it.
I really want some lifegain though. our only hope is for a decent black lifelinker. basically the only options now are vampiric link and dragon's claw. and both are only mediocre at best.
if i had to tune for a more balanced meta, i guess the lavamancer and a single dispel can come out for the two maindeck tasigurs. i agree, lavamancer is mediocre in a jund/junk/tron/griselbrand/bloom meta, tasigur is ridiculous and needs to be in the 75. but my meta favors the lavamancer over the tasigurs. Essentially a swap with the sideboard, because i think we stiill want 3 dispels in the 75, and grim lavamancer should be in the 75 too.
scapeshift is an almost inexistent deck though
I feel the curse is rather well positioned - if you live long enough to land it, it basically invalidates the coco decks, infect, affinity, tokens to some extent, etc.
I know Tasigur is sick against jund/abzan, but i feel that by focusing more on the combo game one, you win a lot more game ones at the expense of your jund/abzan matchups. Postboard, I always feel favoured against jund/abzan anyway so i'm content with leaving tasigurs in the board.
More importantly, having the kommands already helps us grind them out a lot. pre board these decks dont have a lot of lifegain available, and between bolts, kommands and snaps we can often win the attrition by burning them out. that's the reason behind having electrolyze and lavamancer: electrolyze provides a little more reach, as does lavamancer. lavamancer also has the advantage of making our bolts live against liliana, tasigur, rhino and usually, goyfs as well. Lavamancer is really good, it used to be in my board but i shifted it main because i realized i was bringing it in in every single match except tron/bloom.
If i wanted tasigurs back main, i would cut either the dispel or snare. maybe a 1-1 split instead of 2-2. but dispel is live against almost every deck, as is snare, and i'm not sure it's right to take away our early game explosiveness for late game attrition given that we are already capable enough to play the attrition game without tasigur. the tasigur and keranos just pushes us over the top.
What i want to know though is how to play the burn matchup. without any lifegain we seem to suffer a lot against them if they get even just a decent hand.
This was my list:
2 Pestermite
4 Snapcaster Mage
1 Vendilion Clique
1 Grim Lavamancer
4 Splinter Twin
4 Serum Visions
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Remand
2 Cryptic Command
2 Dispel
2 Spell Snare
2 Terminate
2 Kolaghan's Command
1 Electrolyze
3 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained More
2 Steam Vents
1 Watery Grave
1 Blood Crypt
3 Sulfur Falls
4 Island
1 Mountain
1 Swamp
1 Desolate Lighthouse
I beat abzan midrange, abzan coco and affinity. Lost to abzan coco(misplayed) and infect.
A few major differences:
1) no maindeck Tasigur. My goal was to have the best twin maindeck and try to force the combo through game one. The clique and Lavamancer were able to get there together with the snap/kommand/bolt synergies if the combo failed anyway. I've been happy with this set up, and every time I tried bringing Tasigur back to the main I regretted it the next event I played.
In this sense, the maindeck is almost pure UR, with terminates only instead of roast, and Kommand.
2) grim Lavamancer main. This wrecks so many strategies, makes your bolts better, and helps your plan B since I don't have tasigurs.
This was my board:
2 Anger of the Gods
1 Spellskite
1 Rending Volley
1 Go for the Throat
1 Izzet Staticaster
1 Keranos, God of Storms
1 Shatterstorm
1 Displacement Wave
1 Countersquall
1 Dispel
1 Flashfreeze
1 Engineered Explosives
So far, with my latest list i feel my worst matchup is probably burn, and even then it is still a 50-50 chance.
I don't understand how we can have 3 tasigurs in the board. Even dedicated grixis control/delver/twin run a maximum of 2. 2 is enough if we're thinking of a grixis board.
Basically, having that sideboard doesn't actually take up much slots. the only sideboard cards for black are 2 kommands and 2 tasigurs.
I don't like shackles; in the meta it makes kommand a lot better against you.
2 Pestermite
2 Tasigur, the Golden Fang
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Remand
2 Cryptic Command
2 Dispel
2 Spell Snare
4 Serum Visions
4 Splinter Twin
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Terminate
1 Peek
4 Polluted Delta
3 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
3 Steam Vents
3 Sulfur Falls
4 Island
1 Swamp
1 Mountain
1 Blood Crypt
1 Watery Grave
I tried this list at GP Singapore, but didn't do very well, went 1-3 drop. Played against 3 twin decks and G devotion with a multitude of splashes.
Ended up 3-2 in a modern side event. Beat bogles, burn and twin. Lost to burn and BW tokens.
Before anyone asks, i chose to play kommands in the board, since game 1 i wanted to be able to force the combo ASAP through rather than play a grindy game that kommand excels at. I had a duress and IoK in the board for the GP, but cut those 2 for 2 pact of negations in the board instead. The pacts ended up instrumental in my 3 wins for the side event.
So far been tweaking the deck, ended up here:
2 Pestermite
1 Vendilion clique
1 Tasigur, the Golden Fang
1 Spellskite
1 Grim Lavamancer
4 Snapcaster Mage
3 Remand
2 Cryptic Command
2 Dispel
2 Spell Snare
2 Pact of Negation
4 Splinter Twin
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Serum Visions
1 Terminate
1 Kolaghan's Command
4 Polluted Delta
3 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
3 Steam Vents
1 Watery Grave
3 Sulfur Falls
4 Island
1 Swamp
1 Mountain
I cut the Tasigurs to 1 because one is really all i wanted to draw every game, and replaced it with a clique, which can help disruption, and is also a respectable clock in itself. I found i was bringing in lavamancer in almost every game 2, and i figured one maindeck would be good against all the CoCo decks running around. Against burn it kills all their creatures. Against twin, it helps your plan B, and it also helps kill opposing exarchs in conjunction with bolt. One spellskite main to protect the combo especially against BGx decks, and since we have kommand main to recur creatures in addition to spellskite protecting them, i think cutting one exarch is decent. i want pestermite because it helps our plan B better, and also since spellskite happends to negate it's biggest weakness which is dying to bolt. I'm not very certain about this, but i know I want cliques main, and only 1 tasigur.
Spell Snare and dispel were amazing in every game. i think 2 of each is the right number, unless CoCo/CoC decks lose popularity, in which case i could cut a dispel. But that seems unlikely as people are still trying to find the most broken CoCo deck.
Pact of negation was amazing in almost every matchup. It helps us play turn 4 twin with counter backup. Even if the game grinds, it becomes amazing especially with snapcaster.
4 probes are a must. I don't see any viable reason to go less than 4 in your starting 60
A lot of the same shell here: 4/4/3/3 creature split, with 4 pyro and 3 snaps
2/1 split of cut and terminate
2/2/1/1 split of counters, though i think the mana leaks shouldn't be there.
4 thought scour, which is a bit to much since it's only 3 snaps and 3 tasigurs.
We need a good looting effect to make use of extra tasigurs, and to get more value out of deprives. Currently, I think thirst is a good choice, because looting and izzet charm sets us down cards. tormenting voice might be good if it were an instant.
These are not always the case, but the counter spells that have by default been very good are those fulfil two criteria: They do not jumping through loops, and they are very good in at least one point of the game.
1) Mana Leak and spell pierce becomes less useful as the game goes on, but makes up for it by being absurd in the early game.
2) Deprive is good most of the time you have at least 2 lands
3) remand cantrips
4) Cryptic is not so good early on, but can turn games around late game
5) Spell Snare counters most threats in the format for 1 mana
In comparison, denial is only good when you have a big creature out. That itself fails the first criteria. And by virtue of it needing you to resolve 1 (Fat) creature first, or to keep one on the field, it isn't very good in the second criteria.
tl;dr I'm not sold on stubborn denial.
Tasigur's activated ability is absurd, but it hink 2/1 split with angler is the right way to go, since the decks that tasigur's ability is good against are the decks that tend to give enough time to draw him anyway
I will try dismember over terminate, but I think the life really matters a lot.
I think 4 Snaps and 3 Pyros are a good call - if you can stick the first pyro long enough to land a second pyro you're probably far ahead anyway. I think pyro is still a necessity though, it's too powerful to be replaced so easily.
I've been trying to take everyone's opinions into account, and this is the list I'm trying for now:
3 Young Pyromancer
4 Delver of Secrets
2 Tasigur, the Golden Fang
1 Gurmag Angler
2 Deprive
2 Remand
2 Spell Snare
1 Cryptic Command
4 Serum Visions
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Murderous Cut
1 Terminate
3 Thought Scour
2 Electrolyze
1 Kolaghan's Command
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Steam Vents
1 Watery Grave
1 Blood Crypt
3 Island
1 Swamp
1 Mountain
1 Sulfur Falls
Holy s**t it was tough cutting the fourth pyro. but i don't think the meta is favourable to peezy and his tokens, and i think we want more resilient threats.
Notes after testing:
I loved thought scour in my opening 7, but hated it every turn after that. It's good, and i understand that the extra snap and angler put a slightly larger strain on our yard, buti used to run lavamancer alongside 3 tasigurs, 3 snaps and 2 cuts, and never had a problem with 2 scours. I may then consider 2 scours again, and going back up to either 3 deprives, the fourth pyro.
Been swamped with work recently, anyone can give a quick update on what's been going on in the past 3 pages?
I've seen people try kolaghan's command, and i;m convinced that we need at least 1 in our 75, and that it could have a slot in our mainboard. Problem is i can't decide on what to take out for it. Maybe it's time for my lone grim lavamancer to go from the main deck, but that card has worked so well in so many matchups that i would hate t take it out. 2 Electrolyze and 1 command seems like the right place to be.
I think skite is necessary as a hedge against twin, bogles and to some extent burn. It's in becauyse of it's versatility in a huge number of matchups.
I've been testing ashiok too, and as much as it's my favourite walker to date, it's simply too slow in doing anything.
This has worked very well in fighting burn. counter everything and kill all their creatures. Block aggressively, since they barely have any form of card advantage.
I think we've developed the deck quite far - to summarize, and for those new to the thread,
Creature base is mostly fixed with the most effective being 4-4-3-3. I know there's testing on delve builds, but those have put tournament results yet, and it's mostly in the theory crafting stage. To be honest, i feel that the delve builds are weaker because you no longer have the option to overload your opponent's removal with multiple cheap threat. Sure, your first angler will cost 1 mana, but the 2nd and 3rd? it gets a lot harder, and you end up putting a lot of your hopes on hoping that first 2-3 anglers can do the job. Against some decks, it does. Most decks are generally well equipped to deal with multiple X/5 creatures due to the prevalence of rhino and goyf in the format though.
Removal i think the most common number appears to be 3-4, split between cuts and terminate. Cuts are generally favoured for costing 1 mana potentially, and making tasigur activations better.
Burn seems to be about 6-7, with 4 bolts, and 2-3 electrolyzes.
Counter's we're hovering around 4-7. I feel that we still want to have 7 counterspells, but i see a lot of people just playing 4 deprives and nothing else, which i don't feel is right, since we don't really want to draw too many deprives. I would sill go 3-2-2 for counterspells to get a more even split of counters.
Card draw ranges from 1-2, being either thirst for knowledge or cryptic.
Mana base hasn't changed much, so this means the only facet of this deck we have trouble finalizing is the sideboard. Honestly i think this is up to the meta, and i don't really think it's possible to agree on a perfect sideboard.
2 Spellskite
2 Dragon's Claw
2 Engineered Explosives
2 Rakdos Charm
1 Flashfreeze
1 Dispel
1 Jace, Architect of Thought
1 Keranos, God of Storms
1 Deathmark
1 Monastery Siege
1 Rending Volley
I REALLY REALLY want to fit in an izzet staticaster and a tombstalker in there, but after hearing your arguments, perhaps i should just cut the claws for them and just concede the burn matchup. The fact that burn is so popular is actually hurting us too.
idrareb - I see you have anglers and keranos in the board, aren't you probably better off siding out delvers for these late game threats? For me i side out delvers for keranos, jace, and siege, all of which do a better job of helping me win in the long game. If i decide to throw in those tombstalkers, then it's another reason to take another delver out. Of course, if you aren't bringing in any threats, siding out delvers may be a problem. But most sideboards have a couple of big threats like keranos/batterskull, and i could see taking out 2 delvers for them.
I think the focus is on maintaining the threat density, so if you board in more threats, it's probably better to take those delvers out.
Also, i see you finally went down to 18 lands - how's it going?
I play 1 deathmark in the board, it's amazing, but you don't really need too many of it. AND FINALLY SOMEONE WHO DISCOVERED THE INSANITY THAT IS LAVAMANCER.
I know the T2 aberration wins games, but they often have a bolt/path for him, and even in games with a turn 2 flip, it'll often boil down to top deck wars and the remaining delvers become liabilities. I agree, it is a very difficult boarding decision, but against control/twin/junk/jund, all your other cards are so good that I would believe that delvers are the best cut. I'm still looking for opinions, what else would you cut against these decks? I think post board we have a higher chance winning by dragging the game than by trying to go under and running out of gas as they answer our threats one by one.
EDIT: Most of the cards we bring in for these matchups are not instants/sorceries, which decreases the chance of a delver flip anyway. And it's not like we can alter our sideboard much to counter this - most of the options that help us win these matchups are permanent based card advantage(Keranos, Sieges, Jace, etc.)
Blood moon is definitely good, but we have much better sideboard options with black on the table, and all of those options can be as good as blood moon too. It's more of a personal preference, i guess.
I think what a lot of people don't really get is that you need to plan a sideboard based on what you want are willing to take out. No point playing 5 pieces of affinity hate when you don't have 5 bad cards to take out; that's just wasting the sideboard. Generally in a lot of matchups i think Remands, Delvers, Electrolyzes would be the first few cards to take out.