Been super busy lately and haven't gotten a chance to check in. Lots of cool developments that I've missed.
Dnc, congrats on the 5-0. I caught the very end of it.
Charons & spiderspace, I really enjoyed the GW and bant streams. Think geist is good against both aggressive decks and controlling/combo decks as it doubles as deterrent and clock while requiring a sweeper to remove at parity. Would like to see room for scooze in the deck as it's at least good and often great against fair decks. Very mana hungry though.
@Spiderspace, infect is a difficult but very winnable match. We have to go into it knowing that we are going to lose to a nuts draw and that's more likely than ever due to the printing of blossoming defense in kaladesh. That said, we have a better than fair chance of winning non-nuts draws.
As an overall strategy, we want to trade our cards for theirs on a one for one basis with the following priorities.
1: trade our creatures for their pump spells and tempo. They'll run out of pump spells and then creatures before we do as we have a far better threat density and pack loads of value creatures. Always threaten to trade one of your creatures for an infect creature.
2: trade our land destruction for their inkmoth nexi. This should be done at their end step when vines of vastwood/ blossoming defense don't contribute to a clock against you. They run light on basics so don't feel the need for an arbiter.
3: trade our precious removal spells for their unblockable creatures or when threatened with lethal. We only have a handful so hold them tight and the same way that you would use ghost quarters.
I'll work on a full write up but it probably won't be anytime soon.
@Spiderspace, my running 23 lands is an answer to the slight shift of my meta towards midrange (affinity, burn and zoo still exist in it) Playing four copies of stirring wildwood among them has been very good for me. However, you're still correct in saying that it makes the burn game worse.
Moving on to coco lists, I'd very very like to contribute to that. My latest experiments have been with bant and it feels very strong. Any idea when you'd like to do that?
@Spiderspace, I agree with your sentiment but disagree with your conclusion. I've been playing with 23 lands in GW (this is non-standard, don't take it as gospel) and have found the life-loss from canopy to be less of an issue. The only time I've been impacted is when keeping greedy hands. I think we'll have to agree to disagree at this point. Fwiw, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to not play a full set just that our burn matchup is solid enough that we can afford to run a set.
@Dysposablehero, start off with mono white as it's simplest. You don't need additional complications when learning the basics of the deck. Flickerwisp corner plays are perhaps the most complex part of the deck. Learn the stack and priority rules inside and out. You'll need expertise instead of just familiarity. This deck rewards tight play and mercilessly punishes bad play. Be prepared to spend the first few months losing.
@Everyone interested in bant. I went 3-0 against blue moon, rw human tribal and bushwhacked zoo. A detailed write up will be available tomorrow.
@Charonsobol, Serafin Wellinger and Brandon Semerau have both top sighted GPs playing GW. Each played a set of horizon canopy. 100% of pros putting up strong results at the highest levels of competition is good enough for me. That's not to say that four is always correct but I think it's a safe bet in an unknown meta.
We seem to disagree on a lot. That said, you're a one of the most knowledgeable contributors to this thread and I value your opinion. I'd be very interested to see your list and compare ideas over pm if you feel so inclined.
@charonsobol, I agree regarding the sentiment that this deck lacks a win con as that's what it felt like playing it conservatively as both opponents had countermagic. I suspect if I'd been more aggressive with casting collected company that it would have felt stronger. The only way to tell for sure is to continue testing. I'll be playing in a softer meta tomorrow and report back. I suspect that you're correct about burn but think that bgx would be an ok match. Scooze goes a long way in shutting them down. Four is the generally accepted number for horizon canopys by the pro players for a GW dnt/bears deck. I used to think a more conservative approach was better but haven't looked back recently. The ability to cycle after playing it is just too good. This is for GW though. Whether four is the correct number in bant remains to be seen. Also, aether vial is in the deck. It's the first card listed. Any chance you can post your bant list?
@stabil0, knightfall requires a critical mass of forest and plains types to keep the combo rolling long enough to fill the graveyard and make lethal. I don't think dnt could play enough to make knight a win con as knightfall does due to the fact that forest/plains types compete for slots with our utility and land destruction.
@scytale, green makes a poor splash as scooze is thirsty for green mana. It's also ridiculously powerful at the moment. I'd play without flickerwisp before playing without scooze. I like sprite because it answers cheap removal and cheaty 0 cmc powerhouses. My primary experience is with GW and I think that those are the weaknesses when compared to wb and wu. I'm unsure of the correct number of fetchlands vs shock lands and the inclusion of arbiter. Five fetches and three arbiters proved to be clunky last night. My previous experience tells me that three is the right number of fetches to run alongside a set of arbiters but that was with two colors and a meta where blood moon was a novelty.
@stabil0, I like knight of the reliquary and retreat to coralhelm based on their own merit but in order to assemble the combo you have to build your manabase towards that and I don't think that's possible to do while still being a dnt deck.
Last night at fnm I tested out bant dnt. This isn't a fine tuned list but rather proof of concept.
My goals were threefold:
-first, cast my creatures on the curve while maintaining resilience against blood moon. This will be accomplished by going playing five fetchlands at the cost of one fewer arbiter.
-second, use the combination of control elements to handle fair decks and mitigate unfair decks by countering key spells;
-third, be able to maintain a strong clock both on the ground and in the air. This will be accomplished by having flexibility in using exalted triggers and evasion/first strike to power hits through or around early blockers and going big with scooze/wide with coco in mid-late game.
Turnout was lackluster and several players dropped to draft so I only got two test matches in.
Round one was versus a player of comparable skill piloting a RUG midrange bordering on control deck. He played heavy countermagic which I was able to crush between Thalia, arbiter and queller/sprite. Sprite proved strong in countering bolts and spell snares.
-Game two was a grind fest where I kept a questionable hand and was mana screwed in the early game and flooded later on. Luckily, I drew the lower cmc cards and was able to stick in the game. He played huntmaster of the fells as a value card but I was able to use unconventional double blocking to deny him true card advantage. I scooped prematurely in game two and could have held out a few more turns but would probably not have won.
-Game three was another grind fest. We traded resources until I was in a position of advantage. He answered with anger of the gods. I was able to slowly recover and build a solid board as time was called. I was unable to finish in turns. Eidolon of rhetoric proved to be fun here but I'm not sure about great.
It's very amusing when combined with resto and queller.
Match two was against a player of lower although still competent skill level. He piloted bant company with geist of saint traft and knight of the reliquary. He included a singleton return to coralhelm although it never saw play.
-I had all the answers in game one and was able to fully control the board. It feels great to answer a coco with a coco and reveal a queller and flickerwisp.
-Game two was grindy with me flooding slightly. He drew more haymakers than I drew answers and was able to finish.
-Game three was like a slower game one. The scooze clock was there and it prevented knights from getting out of control but it was slow.
In terms of testing results, the objectives were all successful although none were smashingly so.
-I was able to cast my stuff on or ahead of the curve when I wasn't mana screwed. This is impressive as I kept several hands that would be very reasonable to mulligan and the fact that this deck is very thirsty for colored mana. Arbiter proved to be relevant against opponents but also resulted in some clunky turns for me. I think those slots would be better served as something else. Perhaps mindcensor but that leaves much of the deck as x/1s. I didn't face any blood moon type effects but I'm convinced that between drawing/fetching for basics, vial and hierarch that it would not have shut me out of the game aside from a nuts draw and blood moon ahead of the curve.
-This list played like a control deck. I was able to answer practically everything these two fair decks could throw at me. Spell queller is an all star. I think a set is reasonable if pursuing a list like this. Spellstutter sprite effectively answers cheap removal and haymaker 0 cmc spells that are cheated out. These are two things that GW has trouble with. I don't know if it deserves to be played main deck though. Another possibility is that they should be negate. At the cost of being taxed, not having legs and not being found off coco it would answer much more. Scooze is great in this meta. It turns snapcasters and goyfs into chump blockers and mitigates knights of the reliquary. I wouldn't leave home without three main deck right now. Overall, I was pleased as this list is heavy on control and was able to manage boards unless the opposition drew an inordinate amount of must answer cards. More removal would be nice though.
-Objective three was to be able to present a clock while maintaining the aforementioned goals and was conditional on them. This was successful although only in a lukewarm sense of the word. I was able to apply pressure against these fair midrange decks but it wasn't strong pressure. One of the reasons this may be is that I held up coco as an answer rather than a way to generate pressure on board. It was correct in that it worked as an answer each time but perhaps not. Exalted triggers were not quite as good as expected here. I was satisfied with them although not overwhelmingly so. I think one of the downfalls of this deck is that it must go wide to apply control and pressure. This is when it's most vulnerable to sweepers like anger and verdict and least able to answer them. I also think the manabase could do with more manlands but wildwoods etb tapped.
I would have loved to play brimaz, eternal witness, serra avenger and eldrazi displacer in this deck but didn't have the slots open. The flex spots as of right now are pridemage, arbiters, restos and spellstutter sprites. In the case of displacer, I don't think the manabase would be able to take advantage of it either.
Hope you've enjoyed the read and please leave any feedback.
@Chaarm, everything the others have said is sound advice. I'll add that scooze can eventually outsize their creatures. Smiter can be played for free off a smasher trigger. Also, don't be able to block disadvantageously. GW is king of value and double blocking a thought-knot seer with a finks and voice of resurgence lets you come out way ahead. Selfless spirit is also great for collective blocking. The only must kill creature they have is displacer.
A card that works against eldrazi and elves is linvala, keeper of silence. She turns off displacer, ezuri and mana dorks.
Finally, wrath effects work against all three. This is something I was considering earlier and your post just reinforces my earlier thoughts. Gw has outstanding threat density between topdecks, cocos and good manlands/drawlands . I think wraths have a place there. I haven't tested this but it seems logical enough.
@Stabil0, I don't think stirrings are terrible but I don't think it's good enough in our deck to be played. It has the same downfall as oath of Nissa in that it's a bad card for us to play on the curve as it costs at least one precious green mana (and perhaps a colorless on top of that) of tempo and doesn't apply a control element, pressure or both. Bant eldrazi can get away with this by being more comfortable in the midrange than we are.
Also like oath, it will be unable to find many of our better sideboard cards. As an example; oath would find scooze but miss relic while stirrings will find relic but miss scooze. Both skip over rest in peace and path to exile which are our best solutions to many situations.
I suppose that if you went artifact/colorless heavy in your sideboard then it may be worth a shot.
@Metalgun, I wrote a detailed piece about beating jund/junk about 20 pages back with lots of contributions from other posters in the following pages. I'll sum up a few of the key points but track down that post.
You need to think of two words to beat jund; value and redundancy. They want to remove everything you play on a one for one basis and beat you with fatties. Play value creatures like wall of resurgence and blade splicer. Wasteland strangler is great for killing confidants and has strong synergy with the graveyard hate you need to make goyf manageable. Also, take them off red if you can. It's the weak point in the manabase.
@d90dennis, wall of resurgence is most definitely not a cute card. It's a nightmare for jund. If they spend removal on a land then they're already far ahead or circling the drain. In any type of even game it's a big problem for them. Dnc, broke wall at the beginning of eldrazi winter and many of us, myself included, had the same criticisms that you had. We were wrong.
@Charonsobol, apologies for the delay and thanks for fixing that link. I access salvation almost exclusively on mobile and links sometimes and formatting is difficult
The linked tables represent the raw math as stated previously. I don't personally agree with Karsten's mulliganing as it applies to this deck and prefer to base it on the raw probability. There's certainly room for disagreement in this area though.
The discrepancy between the page you linked and the page in my previous post I write off to differing sample population (56 vs 60 cards) and rounding. For what it's worth, I'm not terribly gifted in terms of mathematical ability let alone a mathematician. If you or anyone else can demonstrate how the tables are incorrect and provide more accurate ones then the community as a whole would be in your debt.
I disagree strongly that your 21 land manabase is more resilient to blood moon type effects. Two fewer basics and one fewer fetch is not something that can be overcome by a filtering effect; particularly one that requires green to cast when you have fewer sources of green and only a single basic forest.
I won't say oath is a bad card but rather that it didn't work for me in a 21 land build. Your mileage may vary and this is another area where there is room for disagreement.
@Charonsobol, that particular manabase was for a midrange deck. The wording was odd because I hadn't had any coffee.
The manabase tables I use are below. These are based on the raw math rather than Karsten's interpretation I think dnt is different than other decks in that our lands are a vital part of our strategy in addition to being a way to cast spells.
This is the manabase I took to a known blood moon meta. It's for the same midrange strategy.
Dnc, congrats on the 5-0. I caught the very end of it.
Charons & spiderspace, I really enjoyed the GW and bant streams. Think geist is good against both aggressive decks and controlling/combo decks as it doubles as deterrent and clock while requiring a sweeper to remove at parity. Would like to see room for scooze in the deck as it's at least good and often great against fair decks. Very mana hungry though.
Keep up the good work, gang.
Ps. Haven't forgotten about the infect tactica.
As an overall strategy, we want to trade our cards for theirs on a one for one basis with the following priorities.
1: trade our creatures for their pump spells and tempo. They'll run out of pump spells and then creatures before we do as we have a far better threat density and pack loads of value creatures. Always threaten to trade one of your creatures for an infect creature.
2: trade our land destruction for their inkmoth nexi. This should be done at their end step when vines of vastwood/ blossoming defense don't contribute to a clock against you. They run light on basics so don't feel the need for an arbiter.
3: trade our precious removal spells for their unblockable creatures or when threatened with lethal. We only have a handful so hold them tight and the same way that you would use ghost quarters.
I'll work on a full write up but it probably won't be anytime soon.
Moving on to coco lists, I'd very very like to contribute to that. My latest experiments have been with bant and it feels very strong. Any idea when you'd like to do that?
@Everyone interested in bant. I went 3-0 against blue moon, rw human tribal and bushwhacked zoo. A detailed write up will be available tomorrow.
We seem to disagree on a lot. That said, you're a one of the most knowledgeable contributors to this thread and I value your opinion. I'd be very interested to see your list and compare ideas over pm if you feel so inclined.
@stabil0, knightfall requires a critical mass of forest and plains types to keep the combo rolling long enough to fill the graveyard and make lethal. I don't think dnt could play enough to make knight a win con as knightfall does due to the fact that forest/plains types compete for slots with our utility and land destruction.
@scytale, green makes a poor splash as scooze is thirsty for green mana. It's also ridiculously powerful at the moment. I'd play without flickerwisp before playing without scooze. I like sprite because it answers cheap removal and cheaty 0 cmc powerhouses. My primary experience is with GW and I think that those are the weaknesses when compared to wb and wu. I'm unsure of the correct number of fetchlands vs shock lands and the inclusion of arbiter. Five fetches and three arbiters proved to be clunky last night. My previous experience tells me that three is the right number of fetches to run alongside a set of arbiters but that was with two colors and a meta where blood moon was a novelty.
Last night at fnm I tested out bant dnt. This isn't a fine tuned list but rather proof of concept.
My goals were threefold:
-first, cast my creatures on the curve while maintaining resilience against blood moon. This will be accomplished by going playing five fetchlands at the cost of one fewer arbiter.
-second, use the combination of control elements to handle fair decks and mitigate unfair decks by countering key spells;
-third, be able to maintain a strong clock both on the ground and in the air. This will be accomplished by having flexibility in using exalted triggers and evasion/first strike to power hits through or around early blockers and going big with scooze/wide with coco in mid-late game.
4 path to exile
3 collected company
4 noble hierarch
3 Thalia, guardian of thraben
3 leonin arbiter
3 spellstutter sprite
3 scavenging ooze
1 qasali pridemage
4 flickerwisp
3 spell queller
2 restoration angel
4 windswept heath
1 misty rainforest
2 temple garden
1 breeding pool
2 forest
2 plains
1 island
4 horizon canopy
1 stirring wildwood
4 ghost quarter
1 gavony township
3 burrenton forge-tender
2 gaddock teeg
1 scavenging ooze
1 Thalia, guardian of thraben
3 spellskite
1 aven mindcensor
1 eidolon of rhetoric
1 kitchen finks
1 reclamation sage
1 Gideon, ally of zendikar
Turnout was lackluster and several players dropped to draft so I only got two test matches in.
Round one was versus a player of comparable skill piloting a RUG midrange bordering on control deck. He played heavy countermagic which I was able to crush between Thalia, arbiter and queller/sprite. Sprite proved strong in countering bolts and spell snares.
-Game two was a grind fest where I kept a questionable hand and was mana screwed in the early game and flooded later on. Luckily, I drew the lower cmc cards and was able to stick in the game. He played huntmaster of the fells as a value card but I was able to use unconventional double blocking to deny him true card advantage. I scooped prematurely in game two and could have held out a few more turns but would probably not have won.
-Game three was another grind fest. We traded resources until I was in a position of advantage. He answered with anger of the gods. I was able to slowly recover and build a solid board as time was called. I was unable to finish in turns. Eidolon of rhetoric proved to be fun here but I'm not sure about great.
It's very amusing when combined with resto and queller.
Match two was against a player of lower although still competent skill level. He piloted bant company with geist of saint traft and knight of the reliquary. He included a singleton return to coralhelm although it never saw play.
-I had all the answers in game one and was able to fully control the board. It feels great to answer a coco with a coco and reveal a queller and flickerwisp.
-Game two was grindy with me flooding slightly. He drew more haymakers than I drew answers and was able to finish.
-Game three was like a slower game one. The scooze clock was there and it prevented knights from getting out of control but it was slow.
In terms of testing results, the objectives were all successful although none were smashingly so.
-I was able to cast my stuff on or ahead of the curve when I wasn't mana screwed. This is impressive as I kept several hands that would be very reasonable to mulligan and the fact that this deck is very thirsty for colored mana. Arbiter proved to be relevant against opponents but also resulted in some clunky turns for me. I think those slots would be better served as something else. Perhaps mindcensor but that leaves much of the deck as x/1s. I didn't face any blood moon type effects but I'm convinced that between drawing/fetching for basics, vial and hierarch that it would not have shut me out of the game aside from a nuts draw and blood moon ahead of the curve.
-This list played like a control deck. I was able to answer practically everything these two fair decks could throw at me. Spell queller is an all star. I think a set is reasonable if pursuing a list like this. Spellstutter sprite effectively answers cheap removal and haymaker 0 cmc spells that are cheated out. These are two things that GW has trouble with. I don't know if it deserves to be played main deck though. Another possibility is that they should be negate. At the cost of being taxed, not having legs and not being found off coco it would answer much more. Scooze is great in this meta. It turns snapcasters and goyfs into chump blockers and mitigates knights of the reliquary. I wouldn't leave home without three main deck right now. Overall, I was pleased as this list is heavy on control and was able to manage boards unless the opposition drew an inordinate amount of must answer cards. More removal would be nice though.
-Objective three was to be able to present a clock while maintaining the aforementioned goals and was conditional on them. This was successful although only in a lukewarm sense of the word. I was able to apply pressure against these fair midrange decks but it wasn't strong pressure. One of the reasons this may be is that I held up coco as an answer rather than a way to generate pressure on board. It was correct in that it worked as an answer each time but perhaps not. Exalted triggers were not quite as good as expected here. I was satisfied with them although not overwhelmingly so. I think one of the downfalls of this deck is that it must go wide to apply control and pressure. This is when it's most vulnerable to sweepers like anger and verdict and least able to answer them. I also think the manabase could do with more manlands but wildwoods etb tapped.
I would have loved to play brimaz, eternal witness, serra avenger and eldrazi displacer in this deck but didn't have the slots open. The flex spots as of right now are pridemage, arbiters, restos and spellstutter sprites. In the case of displacer, I don't think the manabase would be able to take advantage of it either.
Hope you've enjoyed the read and please leave any feedback.
A card that works against eldrazi and elves is linvala, keeper of silence. She turns off displacer, ezuri and mana dorks.
Finally, wrath effects work against all three. This is something I was considering earlier and your post just reinforces my earlier thoughts. Gw has outstanding threat density between topdecks, cocos and good manlands/drawlands . I think wraths have a place there. I haven't tested this but it seems logical enough.
Also like oath, it will be unable to find many of our better sideboard cards. As an example; oath would find scooze but miss relic while stirrings will find relic but miss scooze. Both skip over rest in peace and path to exile which are our best solutions to many situations.
I suppose that if you went artifact/colorless heavy in your sideboard then it may be worth a shot.
You need to think of two words to beat jund; value and redundancy. They want to remove everything you play on a one for one basis and beat you with fatties. Play value creatures like wall of resurgence and blade splicer. Wasteland strangler is great for killing confidants and has strong synergy with the graveyard hate you need to make goyf manageable. Also, take them off red if you can. It's the weak point in the manabase.
@d90dennis, wall of resurgence is most definitely not a cute card. It's a nightmare for jund. If they spend removal on a land then they're already far ahead or circling the drain. In any type of even game it's a big problem for them. Dnc, broke wall at the beginning of eldrazi winter and many of us, myself included, had the same criticisms that you had. We were wrong.
The linked tables represent the raw math as stated previously. I don't personally agree with Karsten's mulliganing as it applies to this deck and prefer to base it on the raw probability. There's certainly room for disagreement in this area though.
The discrepancy between the page you linked and the page in my previous post I write off to differing sample population (56 vs 60 cards) and rounding. For what it's worth, I'm not terribly gifted in terms of mathematical ability let alone a mathematician. If you or anyone else can demonstrate how the tables are incorrect and provide more accurate ones then the community as a whole would be in your debt.
I disagree strongly that your 21 land manabase is more resilient to blood moon type effects. Two fewer basics and one fewer fetch is not something that can be overcome by a filtering effect; particularly one that requires green to cast when you have fewer sources of green and only a single basic forest.
I won't say oath is a bad card but rather that it didn't work for me in a 21 land build. Your mileage may vary and this is another area where there is room for disagreement.
The manabase tables I use are below. These are based on the raw math rather than Karsten's interpretation I think dnt is different than other decks in that our lands are a vital part of our strategy in addition to being a way to cast spells.
This is the manabase I took to a known blood moon meta. It's for the same midrange strategy.