I've had a good deal of success with this list recently. Admittedly I'm just trying to ignore Hogaak in the hope it catches a hammer. Also, the basics are all snow-covered.
Hey folks, just wanted to post a list I've been having success with recently at my local events. Been in the top 4 my last three decent sized ones (20 plus). I think this deck bridges the gap well, committing to a midrange strategy game 1 and transitioning as needed for postboard.
I think I'm going to give this stratagy a try tonight, would you mind explaining your sideboard choices? have you found search for azcanta and lili useful?
Thanks!
To answer your questions first:
Yes, in the matchups where we have to out grind our opponents Delver is generally bad, so you side them out for elements that help help you ask your opponent hard questions amd maintain card advantage. I think people are overreacting to Jace, because 4 manna unsummon seems aweful against us, and an emergency brainstorm lets our bolt mop up while we get an attack in. I should clarify, I treat Grixis Delver like blue Jund with more efficient threats because we don't have efficient enough counter magic available to olay a true tempo game good enough for modern. The Tendrills have changed to a grim lavamancer (helps mop up the small wide creature decks while being another threat) and a pithing needle to name jace and other problems. Azcanta filters, finds spells to keep us alive and hits land drops to keep up with control, Lili has to be answered or she'll win the game through value or ult. I actually disagree that burn is a bad matchup. Snare, leak, fast threats and brutality you only have to carefully weather the storm before commiting your clock which is very doable since our threats are all functionallyone manna or value (snap). Also, one change to the main, the third terminate is a dreadbore, which has been solid.
Thb honest I completely disagree with your first sentence. If there's something the grixis version of Delver is good at, it's grinding. The grinding level of Grixis Delver is, in my opinion, a little superior to Grixis Shadow, which means a lot. The only grinding matchup that I believe is a non-game is Jeskai but 1) it's underperforming compared to the WU version, which is way easier to beat for us, with the proper manabase and 2) we are tide or favored against any other grinding matchup, from Jund to Abzan to any non-Jeskai control.
I also don't like your approach to the deck since I believe the tempo plan of the deck is still good, with plays like clique or pyromancer+dispel (which is a perfect maindeck card for the deck, imo). What makes us favored against other grindy decks is, in fact, the presence of a 1 mana beater that's awsome on turn 1 and still good late in the game, surrounded by the same good spells our contenders have access to, so I belive it's wrong siding out the little insect-wizards.
What I agree with is your opinion on Jace. I believe it's excellent against our delve threats and I cut some of them accordingly, but we have enough reach to beat it in the mid game and even in the late. I'm way more scared by Azcanta than by the planeswalker, just to say. It's a good card, but some minor changes to the deck and to the game strategy are enough to play around it. Another choice I share and love is Dreadbore in the main and I even recommend a second copy in the side against Jund,Tron and UW based control.
So the first sentence was very vague, against Jeskai or Grixis, you definitely should side out Delver because it deadens bolt, helix and electrolyze as removal spells, while taxing Terminate because we play snare. Getting Delver to live in the late game against three color control decks without access to Stubborn or Shoal is a recipe for disaster, especially since leak is useless at keeping Delver alive past turn 6. Everything kills it, and they expect it post board so I sidestep them.With RUG it was a different story because one manna negate is just too efficient for them to beat, but that's not an option. We seem to agree though that the answers out of UW are thin or clunky enough that Delver is actually quite good, especially if they path our bug, or hilariously think Sphere will resolve to exile it. Don't generalize Jund and Abzan though. Souls single handedly changes that matchup, turning it from a simple one for one grind against Jund to nightmarish if Abzan resolves more than one copy. Also, against Jace decks, I think Pyro is a fine sub for delver, both because even though it dies to everything much like our bug, it fights Jace and we just play it when we can ensure getting value out of it. We win by making as many of their cards awkward or dead as possible and the ability to switch out delver and into essentially big Grixis midrange makes it very, very awkward for those bringing in removal for Delver. And against the big manna decks or in general decks we have to go underneath, I just shave a land and the poor spells add Pyro amd some better spells and it seems to ne working. Though I really did miss the flayong tendrills last weekend at a 104 person event. I lost a really close game three against bant spirits that grim Lavamancer just wasn't enough to manage.
Hey folks, just wanted to post a list I've been having success with recently at my local events. Been in the top 4 my last three decent sized ones (20 plus). I think this deck bridges the gap well, committing to a midrange strategy game 1 and transitioning as needed for postboard.
I think I'm going to give this stratagy a try tonight, would you mind explaining your sideboard choices? have you found search for azcanta and lili useful?
Thanks!
To answer your questions first:
Yes, in the matchups where we have to out grind our opponents Delver is generally bad, so you side them out for elements that help help you ask your opponent hard questions amd maintain card advantage. I think people are overreacting to Jace, because 4 manna unsummon seems aweful against us, and an emergency brainstorm lets our bolt mop up while we get an attack in. I should clarify, I treat Grixis Delver like blue Jund with more efficient threats because we don't have efficient enough counter magic available to olay a true tempo game good enough for modern. The Tendrills have changed to a grim lavamancer (helps mop up the small wide creature decks while being another threat) and a pithing needle to name jace and other problems. Azcanta filters, finds spells to keep us alive and hits land drops to keep up with control, Lili has to be answered or she'll win the game through value or ult. I actually disagree that burn is a bad matchup. Snare, leak, fast threats and brutality you only have to carefully weather the storm before commiting your clock which is very doable since our threats are all functionallyone manna or value (snap). Also, one change to the main, the third terminate is a dreadbore, which has been solid.
Hey folks, just wanted to post a list I've been having success with recently at my local events. Been in the top 4 my last three decent sized ones (20 plus). I think this deck bridges the gap well, committing to a midrange strategy game 1 and transitioning as needed for postboard.
Jordan, isn't Mesa better since it hits all of our shocks? Foothills gets forest, but misses Fountain. I'm sure you've thought of this, so I'm looking for your reasoning. Kathal, I've had similar problems with my playtesting, that's why I was trying to make denial work in CC, but as Jordan said it's just a different deck, and relying on denial is more MG whereas Pierce plays better with all the 1-drop creatures. I do like a third manna leak to make finding it with our cantrips and Chart easy though.
Not so much of a stumble as a theory based on having as close to 50% flip as possible if played on turn one with an "average" hand. "Average" being 1-2 C
creatures, 1-2 lands and 2-4 I/S's in hand. At 28 total, and 2 in your opening that leaves you 26/53 (or slightly over 49%) cards that flip Delver played on turn one. But with 3 or more that decreased percentage hurts a lot more. When I played Monkey Grow, 30 I/S meant that even with 4 in my opener I had that same decent percentage but with 3 or less I was over 50%, and flipping Delver on turn two on the play significantly improved your games.I mean, blue lightning bolt makes many games a breee. He and Mandrills' evasion was bonkers, far better than your big dumb dudes like Tasigur or Fish. I remember the RUG days with Shackles secretly making the deck more midrange, but they were really using Delver more as a lightning rod that would occasionally give free wins as opposed to a primary threat.
I totally get this is a very different deck despite similar card choices, and I'm hoping to hone it like I had Monkey. As opposed to one threat we ride to victory, you are saying this is closer to an actual aggro deck on your archtype wheel, with a splash of light permission and better removal? Ie, go fast fast fast against combo or big manna decks and stub their toe once (pierce), or go fast against creature decks and do the same with Path/Bolt?
Well path certainly provides more powerful creature interaction than RUG, but the tension between it and Pierce is savage. Whereas Shoal and leak could keep us in the game until we can set up a hard no with Denial plus guy, or get the same tempo value as Pierce if they get too hasty. Seems like higher ceiling and floor (may be using this part of the analogy wrong, but I mean less effective when it's not ferocious and ridiculous when it is) at the same time. I played RUG a long time, and loved it because it seemed I had the right tools for the job, (of course Probe telling us what to look for helped) and having a dude on board meant any really relevant non-creature spell simply didn't matter. Having pierce in a lot of spots doesn't seem good enough, but it's possible the higher creature count helps alleviate that by ending games more quickly? Also, what's with 26 I/S? In Monkey we would run 29-31 depending on the build to make Delver really reliable, and while I realize we have other threats (and more of them) the hands relying on that Delver as it's principle threat will be awful if Fugitive Wizard doesn't flip. I've found 28 to be a hard minimum unless I'm running Baubles, so what gives?
Hey folks, been a while. Been subjecting myself to the Esper train, and the worst mechanic in modern (card advantage), but chart has my interest. Jordan, playing Chart alongside Shoal, giving us the ability to aggressively dig for answers early, wouldn't that incentivize us to play Denial over pierce? My biggest complaint of CC over Monkey Grow is the lack of staying power you lose not playing Denial, especially when you don't get the fast start needed to make pierce good vs decks like Valakut. But with seven Ferocious dudes (only one less), and the ability to tap out to draw with chart while holding up shoal early, and setting up fatty plus Denial seems pretty busted when we force them to answer the first threat a specific way before deploying said fatty. Just like the old days of Shoaling the first removal, to force them to use the second on Delver simply so you could play Goyf/Mandrills and kill them before they draw two more removal spells that are relevant. Chart should get us to a point where we find that sweet spot of having one last threat and denial back up to push them over. Just a thought.
I love the split. It gives you a speedier out to LotV and protects you against Pithing Needle. Plus, with Grixis control on the downswing, I've won a few games by the opponent not reading the "unblockable" clause. Manabase is as follows, and it's been fairly decent. Might use +1 B source, though.
Thanks for the reply Shardmage. Yeah, I would try a total of six manna producing black sources as opposed to my current four if I added a Pit. I gave up on GQ months ago when I conceded it's utility for better manna, so that would be an easy switch for me. Also, I'm going back to Halo, after trying Leyline for a few weeks I found it's variance is too high. Halo never comes down on zero, but it's flexible against decks like Valakut when they board into creatures, and seeing multiples is actually good. There has been a distinct lack of graveyard de cms lately and I've been considering cutting the Surgicals entirely and using Spell Queller in it's place as a combo answer that also clocks and is great in the UW pseudo mirror. In the same vein, I'm cutting the Angel and adding a clique, thinking that the combination of Clique and Queller should seriously help against all combo matchups while not sacrificing too much against GBx and Shadow where the Angel came in, since Queller gets really good after they take out much of their removal. Thoughts Everyone?
You make some valid points Rabbit, but we disagree. I will say, creating debate that's healthy should be the goal of any thread, after all we want to understand and improve at whatever it's subject is.
Tha said, I know some of y'all have been tinkering with a 3-1 split between Colonnade and Tar Pit, and I wanted to ask how that was performing for you. It seems like it would allow you to attack into Planeswalkers easier while sacrificing some blocking power, but might be worth it. Although I would probably need to 1-1 split my two Glacial Fortresses with a Drowned Catacombs. Thoughts?
I differ with Rabbit, in that while we don't have a lot of productivity, I don't see this as a downside.
Maybe it's because I'm not a native, but I really don't understand what this expression means. What's "productivity" for, here? If you could elaborate a little more, I would gladly answer you on this point.
The Glacial Fortresses and Mystic gates keep our manna live against savvy opponents that try and take us off white or blue, and we are really just splashing black for Echarm (the beast) and more removal like Rabbit said. Tron, E-Tron, and others will GQ us, seas us, and it simply won't matter because as long as out manna functions we win, and we never need double black for one spell unless we are playing NoSB
Actually, it's not that easy. Because we only need a little black splash, it also means that our opponent can easily screw us off the color - if he's playing an archetype which focus on mana-denial, like Wx Hatebears, Ux Merfolks, UW Control, RG Ponza or GW CoCo/Denial - and the same goes for our need of having double white mana to cast Verdict. Esper's manabase IS greedy, expecially when we also want to play several basics to fight Blood Moon or colorless lands such as Ghost Quarter.
Verdict, while good in many matchup, is atrocious in others
True. But, whenever you choose to play a Ux red-less Control-based archetype, you're doing so to maximize your game against decks which suffers a lot against sweepers. I would say, also, that the ability to cast Verdict into Verdict into Snap-Verdict is THE reason to play Esper/UW Draw-Go. If not, I would just choose another deck. Verdict wins alone so many match-ups - and creature decks are everywhere in Modern, it's extra good also against Combo such as Ur Storm and RG Valakut.
Of course, when it's bad it's bad. Still, it's just too good against 80% of the field.
Leylines are specifically for burn. Halo is always better compared to a Leyline not turn 0, and is often just as good vs the combo decks while being good vs creatures etc.
This is altered by personal experience, so don't take it as a rule. But I utterly hate playing Leylines as Burn's insurance. I said that I don't like Esper DrawGo in the current metagame, and it's true. But I always had little to none issues against Burn. Game one is though, but postsideboard if you can focus on a Snapcaster + Blessed Alliance plan, lowering your mana curve and leaning on cheap removals (Push - Path) plus cheap counters (Dispel, Knot, Negate) into Charm -> discard mode, then you're totally fine against any non-mono-red Burn. Vendilion also helps a lot in setting a big Revelation (stripping Scullcrack effects from the opponent's hand) and clocking them.
That's a typo Rabbit, I meant proactivity and got corrected by my phone.
As for the manna, it actually is that simple. The Glacials and Gates mean my manna base is so skewed towards blue and white that I rarely find myself under duress to cast my really greedy spells because I produce white and blue in abundance. Also, against matchups where you know you'll need black, you can often sandbag a fetch to get another black source if they try and cut you off since you rarely have to prioritize getting white and blue because of the abundance of sources.
On Verdict, I've never liked verdict against any combo deck, even Valakut or Storm. I would bring in Sphere against storm as additional creature removal that wipes tokens out, and occasionally keep one or two if I think Valakut is on the creature SB plan, but otherwise a 4 manna sorcery is bad. It only hits Titan, which path does anyway (and let's face it, if they resolve titan at all, the Valakuts will kill you no matter how you kill the titan) so the land matter little if at all, and against storm, they probably untap and kill you if you tap low for verdict, and certainly kill you if they are doing anything else the deck does. Hence, the 4th is in the board for E-Tron and other matches but I don't want that fat curve in too many matchups.
And finally, yes we agree that Leyline is not a perfect answer for burn, and we also agree that the best way to beat them is to lower our curve and resolve multiple BA or a big revelation. What I said was that Halo, while the better overall card, is worse vs burn. Both cards are essentially combo breakers, Leyline has the added utility of hosing burn which is qhy I chose it, and shutting down Shadow's hand disruption which allows you to play a game much more suited to us. Halo is hands down better vs Valakut, AdNaus, and random creatures because it comes down earlier (assuming Leyline is not turn 0) and is easier to defend since it requires less manna. But I willingly gave up those points for Leyline, which has a much higher Ceiling. Hopefully this explains better.
Edit: and Verdict is one reason to play Esper, but IMO the best reason is that TT and Esper charm basically make it impossible to grind us out of long games, and being able to discard opponent's hands at instant speed is crushing. Plus, we are hands down better than UW because we have access to more and better removal on top of all this.
@RUGJester Thanks for posting your list. It looks pretty much like what I and kodie are playing. =D
I do have a few questions to ask: why play the 3rd Snap over the 4th Verdict main? How do you feel about the 2 Mystic Gate over 1 and a Sunken Ruins? Finally, what matchups are the Leylines aimed at?
Several good things to answer here. Nobody can go longer than we can, save Valakut, so we really just want to focus on being the best control deck possible. No gimmicks like GQ or spicy tech like souls. Just card draw, removal, counters and a few finishers. The Glacial Fortresses and Mystic gates keep our manna live against savvy opponents that try and take us off white or blue, and we are really just splashing black for Echarm (the beast) and more removal like Rabbit said. Tron, E-Tron, and others will GQ us, seas us, and it simply won't matter because as long as out manna functions we win, and we never need double black for one spell unless we are playing NoSB. I differ with Rabbit, in that while we don't have a lot of productivity, I don't see this as a downside. Verdict, while good in many matchup, is atrocious in others, while a 3rd snap can be anything we need it to be, and t 3-drop removal after a 1 drop can often be enough to turn the corner, getting us into Knot plus TT, or BA escalated. A note on BA, this card is bonkers, allowing us to soak more damage earlier, while making it back up later when manna isn't an issue, in addition to all the known benefits of BA. Plus, 4th Verdict can be obnoxiously Clunky when you don't need it. Leylines are specifically for burn. Halo is always better compared to a Leyline not turn 0, and is often just as good vs the combo decks while being good vs creatures etc. But I knew the events I would be going to in the near future would be heavy in burn, and Leyline hoses half their deck.
This is the list I've been playing for months. The 60 stays largely unchanged, but the SB changes to suit the event. I've had modest success, usually top 8'ing or winning my local events and making 12th at a recent 73 person competetive event.
If we are removing the boros spells and allowing smoother mana with breeding pool, shouldn't we find a slot to put a sacred foundry in for perfect manna on two shock lands?
4 Sakura-Tribe Elder
2 Snapcaster Mage
Spells:28
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Growth Spiral
4 Remand
3 Narset, Parter of Veils
4 Search for Tomorrow
4 Cryptic Command
1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
4 Scapeshift
2 Breeding Pool
1 Cinder Glade
2 Flooded Grove
2 Forest
3 Island
4 Misty Rainforest
1 Mountain
1 Scalding Tarn
4 Steam Vents
4 Stomping Ground
2 Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle
3 Ice-Fang Coatl
1 Vendilion Clique
2 Spell Pierce
2 Cindervines
3 Anger of the Gods
2 Pulse of Murasa
2 Ravenous Trap
I've had a good deal of success with this list recently. Admittedly I'm just trying to ignore Hogaak in the hope it catches a hammer. Also, the basics are all snow-covered.
So the first sentence was very vague, against Jeskai or Grixis, you definitely should side out Delver because it deadens bolt, helix and electrolyze as removal spells, while taxing Terminate because we play snare. Getting Delver to live in the late game against three color control decks without access to Stubborn or Shoal is a recipe for disaster, especially since leak is useless at keeping Delver alive past turn 6. Everything kills it, and they expect it post board so I sidestep them.With RUG it was a different story because one manna negate is just too efficient for them to beat, but that's not an option. We seem to agree though that the answers out of UW are thin or clunky enough that Delver is actually quite good, especially if they path our bug, or hilariously think Sphere will resolve to exile it. Don't generalize Jund and Abzan though. Souls single handedly changes that matchup, turning it from a simple one for one grind against Jund to nightmarish if Abzan resolves more than one copy. Also, against Jace decks, I think Pyro is a fine sub for delver, both because even though it dies to everything much like our bug, it fights Jace and we just play it when we can ensure getting value out of it. We win by making as many of their cards awkward or dead as possible and the ability to switch out delver and into essentially big Grixis midrange makes it very, very awkward for those bringing in removal for Delver. And against the big manna decks or in general decks we have to go underneath, I just shave a land and the poor spells add Pyro amd some better spells and it seems to ne working. Though I really did miss the flayong tendrills last weekend at a 104 person event. I lost a really close game three against bant spirits that grim Lavamancer just wasn't enough to manage.
To answer your questions first:
Yes, in the matchups where we have to out grind our opponents Delver is generally bad, so you side them out for elements that help help you ask your opponent hard questions amd maintain card advantage. I think people are overreacting to Jace, because 4 manna unsummon seems aweful against us, and an emergency brainstorm lets our bolt mop up while we get an attack in. I should clarify, I treat Grixis Delver like blue Jund with more efficient threats because we don't have efficient enough counter magic available to olay a true tempo game good enough for modern. The Tendrills have changed to a grim lavamancer (helps mop up the small wide creature decks while being another threat) and a pithing needle to name jace and other problems. Azcanta filters, finds spells to keep us alive and hits land drops to keep up with control, Lili has to be answered or she'll win the game through value or ult. I actually disagree that burn is a bad matchup. Snare, leak, fast threats and brutality you only have to carefully weather the storm before commiting your clock which is very doable since our threats are all functionallyone manna or value (snap). Also, one change to the main, the third terminate is a dreadbore, which has been solid.
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Snapcaster Mage
3 Tasigur, the Golden Fang
1 Gurmag Angler
Spells:28
2 Fatal Push
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Serum Visions
3 Spell Snare
4 Thought Scour
4 Mana Leak
2 Remand
3 Terminate
2 Kolaghan's Command
1 Blood Crypt
1 Darkslick Shores
2 Island
1 Mountain
4 Polluted Delta
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Spirebluff Canal
2 Steam Vents
1 Swamp
2 Watery Grave
2 Young Pyromancer
1 Engineered Explosives
2 Ceremonious Rejection
1 Dispel
2 Collective Brutality
2 Countersquall
2 Search for Azcanta
2 Flaying Tendrils
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
creatures, 1-2 lands and 2-4 I/S's in hand. At 28 total, and 2 in your opening that leaves you 26/53 (or slightly over 49%) cards that flip Delver played on turn one. But with 3 or more that decreased percentage hurts a lot more. When I played Monkey Grow, 30 I/S meant that even with 4 in my opener I had that same decent percentage but with 3 or less I was over 50%, and flipping Delver on turn two on the play significantly improved your games.I mean, blue lightning bolt makes many games a breee. He and Mandrills' evasion was bonkers, far better than your big dumb dudes like Tasigur or Fish. I remember the RUG days with Shackles secretly making the deck more midrange, but they were really using Delver more as a lightning rod that would occasionally give free wins as opposed to a primary threat.
I totally get this is a very different deck despite similar card choices, and I'm hoping to hone it like I had Monkey. As opposed to one threat we ride to victory, you are saying this is closer to an actual aggro deck on your archtype wheel, with a splash of light permission and better removal? Ie, go fast fast fast against combo or big manna decks and stub their toe once (pierce), or go fast against creature decks and do the same with Path/Bolt?
Thanks for the reply Shardmage. Yeah, I would try a total of six manna producing black sources as opposed to my current four if I added a Pit. I gave up on GQ months ago when I conceded it's utility for better manna, so that would be an easy switch for me. Also, I'm going back to Halo, after trying Leyline for a few weeks I found it's variance is too high. Halo never comes down on zero, but it's flexible against decks like Valakut when they board into creatures, and seeing multiples is actually good. There has been a distinct lack of graveyard de cms lately and I've been considering cutting the Surgicals entirely and using Spell Queller in it's place as a combo answer that also clocks and is great in the UW pseudo mirror. In the same vein, I'm cutting the Angel and adding a clique, thinking that the combination of Clique and Queller should seriously help against all combo matchups while not sacrificing too much against GBx and Shadow where the Angel came in, since Queller gets really good after they take out much of their removal. Thoughts Everyone?
Tha said, I know some of y'all have been tinkering with a 3-1 split between Colonnade and Tar Pit, and I wanted to ask how that was performing for you. It seems like it would allow you to attack into Planeswalkers easier while sacrificing some blocking power, but might be worth it. Although I would probably need to 1-1 split my two Glacial Fortresses with a Drowned Catacombs. Thoughts?
That's a typo Rabbit, I meant proactivity and got corrected by my phone.
As for the manna, it actually is that simple. The Glacials and Gates mean my manna base is so skewed towards blue and white that I rarely find myself under duress to cast my really greedy spells because I produce white and blue in abundance. Also, against matchups where you know you'll need black, you can often sandbag a fetch to get another black source if they try and cut you off since you rarely have to prioritize getting white and blue because of the abundance of sources.
On Verdict, I've never liked verdict against any combo deck, even Valakut or Storm. I would bring in Sphere against storm as additional creature removal that wipes tokens out, and occasionally keep one or two if I think Valakut is on the creature SB plan, but otherwise a 4 manna sorcery is bad. It only hits Titan, which path does anyway (and let's face it, if they resolve titan at all, the Valakuts will kill you no matter how you kill the titan) so the land matter little if at all, and against storm, they probably untap and kill you if you tap low for verdict, and certainly kill you if they are doing anything else the deck does. Hence, the 4th is in the board for E-Tron and other matches but I don't want that fat curve in too many matchups.
And finally, yes we agree that Leyline is not a perfect answer for burn, and we also agree that the best way to beat them is to lower our curve and resolve multiple BA or a big revelation. What I said was that Halo, while the better overall card, is worse vs burn. Both cards are essentially combo breakers, Leyline has the added utility of hosing burn which is qhy I chose it, and shutting down Shadow's hand disruption which allows you to play a game much more suited to us. Halo is hands down better vs Valakut, AdNaus, and random creatures because it comes down earlier (assuming Leyline is not turn 0) and is easier to defend since it requires less manna. But I willingly gave up those points for Leyline, which has a much higher Ceiling. Hopefully this explains better.
Edit: and Verdict is one reason to play Esper, but IMO the best reason is that TT and Esper charm basically make it impossible to grind us out of long games, and being able to discard opponent's hands at instant speed is crushing. Plus, we are hands down better than UW because we have access to more and better removal on top of all this.
Several good things to answer here. Nobody can go longer than we can, save Valakut, so we really just want to focus on being the best control deck possible. No gimmicks like GQ or spicy tech like souls. Just card draw, removal, counters and a few finishers. The Glacial Fortresses and Mystic gates keep our manna live against savvy opponents that try and take us off white or blue, and we are really just splashing black for Echarm (the beast) and more removal like Rabbit said. Tron, E-Tron, and others will GQ us, seas us, and it simply won't matter because as long as out manna functions we win, and we never need double black for one spell unless we are playing NoSB. I differ with Rabbit, in that while we don't have a lot of productivity, I don't see this as a downside. Verdict, while good in many matchup, is atrocious in others, while a 3rd snap can be anything we need it to be, and t 3-drop removal after a 1 drop can often be enough to turn the corner, getting us into Knot plus TT, or BA escalated. A note on BA, this card is bonkers, allowing us to soak more damage earlier, while making it back up later when manna isn't an issue, in addition to all the known benefits of BA. Plus, 4th Verdict can be obnoxiously Clunky when you don't need it. Leylines are specifically for burn. Halo is always better compared to a Leyline not turn 0, and is often just as good vs the combo decks while being good vs creatures etc. But I knew the events I would be going to in the near future would be heavy in burn, and Leyline hoses half their deck.
3 Snapcaster Mage
Spells:31
2 Fatal Push
4 Path to Exile
2 Blessed Alliance
3 Logic Knot
2 Negate
4 Think Twice
4 Esper Charm
2 Sphinx's Revelation
1 White Sun's Zenith
4 Cryptic Command
3 Supreme Verdict
4 Celestial Colonnade
4 Flooded Strand
2 Glacial Fortress
1 Godless Shrine
2 Hallowed Fountain
3 Island
2 Mystic Gate
1 Plains
4 Polluted Delta
1 Swamp
2 Watery Grave
1 Baneslayer Angel
2 Dispel
2 Surgical Extraction
2 Thoughtseize
1 Blessed Alliance
2 Detention Sphere
3 Leyline of Sanctity
1 Supreme Verdict
1 Elspeth, Sun's Champion
This is the list I've been playing for months. The 60 stays largely unchanged, but the SB changes to suit the event. I've had modest success, usually top 8'ing or winning my local events and making 12th at a recent 73 person competetive event.