Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Finally, a Bant thread. There are some things you can do to improve it.
I think you should post up some match up analysis and SB plans.
You should also explain the advantage and disadvantage of NO/Pro in Bant aggro.
Another big thing I know everyone would ask is why ditching CounterTop, so you should post your reasons as well.
Just my 2 cents trying to make this thread better.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
I think that NO/Pro is probably the best thing for the deck. I like that they worry about Goyf and War Monk that they dont see Prog coming. Also if you are going to run NO/Pro, you definitely need Dryad Arbor in the deck. The fact you can fetch out something to sac. Yeah losing a Heirarch isn't a huge deal, but sometimes they just arent there. Also most decks can't deal with Prog.
I run CounterTop as well. The fact the deck runs 1-5 mana costs makes it very nice. Yeah 3-5 are on the slim, but they are still in the deck if needed.
For sideboarding...I like to actually side out CounterTop because a lot of decks will bring in hate for it. Then they sit there holding K. Grip or whatever with nothing to hit.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Hello,
I think Divert is a good choice for the SB against Discard and else. Sorry if iŽam wrong.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
I think Daze needs justification in this deck, especially because it seems to play differently than other variants.
Also, what makes a deck "Bant Aggro" / "Pro Bant"? Is this list Pro Bant? http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=30742
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mchainmail
A "Pro Bant" deck have the Natural Order (NO) + Progenitus (Pro Bant.. PROgenitus).
That is the only difference between the two decks, the PROgenitus strategy.
Cyah,
Lammina
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
This thread is an excellent idea (and overdue in my opinion) but I think more justification is required for the specific card choices and, equally if not more importantly, the omissions (Jitte; Sower; Counterbalance- which sees play in most of the lists I've seen; etc.). Sure, you can take it for granted that Force of Will and Brainstorm (particularly in NO versions) are four-ofs, and likely a few other cards, such as Tarmogoyf, simply because they outclass other options in your colours, but most other cards demand logical justification if you're to speak with authority about why the deck is built the way it is. For example, I would not take it for granted that playing a minimum of three dazes is mandatory in this deck without some very firm grounding for that argument. Similarly, I do not see the logic behind determining that precisely 4 swords are mandatory (when you essentially have access to 8). Could the correct minimum number not be 3 or 5 or something else? Steve Menendian's new bant list (which may or may not be good) runs 7, for example.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GUnit
For example, I would not take it for granted that playing a minimum of three dazes is mandatory in this deck without some very firm grounding for that argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mchainmail
I think Daze needs justification in this deck, especially because it seems to play differently than other variants.
In the ProBant builds, especially those with Counterbalance, I think 3-4 Daze is pretty mandatory. The deck's Sorcery speed card count is very high for an agro control deck and having free protection allows the deck to tap out aggressively shifting board position. It may be less relevant in the builds that don't curve out to 4cc cards. Some of the builds seem to bulk more at 2cc, so in those lists I could see the deck more often having mana available to utilize Spell Pierce or Spell Snare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GUnit
Similarly, I do not see the logic behind determining that precisely 4 swords are mandatory (when you essentially have access to 8). Could the correct minimum number not be 3 or 5 or something else? Steve Menendian's new bant list (which may or may not be good) runs 7, for example.
The OP lists 4-8 removal effects; which given how creature heavy the meta is seems very reasonable. I think in this deck Swords to Plowshares complements the strategy more than Path to Exile. Ones opponent generally is going to be more dangerous with an additional mana at their disposal than an additional ~4 life; the deck is built with the ability to fight and win an attrition battle, and it's not looking to 20->0 asap in the way that Zoo or something is. One could easily run 5-7 removal spells, but they should probably be 4 Swords to Plowshares and X Path to Exiles.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
My point was moreso to suggest that you might be able to get away with 3 swords, or it might be absolutely mandatory to play at least 5, in which case, if we're sticking with the theme of declaring things to be absolutely mandatory (a potentially dangerous approach in my opinion), the minimum should be one of those numbers, or there should be some justification for the seemingly arbitrary number 4. When considering other card slots in this deck there is no such direct analogue (as there is with swords and path), so it can be taken for granted that if we're playing four we just want "as many as we can get." In this case, however, we can actually have more of the "same" card, so that implied argument flies straight out the window and there is a burden to justify why precisely four is the correct minimum.
Arguing about this specifically, though, I think isn't in anyone's best interest. The point I was trying to raise is that card selections, including numbers, and omissions should be justified and not simply taken for granted.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
This is my list (which hasn't changed in about 4 months)
4 Noble Heirarch
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Trygon Predator
3 Rhox War Monk
2 Quasali Pridemage
1 Progenitus
4 Force of Will
4 Daze
2 Spell Snare
3 Ponder
4 Brainstorm
4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Natural Order
4 Misty Rainforest
2 Windswept Heath
2 Flooded Strand
3 Tropical Island
2 Tundra
1 Savannah
2 Forest
1 Plains
2 Island
1 Dryad Arbor
------------------
SB
2 Gaddock Teeg
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Relic of Progenitus
3 Path to Exile
2 Blue Elemental Blast
2 Hydroblast
2 Krosan Grip
I've done well with this deck - but have had problems vs. Goblins, Merfolk, and Dredge.
I can switch some numbers in the deck for metagame reasons - usually swapping slots between Trygon Predator/Pridemage and the 4th Rhox War Monk.
The 7 plow effects after boarding can really give a lot of problems to decks that don't swarm or have secondary win conditions that aren't creatures. (Counterbalance). I rarely side out Natural Order.
It is a bit of a mystery to me that the deck has been seeing it's most popularity when paired with Counterbalance/Top. I tried that configuration - taking out Ponders and some creatures, and have had no success with it. Again, I may be playing it incorrectly.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Goblins and Dredge hate Propaganda and Ghostly Prison. I had problems with those matchups, especially Goblins, but now I don't because of those cards.
Engineered Explosives is good against Merfolk and Dredge while also being excellent against Zoo and random BGW decks that kick Bant's butt.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
On the whole number of swords issue. I run 4 StP main and 3 Path side. I like 4 swords main, and only swords, because if you are facing a non creature deck, they are dead draws and you don't want dead draws. All though most decks do run creatures so therefore have 4 seems like the right numbers. Path is a great card but the fact that you are giving them extra mana to threaten you is no good. You don't want to give Zoo more mountains to burn you out with or anything like that.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Why is counterbalance 'banned' for this deck? I realize that it is suboptimal against some decks but it is back breaking in others. What do you do aagainst Ant or T.E.S without balance? I mean I find that its really one of the only ways to do it.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
If you run Counterbalance, then your deck is a Counterbalance variant.
"Bant Aggro" refers to the more aggressive variants that skip CB in favor of a stronger beatdown plan.
Incidentally, Rhox War Monk provides a similar clock to Counterbalance. Turn 1 Hierarch, turn 2 RWM, turn 3 swing forces your opponent to come up with like 11-12 storm for the kill. With more swings, it becomes impossible to win off of Ad Nauseum (due to low life), and impossible to kill you with IGG or other methods (due to your high life), so you win.
Clearly bant aggro does worse against TES than the CB lists, but it's not unwinnable by any means. Also, no matter what happens, you're opening with Force and Daze in the main, so you can always salvage the combo matchups with board material.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Is 3 ponder to much? I like 2.
wouldn't you wanna play with 4 natural order cause it's so good? If they counter one cast the next, and if they're not playin counters ... win ... it's faster!
Why trygon and pridemage why not just pick the better one and be consistent?
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tarmogoyf
6. Wouldn't you wanna play with 4 natural order cause it's so good?
This is an excellent question.
My build plays...
4 Natural Order
1 Rafiq of the Many
1 Progenitus
I have yet to see a good argument against this approach.
Natural Order is an absolute bomb. On those feared occasions where I had a Progenitus in hand and no Brainstorm to shuffle it back into the library, I still won off the back of NOing for Rafiq of the Many which made my attack with either Goyf or RMW that turn absolutely massive and game swinging. It's pretty hard to lose when RMW gains you eight life while dealing eight damage, and Tarmogoyf deals an absurd 12 damage. There were many situations I was in where I opted to NO for Rafiq instead of Progentitus because that was actually the superior option in that case.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Quote:
Originally Posted by
That nice guy
Is 3 ponder to much? I like 2.
wouldn't you wanna play with 4 natural order cause it's so good? If they counter one cast the next, and if they're not playin counters ... win ... it's faster!
Why trygon and pridemage why not just pick the better one and be consistent?
TP is better against Stax and multiple Enchantment/Artifact decks. It also dodges Firespout vs Japanese Supreme Blue.
QP is better for "Kill it now" and has Exalted.
The singleton of TP is so if you absolutely must, you can NO for it. For Bant Aggro, I wouldn't run Rafiq because of his vulnerability to bolt and no way to recur him like you can in Survival builds.
EDIT: Also, running 3 copies is fine. You can cantrip into it. It's 4 mana, which can be a chore sometimes, so if you don't have 4 mana, it's kinda dead. The deck is supposed to be solid without it is what I gathered.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chokin
TP is better against Stax and multiple Enchantment/Artifact decks. It also dodges Firespout vs Japanese Supreme Blue.
The opponent can always pay :g: for Firespout to kill Predator in game one. I doubt it would stay in game two.
Re: [Deck] Bant Aggro and Pro Bant
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aggro_zombies
The opponent can always pay :g: for Firespout to kill Predator in game one. I doubt it would stay in game two.
I know. But it could kill theirs too if they played it, ya know? And Stax could always O-Ring it. Or in some builds, Maze of Ith it forever. I guess the JSB point was too weak of an argument, so I stand corrected.
I think it was you who originally shot down Rafiq in some other post saying something about how your "bomb" being Bolt-able is really lackluster. And I agree for this deck.