That is exactly what I was thinking. I have also been disappointed with WSS after bringing him back in my deck. I side him out a lot ( and it looks like you do too, Nessaja, according to your primer). I am so excited to test him out.Originally Posted by Nessaja
I also think that most people should play Wren's Run Vanquisher. How does everyone deal with goyfs, rhox war monks, merfolk that are bigger than your elves, etc.? I have never considered cutting it as it usually forces a counter/removal spell which opens up the game for more lords.
I think the new Fauna Shaman is amazing. It is not necessarily CA, but card quality. I'd rather not devote a chunk of the deck to a CA combo, but just improve the qualities of my draws. Definitely a 2 of in my deck over Wren's Run Vanquisher. Although it will be sad to see the deathtouch go...
I think many don't play him because of his lack of synergy with the deck. He is simply a beater (which is nice), but he doesn't swing the game much if he hits play (especially if he is bolted).
Also on the fauna shaman: it works well with quirion ranger, allowing us to activate the ability twice on our turn and once on the opponent's turn (not really sure when you would want to do this though).
But one huge upside is that it gives the deck a way to discard Proggy when we draw him. We have no way to get rid of him right now if he is in our hand and i hate dead cards.
The only cards you devote to the engine is 1 Squee, and if you splash red, 1 Anger. You were probably already running Viridian Zealot, and even if you weren't, it's not going to hurt to run 1.I'd rather not devote a chunk of the deck to a CA combo
Summoning sickness + tap ability sucks, but a 2cc 2/2 that receives pumps from the rest of your Elves makes him useful at least. Allow him to get going with Quirion Ranger, and you suddenly have a very powerful draw engine.
Maybe he's a better fit in regular aggro Elves than NO Elves, but he seems like a good elf to run if you ask me.
If you are only running 2 of that Elvish Darwin, i dont see why we should use Squee and Anger. Yes, Suvival builds use them as part of their engine but as a creature, it would be a removal-magnet. Remember Bob? Bob doesnt usually stick on the board for more than 2 turns.
Like what was mentioned, Its a good card quality but I wouldnt devote an engine on it, especially if its a weaker version of its homage card.
I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forums
About a year and a half ago I pretty much copied this deck except I took out 3 Skyshroud Elite and added 2 Elvish Champion and 1 Imperious Perfect.
I want to update my deck by adding NO and Progenitus. Which cards should I replace? Also, I found the Heritage Druid and Nettle Sentinel combo to be effective in my deck (and the individual cards to be quite good), but noticed that the builds on the first page in this thread drop them but include Priest of Titania. Does this actually work more effectively?
I'm currently working on a NO-Elves deck that's way different than most lists in here. The main reason for me to scrap the decklists in here is the decks performance against a very popular DTB deck. Zoo that is.
The elf tribe has slim, even zero, game against Zoo. The tribe's creatures are most likely to be underpowered against a player who actually knows what he's doing.
If they just target the lords, you're sitting there with the fyndhorns, the llanowars and Priest of Titanias... You have all that mana and nothing to play that can actually be a threat until it's too late, if they even let your mana elves live.
That's why I came up with a list that doesn't require that much lords to actually be playable, a deck that can play a Elf lord for 1 mana, and make some of your army hard to crack. I will post a draft of my list, but it has to be put on some serious testing.
At the time I post this, the deck is in it's early stages. It still runs the "I win button" of Natural Order, but instead of playing mass elves that don't affect my opponent, like Priest of Titania, Llanowars, Fyndhorns etc. I opt for elves with more beats and utility.
I present to you, my own take on NO-Elves.
3 Windswept Heath
2 Wooded Foothills
4 Wasteland
3 Forest
2 Horizon Canopy
3 Oran-Rief, the Vastwood
2 Savannah
2 Llanowar Elves
2 Fyndhorn Elves
3 Joraga Warcaller
4 Bramblewood Paragon
4 Viridian Zealot
3 Wren's Run Vanquisher
4 Imperious Perfect
4 Elvish Archdruid
2 Elvish Champion
4 Sylvan Messenger
1 Progenitus
4 Natural Order
4 Aether Vial
Sideboard:
4 Krosan Grip
3 Gaddock Teeg
3 Thorn of Amethyst
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Umezawa's Jitte
1 Relic of Progenitus
Sideboard is currently under construction, aswell as some thoughts I still have for the maindeck. I have thoughts of adding Deranged Hermit as a NO target... Calculating the damage with 1 Oran-Rief online, gives 14 damage on the board. It races harder than Progenitus, but it has the drawback of not having shroud, but you get 5 dudes in 1 card compared with 1 for 1 in Progenitus.
Green does not have real CA, if we should be honest with eachother... The only way Green can obtain CA is to generate tokens, as in Imperious Perfect, Deranged Hermit etc.
It's straight forward without shinnanigans with Quirion or Wirewood, and wirewood often eats the bin to either a bolt, Lavamancer or gets flipped away with Sylvan Messenger.
Remember, this is just another direction I'm trying out since I got tired of all the junk elves that did not contribute to the deck adding pressure on my opponent, and it's in it's early stages of developement.
Last edited by Hawdes; 07-06-2010 at 02:47 PM.
Hawdes - I have over a year experience with the deck. NO Elves does not fold to Zoo at all. If you say that Elves has zero chance you quite frankly don't know what you're talking about, I wish there was a friendlier way to say that but it's quite simply the truth. That doesn't mean that Elves doesn't need help with Zoo, it's a 40/60 matchup. And that's on the low side. Elves generate a lot of CA, if you live past turn 5 you got a pretty big chance of winning. Anyway, your deck is cute and all, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the topic - as far as I'm concerned. You're playing such an inferior version of Zoo and you trying to create a deck around a lord that is required to be in play prior to casting. Good luck with testing, but I've already been there.
Fauna Shaman brought a lot of uncertainty for this deck. Mainly in relation to Wolf-Skull Shaman. Fauna Shaman is a difficult to understand card. It's not Survival on a stick, at least, it shouldn't be evaluated as such. That it needs to tap in order to do its job means three significant things: 1. You can only use it once and 2.You can only use it a turn after it comes into play 3. You can't swing with Fauna Shaman, meaning you need to choose between searching creatures or blocking/attacking. Lots of weak points that I didn't consider prior to testing.
For me the current state of affairs is this:
WSS
+ Removal magnet
+ good against standstill
+ good against plague
+ tempo without mana investment
+ card advantage
+ great in multiples
+ generates NO food
- easily removed
- slow
- useless with lands on top
Good against: aggro decks, aggro control decks, standstill decks
Fauna Shaman
+ removal magnet
+ card quality improvement
+ possibility to search up utility cards
+ cycle progenitus
+ toolbox sideboard options
+/- not good or bad when two are on the table, multiples are usually cycled away
- easily removed
- even slower
- requires tapping (can't attack while generating advantage)
- occasionally it'll be useless because your hand is already good, or good enough.
Good against: midrange decks, decks that require heavy sideboarding, control and aggro control
I think the format will be moving more towards control after columbus, ifso, Fauna Shaman is probably the better choice at that point (allows really easy sideboarding, for one thing).
Quick 3 round tournament i recently played.
List:
Lands
11 Forest
4 Wasteland
2 Gaea's Cradle
1 Pendelhaven
NO Package
3 Natural Orders
1 Progenitus
Elf army and insect
1 Wirewood Symbiote
4 Priest of Titania
4 Fyndhorn Elves
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Imperious Perfect
4 Sylvan Messenger
4 Elvish Champion
4 Elvish Archdruid
4 Wolf-Skull Shaman
1 Joraga Warcaller
1 Wren's Run Packmaster
3 Quirion Ranger
Sideboard:
4 Relic of Progenitus
1 Tormod's Crypt
2 Chalice of the Void
1 Terrastodon
4 Krosan Grip
1 Mindbreak Trap
2 Thorn of Amythest
Notes:
Packmaster was for cool deathtouching wolves, probably wouldn't run it in a super serious event.
Rd 1: Chris with RWb Painter/Grindstone homebrew
Game 1: I go mana dork, WSS, lord, lord, drop more elves, beat face. He only plays 2 EE the whole game, so I have no idea what to really bring in. I take out the Warcaller, Packmaster, symbiote, champion for 4 grips.
Game 2: I mull because I have a wasteland only hand. I open up with a mana dork, he goes isochron -> lightning helix and proceeds to kill stuff. I resolve a NOProg, thanks to him using ancient tomb I take him down to 2. He proceeds to rip ensnaring bridge off the top. I didn't draw any one of my grips the whole game. I'm not exactly sure how to SB this MU, so I replace Progenitus with Terastodon.
Game 3: I drop mana dorks and 2 WSS. I proceed to build my board up to lethal. I use grips to keep him off grindstone, so the board is pretty much 8 wolves, 2 mana dorks, a WSS, and a lord against his many lands and a top. However, I accidentally tap out with grip in my hand to put more lethal on board. Brainfart for getting only 4 hours of sleep. He fetches and gets both painter and grindstone in his top 3. I lose.
0-1 (1-2)
Rd 2: Damon with Entomb Ichorid
Game 1:He mulligans to 5 while I keep a hand of 2 mana dorks, 1 WSS, 1 cradle, 1 forest, a lord, and a quirion ranger. I go mana dork. He opens up city of brass->careful study pitching a dredger. I play quirion ranger, wss, and lord. He dredges, hits nothing relevant. I beat down hard. SB Packmaster, symbiote, warcaller, and 2 messengers out. In comes 4 relics and crypt.
Game 2:He opens up rainbow land into careful study pitching Phantasmagorian. I play mana dork. He pitches dredgers, dredges, then entombs ichorid. I play more mana dorks. He dredges some more, gets a zombie from ichorid. I play archdruid. He dredges some more and gets another zombie. I drop a few more mana dorks and a WSS, then NO a mana dork into progenitus. He dredges some more. Again does nothing. I draw relic, kill his gaveyard. He scoops. He says he ahd win with a single bridge + ichorid + ancestors chosen in graveyard to gain him like 40 life. If I hadn't drawn the relic, I still think I would ahve won given that I churn out wolves to die with his zombies and had a messenger in hand.
1-1 (3-2)
Rd 3: Michael with enchantress
Game 1: He gets 4th turn confinement lock on me. Not much else to be said. SB 4 WSS, symbiote, packmaster, progenitus out. 4 Grips, 1 terastodon, 2 chalice in.
Game 2: I keep a sketch hand with 0 enchantment removal that is kind of slow, but has chalice. I go mana dork. He drops land and passes. I go priest. He drops sterling grove. I drop chalice for 2 and mana dork. He gets out enchantresses presence. I make another terrible mistake and go for chalice at 1 instead of chalice at 3. He drops tons of enchantress's presence and solitary confinement lock. I keep digging hoping to get a grip. He casts sterling groves (getting countered) and discards a sigil of the empty throne to confinement and casts replenish. I have no mass enchantment removal so I scoop.
1-2 (3-4)
Notes:
WSS is nuts, if they don't have removal for him he is often 6 power for 2 mana. Him sticking is akin to priest or archdruid sticking with plenty of guys in hand.
My one ofs were pretty bad, I think there needs to be a better mana sink. I haven't tried forcemage yet really, although I didn't play against aggro.
I think dredge is a far better MU than what Naz has it listed on the primer. WSS just seems to be so nuts in that department. The wolves provide a solid defense against the zombies and they have no way of removing it really. The MU gets a lot better as well after SB.
Enchantress I think is a far worse MU than listed. Game 1 is nearly unwinnable, as unless you are running zealot the deck has no answer for a turn 4 moat or confinement. Games 2 and 3 get betters, but not by much. I think chalice is essential in this MU because you need a chalice @2 to stop argothian enchantress. Going first is huge because sticking chalice @2 before they land an enchantress or sterling grove makes it really hard for them to win.
I found priest of titania to be extremely lacking. Most of the time, for dropping lots of dudes or using imperious perfect, the 1 mana dorks and archdruid are usually enough. Priest mana only seems useful when I start chaining messengers together. The problem is I can't think of any decent replacement for it.
In my testing with a vast amount of different builds of straight forward NO Elves the deck almost completely folds to Zoo/Boros type decks. I've also been playing different type of elf builds as Combo Elves, Elfball, Survival Elves, you name it, I've played it.
If you say it's a 40/60 matchup then you're just playing against very bad Zoo players or you're overestimating the decks capability to battle Zoo.
Out of aprox 60 games against different builds of Zoo type decks, I've managed to win 8-10 games, not with elves but a T2 NO into prog which they cannot race. But ok you're right, it has a chance, but it's minimal... Touché.
I don't really understand how your "experience with the deck" have anything to do with innovation and new ideas. Just because you have experince with a build, it doesn't say you're god all mighty. I did not even bother to report my whole experience portfolio. But since it seems to be a must to get my voice heard, I'll just simply have to tell the op of the post and everyone else that I've been playing different elf decks over the past three years. Started playing magic as of the printing of Mirage. That must mean that my arguments and posts are worth more? I'm just saying this blunt and very obvious for you guys to actually realize that stating this is completly retarded. It has little importance if you're vastly experienced with a decktype. Everything you need to know about a deck is it's gameplan and what decks it's up against.
This is the feeling that I get from posting in every thread around the source. There are always some schmucks that tend to be arrogant... This hinders evolution of decks since they aren't open for new ideas.
I'm not saying that your build is complete shite, I'm just stating that playing a deck with unfavourable matchups against one of the most popular decks at tournaments in legacy, will result in total failure or having luck with pairings. Therefore you, I, we, must adapt to the enviroment. What can we do to increase the probabilty of our deck winning against the most played decks. Statistics say that aprox. 19% of the decks brought to tournaments are Zoo-type decks. This is due to the fact that the recent banning of Mystical Tutor had an impact on various combo decks, making them slower and therefore not as viabable in a format where a CMC 4 spell HAS to win the game.
The purpose of forums are to help eachother evolving ideas and not to gun down each new idea without even asking yourselves "why did this guy feel the need to post this and let us know?".
I just have to reply to your statement that my list is built around a lord, this statement is false. It adds a lot to the deck which packs 30 ish boltable creatures. To state that the list is inferior without testing is total bullocks unless you can cleary state why and give constructive arguments for why it's inferior. It's easy to critisize, but harder to actually be constructive when critisizing. Give examples, explain why my choices are worse/better or whatever could be the issue. We should be able to have an open discussion without being rude. I'm just trying to fix the spots where I feel that the archtype has it's weaknesses, I'm not saying that the build is bullet proof, but I'm close to reaching my goal, which is to beat creature based aggro decks. The deck does not even try to copy a Zoo deck, nor playing Zoo's game. That's why the statement that I'm running a inferior ZOO deck, as stated in your post, is false aswell.
This is a tribal deck, the tribal are Elves.
In testing against regular Zoo players with my list I went up to about 55/45 win chance, with elves so big that they can't be bolted or that they have to use two cards to down one of my creatures. Dropping a 4/4 Vanquisher (at least) is house against most cards in a Zoo deck, and Bramblewood Paragons are good in multiples aswell.
The reason for my build to look the way it does is due to the fact that I adopted the outline of one of the most potent and aggressive decks in the format, Zoo. With creatures that's more than often bigger. Adding Bramblewood Paragon into the mix does not force me to play inferior creatures at all since most of the lords and other elves that see play and are viable already have the type Warrior in it's creature type.
Playing maindeck Zealots have also proven to be house against a vast majority of the field in my meta since every deck packs tons of equipment and enchantments.
I would much rather play Aether Vial than the poor 1 mana elves that the tribe can contribute with. And if we're going to discuss the WSS, I would much rather run Vanquisher's or the likes with a bigger body than a "maybe" wolf generating creature. Even Talara's Battalion is better imo in a meta that's packed with aggro decks (since the banning of mystical tutor).
The deck plays out well against many of the aggro decks out there, i.e. Zoo, Boros Sligh, Merfolk, Goblins and so on. To be honest, some games are difficult to play and very tight, and if you don't keep your head straight, you'll easily lose. But that's the same for most decks. No deck can autopilot itself to victory.
But ok, if you and the rest of the people think that I should take the deck idea and shove it up my ass and shut it. Then I will.
My bad that I'm trying to evolve a deck that atleast have game against decks and don't self destruct if we don't hit 4 mana and NO, hoping that they cannot counter it...
Synergy is the key to legacy, not playing a deck that when it runs like a God, it rapes, but when you get the shite hands, it completely self-destruct... Consistency, synergy and knowing what your deck is supposed to do and do it well is what every deckbuild should consider.
Most skilled Zoo players will just focus on holding the lord count down and let your 1/1 and 2/2 elves sit there, being beaten down by their way larger beats... You cannot simply outrace a good Zoo player with 1/1 and 2/2 elves with abilities that don't make a difference and affect the opponents board.
I'm not saying that my build is the perfect build, on the contrary, it folds to combo, it's still in development and could be further improved. But the fact that we limit ourselves to a card pool containing the creature type elves result in that we have to play sub-par cards, compare Pridemage vs. Zealot.
Either way, peace out. Won't post in this thread anymore due to being gunned down for new innovations. Even though the two decks have the same gameplan, which result in that a new thread would not be considered viable.
Last edited by Hawdes; 07-10-2010 at 06:55 AM.
This is entirely false as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you need to learn to mulligan better. I haven't played 60 games with NO, I've had more then a full year of testing with exactly this build, 60 games is like a weeks worth of games - I did 52 of those. If you want to know why experience matters; that's why.If you say it's a 40/60 matchup then you're just playing against very bad Zoo players or you're overestimating the decks capability to battle Zoo.
Out of aprox 60 games against different builds of Zoo type decks, I've managed to win 8-10 games, not with elves but a T2 NO into prog which they cannot race. But ok you're right, it has a chance, but it's minimal... Touché.
Another experience with the deck I have had is that I already went the route you suggested, as I said in my post (perhaps read it?) I quite frankly don't have the time to search through 63 pages of topic (on mtgsalvation) but I already suggested your idea and I got a MWS file from september 2009 (when Oran Rief got spoiled) where I added it to the deck, therefor, your comment that I haven't tested it is false. I have a pretty damn good idea what I'm talking about and unless you got some completely different testing results (with a little more then just 60 games) I am saying still saying that it was "complete shite". The deck is working on cute synergies, Bramblewood Paragon (bad topdeck) and Oran-Rief coupled with otherwise subpar cards (3 WRV, 4 Zealot).
Your list is building around the lord, as was my list. You're playing creatures that you otherwise wouldn't be playing. Four Viridian Zealots main is a good example of that. You want to play more warriors even though those warriors aren't any good without the bonuses from. Figure out for yourself if Bramblewood Paragon is the 56th-60th card you added, if it isn't you probably did build around him. If it is the 56th till 60th card you made some very suboptimal choices along the road.
Your manabase is completely weak, fetches, CITP lands and duals. You're playing exactly the type of manabase that tempo decks prey on. Your plan of creating huge creatures can be interrupted by a wasteland, I hope I don't need to explain the legacy fundamentals.
I don't know what you want me to tell you. You come into a topic with a completely different decklist that has a completely different plan, I already tested nearly exactly that exact list and didn't like it at all, should I tell you I like the list anyway even though it was clumsy as hell in testing for me? I'm not going to do that sorry. If that hurts your ego then that wasn't my intention, I'm not commenting to you as a person but on a build I already tried and shot down.
But prove me wrong, go ahead and win a tournament with the deck. According to you, you got a great matchup against the entire field but combo. Good luck there.
You got a whole paragraph of rambling which I will forgive you for, I obviously hurt your feelings so you felt the need to lash back even though it isn't backed up by either facts or testing. I can tell you you're wrong but you probably know that already.
The correct way to sbl against Painterstone is 4 Krosan Grip, 1 Terastodon and 1 Kozilek/Gaea's Blessing/Emrakul/Ulamog (Ula the best one there) it allows you to tap out and do whatever.
I respectfully have different experiences. I used to be a dredge player myself and it's fairly easy to win through some Wolf tokens. Dredge has a pretty big difference in skill level between players, maybe that's why your experience differs so much.Notes:
WSS is nuts, if they don't have removal for him he is often 6 power for 2 mana. Him sticking is akin to priest or archdruid sticking with plenty of guys in hand.
I think dredge is a far better MU than what Naz has it listed on the primer. WSS just seems to be so nuts in that department. The wolves provide a solid defense against the zombies and they have no way of removing it really. The MU gets a lot better as well after SB.
I agree that G1 is not good. But you do bring out 10 disenchant effects post board, which is more then most decks can do. There's not a single deck out there that has mass enchantment removal in the SB (disk, perhaps). Another thing is that you probably should board in GY hate as well I disagree that the MU is worse then I stated, you have a lot more tools to fight Enchantress then most decks and a card like Elephant Grass doesn't hurt you as much as for instance Goblins or Merfolk.Enchantress I think is a far worse MU than listed. Game 1 is nearly unwinnable, as unless you are running zealot the deck has no answer for a turn 4 moat or confinement. Games 2 and 3 get betters, but not by much. I think chalice is essential in this MU because you need a chalice @2 to stop argothian enchantress. Going first is huge because sticking chalice @2 before they land an enchantress or sterling grove makes it really hard for them to win.
Priest enables the powerplays the deck can make. In some matchups this becomes important because you'll need to overwhelm your opponent. As well as casting NO's or alike. I think you're better off with Goblins or Merfolk if you're not into that.I found priest of titania to be extremely lacking. Most of the time, for dropping lots of dudes or using imperious perfect, the 1 mana dorks and archdruid are usually enough. Priest mana only seems useful when I start chaining messengers together. The problem is I can't think of any decent replacement for it.
I did some testing this evening (list similar Nessaja's from the recent report, but MD Terastodon for meta reasons) to with Ichorid (non-LED) and that deck can have issues dealing with a fast Progenitus, especially if you have a few blockers on defense. I think if you know your opponent is playing Ichorid, aggressively mulliganing into NO isn't a terrible idea.
I disagree with the whole skill level players in dredge. The guy I was playing was one of the best combo players on Team Unicorn. Despite me being a significantly worse player than he is, the deck just does a ton vs Ichorid. With messengers and WSS, you churn out so many dudes and lords that the zombies, ichorids, and grave trolls pale in comparison. Unless ichorid does some degenerate turn 3 10 zombies + FKZ or something, I find it really hard to lose the MU.
Enchantress is one of the decks that I don't playing priest, because you need to empty the hand and storm the enchantress player before the enchantress player hits turn 4 and can sterling grove/draw/tutor something like moat. While we do have a ton of disenchant effects, half of them are blanked by a single sterling grove. We do have a MUCH better MU against enchantress than say goblins, but by no means is it 50-50. Also, why the hell would you bring in GY hate vs a few replenish? That dilutes the elf count so much that essentially the only way to win is beat face with NO.
I do agree that priest is needed in some MU to power out something like 3 lords in a single turn to have lethal for next turn. Against decks that you need to win by turn 4 (primarily combo), having a cradle effect (cradle, archdruid, priest) is essential in racing them. Its also pretty good against Tabernacle. However, I just feel like the deck needs something else than a mana dork against the DTB. Right now agaisnt Zoo, I just want a card that helps stabilize. For the most part, I feel that the only way to really win vs Zoo is either them not burning out your mana dorks (which doesn't happen against good Zoo players for the most part) or resolving a super fast NO. I know the priest can do broken things (and i love having a Joraga warcaller with 20 counters on it), its just that the priest doesn't do it often enough for me.
It's not worth disputing the Zoo matchup because this decks performance against Zoo has already been debated in the thread, and the conclusion was that it's a even matchup, or 40/60 in favor of Zoo.
But thank you for actually confirming my previous statements that a Elf deck will often just sit there with mana dorks or whatever nonthreat against good Zoo players, and that it's the early NO that usually seals the deal.
In legacy it's hard to actually have mana dump cards that are actually playable. You should be glad to obtain 5-7 mana with a deck in legacy even if it's mana dorks, Cradles etc. What's the point in having more than 5 mana if you can't stick a card on the board with a sufficient threat level?
I can't more than agree with you that Zoo type decks (decks that have a very high aggression level along side with burn) are the hardest matchups any elfdeck can be paired against, and it's the same for all elf strategies. That's why cutting Priest of Titania is a good call in my opinion. Theoretically, a mana dork ain't a threat per say, but it ramps into threats, having x Llanowars y Fyndhorns and z Archdruids are quite enough.
I think that it is required to up the threat density in such a deck, not adding or holding on to that many mana producers... But that's just my conclusion from testing this deck and all other decks.
Someone has to come up with a solid idea on how to battle these decks. Most SB options have already been tested, from Absolute Law, Steely Resolve to Burrenton Forge-Tender. The only decent answer I've seen are the Wilt-Leaf inclusions (Cavalier and Liege), due to their big bodies that dodge most bolts, but those cards make other matchups worse.
I agree about NO, disagree about sitting around with mana dorks. Zoo players realize that they have enough burn/removal and big dudes to ram through any decent amount of elf power. They fear the NO. Fear it fear it fear it. Zoo realizes that their dudes are big and buff enough to just smash through a small number of lords. Hence, the MU becomes extremely NO dependant. And the easiest way to keep an elf player off NO is to kill every mana dork they play.
Overall, I want a cheap mana dork that can survive bolt. Priest doesn't fill either of those roles. Sure if it sticks and you have elves, its insane. But how often does that come up agaisnt a deck packing essentially 16 removal spells(4 chain, 4 bolt, 3 path, 3 lavamancer)? As for cost, I would much rather prefer a 3rd kind of llanowar elf because on turn 2 i usually have access to around 2-3 mana. I want to cast multiple dudes to set-up for NO the next turn, and by turning a 2 casting card into a 1 casting card I have an easier time casting more dudes. Its also worth noting that priest requires 6 mana to NO it from hand if for instance the Zoo player gets a turn 1 lavamancer, while a 1 mana dork costs only 5.
I should also clarify that this applies to RGx decks only. Against most blue decks (CB/Top, Landstill, Blue lands, Merfolk) priest is still insane, because it often requires a force (yay CA) or one of like 4 removal spells, and if it sticks you spew out elves to no end.
I totally agree with you. NO is house against Zoo, but since we can only run 4 in the deck, no significant card draw or tutor effect, relying on 4 cards in the maindeck to win a match renders 56 cards "useless" (as a figure of speech). The odds of drawing and resolving a NO in the first 5 turns against Zoo are low. That's why it's necessary to make an effort to change the other cards in the deck to actaully beat these RGx decks, since they're rising in popularity. GW Maverick, GW survival, Zoo, New Horizons etc. popularity has risen, and my opinion is that Zoo is one of the best and most aggressive decks in legacy at the moment which easily can deal 12 damage by turn 2.
The mana dork that do survive all the bolts in the world for cmc1 would be priceless, but that won't ever get printed I believe.
I ran a build in 2009 that contained 12 cc1 mana dorks (Llanowar, Fyndhorn, Boreal) and ditched the priests to optimize t2 three mana for lords and other three drops. That deck did very well in testing and I came top18 in a Grand Prix qualifier in Gothenburg. But since the printing of Steppe lynx and the sorts, all these decks have the same problem...
I'm not saying that Mana dorks are bad, but you need something fast enough to sink your mana into that changes the board so drastically that the opponent should consider scooping. Back then my mana sink was Wren's Run Packmaster (Joraga wasn't printed and the format wasn't nearly as fast as it is today) and it worked pretty ok since at that time since Aggro loam, Stifle/Naught and big beats were very popular at that time in my meta (deathtouch was solid).
Priest of Titania is great against control decks packing blue, but you should care for the ever popular Spell Snare, I see it more than often now in my meta.
I think the mana sink you guys are referring to should be Joraga/A hard castable monster in the main. For instance I run 3 Joraga and 1 Terastodon in the main. Having terastodon has actually saved me against problem cards like moat, confinement, noetic scales (huge elves), ensnaring bridge, jitte, etc. It essentially gives you 5 cards (4 NO) in the main that can deal with problem noncreature perms.
@WRPackmaster
I would love her if she didn't champion a creature or at least pumped the wolves as well.
@2CC
I actually only run 6 cards at that slot (4 priest and 2 wss). I'm pretty happy with that because the rest of my creatures are huge threats (13 lords, 1 Terastodon, 4 Messengers, and 4 NOS). I used to run WRV (no pun intended) in the past, but found that I wish it did something else. Tribal synergy is key.
What do you guys think about switching the Ulamog in the SB for an Emrakul? Does the bigger flying superanhilator guy make up for losing the vindicate effect?
Some tourney results:
3rd/4th from 35+
1st out of 18
And hawdes, I won against Zoo, again. I'm 12-3 in games against Zoo in tourneys so far. But I still recognize it's a 40/60 matchup. Which is just fine. Also, the only times opponents win is when they burn away my mana elves, so I can't cast Messenger/Natural Order. You seem to entirely misunderstand this matchup. The only games I have lost against Zoo so far was with Pyroclasm in the SB and Jitte.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
