Page 129 of 147 FirstFirst ... 2979119125126127128129130131132133139 ... LastLast
Results 2,561 to 2,580 of 2929

Thread: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

  1. #2561

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Quote Originally Posted by bl4ckwell View Post
    So Just to continue,

    DnT, I find this a really good matchuo for this deck, and me personally since I play against DnT a lot at both LGS I play at, as well as close friend playing this deck.

    I went 3-1, lost game 1, was close though. I not a huge fan of TNN in this matchup because sometimes 3 mana against DnT can problematic, but it worked out these games.

    My SB was

    +2 ancient grudge
    +1 sylvan library
    +1 counterspell
    +1 dead/gone
    +1 TNN

    -4 FoW
    -2 DoS

    Sylvan and stifle shined post SB in all games. Library kept my hand full with removal for MoR. Stifle on RiP etb trigger was huge, as well as opposing wastelands. Goyfs got big and did work, as did the mongooses. I got TNN casted in one game. My only issue I ran into was Sanctum prelate on 1, but dismember did the trick.
    Do you usually keep a blue open to Stifle the RiP trigger?
    I have had issues where once Vial is resolved, that I get swarmed with creatures and get overwhelmed.
    In other cases, once a MoM gets active I find it really hard to close out a game.

  2. #2562

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Quote Originally Posted by tped View Post
    Do you usually keep a blue open to Stifle the RiP trigger?
    I have had issues where once Vial is resolved, that I get swarmed with creatures and get overwhelmed.
    In other cases, once a MoM gets active I find it really hard to close out a game.
    Yes, I always (when possible) keep one blue open for stifle, spell snare is ideal, worst case spell pierce. Important to keep threshold. Assume the goyfs will always get StP or path to exiled.

  3. #2563

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Quote Originally Posted by bl4ckwell View Post
    So Just to continue,

    DnT, I find this a really good matchuo for this deck, and me personally since I play against DnT a lot at both LGS I play at, as well as close friend playing this deck.

    I went 3-1, lost game 1, was close though. I not a huge fan of TNN in this matchup because sometimes 3 mana against DnT can problematic, but it worked out these games.

    My SB was

    +2 ancient grudge
    +1 sylvan library
    +1 counterspell
    +1 dead/gone
    +1 TNN

    -4 FoW
    -2 DoS

    Sylvan and stifle shined post SB in all games. Library kept my hand full with removal for MoR. Stifle on RiP etb trigger was huge, as well as opposing wastelands. Goyfs got big and did work, as did the mongooses. I got TNN casted in one game. My only issue I ran into was Sanctum prelate on 1, but dismember did the trick.
    I don't understand how you claim D&T is a great matchup for RUG Delver, especially given your SB and your SB strategy. Conventionally speaking, Delver tends to be unfavored against D&T. Counterspell is close to a blank against D&T, and really I'm looking to shave as much non-free countermagic as I can in this matchup, especially anything that cannot address a turn 1 vial, and bringing in as many answers to their permanents as I have. Cutting Delvers is a mistake - even post-board early Delvers are threats that can be ridden to victory, and I'm not fond of Stifle in this matchup and tend to shave a few. I do, however, have a lot more to bring in than you do for the matchup - and earnestly, the complete lack of sweepers and haymakers for the D&T matchup in your SB makes me wonder how you claim to have such a strong matchup.

  4. #2564

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    D&T is not a good matchup, and I think you haven't experienced us having a "normal" draw and them having an above-average draw. They t1 Vial, we play a Delver, then they Plow, Vial in a Mom and Wasteland us and the game is often completely over.

    Considering this list:

    4 Delver of Secrets
    4 Nimble Mongoose
    2 Hooting Mandrills

    4 Ponder
    4 Brainstorm
    2 Predict
    4 Force of Will
    4 Daze
    2 Spell Pierce
    2 Spell Snare
    4 Lightning Bolt
    2 Dismember

    4 Wasteland
    4 Polluted Delta
    4 Flooded Strand
    3 Volcanic Island
    3 Tropical Island

    Sideboard
    3 Pyroblast
    2 True-Name Nemesis
    2 Surgical Extraction
    2 Abrade
    1 Counterspell
    1 Flusterstorm
    1 Ancient Grudge
    1 Life from the Loam
    1 Sylvan Library
    1 Barbarian Ring

    I generally SB:
    +1 Life from the Loam
    +1 Sylvan Library
    +1 Barbarian Ring
    +2 Abrade
    +1 Ancient Grudge
    +2 True-Name Nemesis
    -4 Stifle
    -2 Spell Pierce
    -2 Predict

    I disagree on Stifle's utility in this matchup, and I've long ummed and err on whether to keep it in or not - eventually JonLX convinced me not too. And I agree with him. Your mana is often so cramped that it's hard to hold up a spell like Stifle to defend against Wasteland and honestly in this matchup you want to be as "Zoo-like" as possible and tap out for threats, card advantage (Loam getting us under mana screw also is great) and removal turn after turn. Stifling Stoneforge activations are also less reliable than just killing the creature on the spot and keeping the board clear. I can see keeping in Stifle if they are splashing Red and therefore it has a bit more utility from hitting fetches (I would cut some number of Mongooses then, because they can be hard to get threshed when your mana is cramped). RiP can be a pain but Snare and having the full amount of Delvers (never cut Delver in this matchup - it is really your saving grace and often a hand of double Delver and them not having Vial wins the game from its pure aggression) and TNNs in your deck make it sometimes mediocre. Goyf versions have a better time because the key to this matchup is deploying threats ASAP and being as aggressive as possible before they can set up. The late game can only be won if Loam-Ring or Library and similar card advantage engines get up and running.

  5. #2565

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    My take:
    I agree with Sean on most things:
    - DNT is not a good matchup
    - The Tarmogoyf version is probably superior because it makes it more likely that you can aggro them out. Not only can you just deploy big threats more quickly, but there is also the particular fact that Mandrills always trades with Batterskull but Goyf can just be 4/5 and beat it outright. Mandrills having Trample can be good vs Mother / Karakas but overall Tarmogoyf is probably slightly stronger.
    - Cutting Delver is almost certainly wrong

    The thing I am less sure about is the Stifle issue
    Your mana is often so cramped that it's hard to hold up a spell like Stifle to defend against Wasteland
    While this is kind of true, if your mana is cramped and then they Wasteland you, now your mana situation is even worse. Your DNT opponent's Wastelands are much better than yours because they have Vial and Thalia, so being able to counter them is important.

    This is my strategic perspective on the topic, all the other points I could make in favour of Stifle are just listing all the different things in the matchup you can use it on. I'm not 100% sure this is correct but I lean towards keeping Stifle in SB games vs DNT

  6. #2566

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Quote Originally Posted by BeetsandOlives View Post
    I don't understand how you claim D&T is a great matchup for RUG Delver, especially given your SB and your SB strategy. Conventionally speaking, Delver tends to be unfavored against D&T. Counterspell is close to a blank against D&T, and really I'm looking to shave as much non-free countermagic as I can in this matchup, especially anything that cannot address a turn 1 vial, and bringing in as many answers to their permanents as I have. Cutting Delvers is a mistake - even post-board early Delvers are threats that can be ridden to victory, and I'm not fond of Stifle in this matchup and tend to shave a few. I do, however, have a lot more to bring in than you do for the matchup - and earnestly, the complete lack of sweepers and haymakers for the D&T matchup in your SB makes me wonder how you claim to have such a strong matchup.
    I said "good" matchup, not "great" one. A turn one flipped delver can win games, however with StP and sometimes Path to exile, your delver and/or goyfs with eventually be removed. I feel stifle for opposing wastelands, as well as for the RIP ETB trigger (assuming you cant counter it) is very important. I don't underestimate stifling a batterskull trigger, even though they will most likely flickerwisp it back next turn. We have a lot of solutions for a turn 1 vial game 1. The main thing is to counter/remove the MoR's immediately.

    After game 1, we have so many cantrips to find removal/counters/ancient grudges. Assuming they don't get removed right away, our goyfs get huge in this matchup and can be a fast clock. Daze is always in play, as they use most of their mana tapping our mana with their ports.

    Don't get me wrong, I lost many games to DnT, I just feel it is not as bad of a matchup as its made out to be. I think Maverick, Eldrazi and Lands are our almost unwinnable matchups with this deck, That being said, im a casual player, who never played in a major GP or tournament. I'm just happy to get legacy games in at all.

  7. #2567

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Whats your boarding plan for DnT?

    Spell pierce is ok on the play, but bad on the draw I think. This is a match up I would like to practice more. I think its not that bad overall, but its miserable to play / practice against (Kinda like Lands).

    I think Maverick, Eldrazi and Lands are our almost unwinnable matchups with this deck,
    No idea how Maverick is nowadays, thats a match up where having a few copies of Submerge really changes the dynamic of the whole match up. However, the other 2 are very winnable. Eldrazi is straight up even IMO if you play goyf. Either way Lands is a fine match up, you just need a lot of experience against the deck to determine what spells need to be countered. Ironically enough the Lands deck is very susceptible to getting mana screwed and post board with surgicals I really think the match up is not that bad.

  8. #2568

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Quote Originally Posted by rlesko View Post
    Whats your boarding plan for DnT?

    Spell pierce is ok on the play, but bad on the draw I think. This is a match up I would like to practice more. I think its not that bad overall, but its miserable to play / practice against (Kinda like Lands).



    No idea how Maverick is nowadays, thats a match up where having a few copies of Submerge really changes the dynamic of the whole match up. However, the other 2 are very winnable. Eldrazi is straight up even IMO if you play goyf. Either way Lands is a fine match up, you just need a lot of experience against the deck to determine what spells need to be countered. Ironically enough the Lands deck is very susceptible to getting mana screwed and post board with surgicals I really think the match up is not that bad.
    I'm pretty sure I would rather play against Eldrazi than DNT
    Lands / DNT is about the same I think, DNT might even be harder
    Maverick I have no idea because nobody plays it anymore

  9. #2569

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Quote Originally Posted by kombatkiwi View Post
    I'm pretty sure I would rather play against Eldrazi than DNT
    Lands / DNT is about the same I think, DNT might even be harder
    Maverick I have no idea because nobody plays it anymore
    Eldrazi in my experience is tough, especially if you're on Mandrills. I'm in full agreement that the goyfs go a very long way towards improving the matchup. The matchup feels similar to how the D&T matchup plays out in that you're clearly the aggressor, but more things matter in your opponent's deck than in yours, and only by combining an aggressive start and drawing more of your relevant cards than your opponent draws out of their deck do you actually pull out a win.

    I'm currently on this list:

    18 land RUG core

    4 Delver
    4 Mongoose
    2 Goyf

    4 Brainstorm
    4 Ponder
    4 Force
    4 Daze
    4 Stifle
    4 Bolt
    2 Spell Snare
    2 Spell Pierce
    2 Chain Lightning
    1 Forked Bolt
    1 Preordain

    3 Surgical
    1 Snapcaster
    1 Sylvan Library
    2 Pyroblast
    2 True Name
    1 Flusterstorm
    1 Ancient Grudge
    1 Abrade
    1 Pithing Needle
    1 Dismember
    1 Rough // Tumble

    Against D&T with this SB, I board as follows:

    - 2 Spell Pierce
    - 3 Stifle
    - 4 Daze (on the draw) / -4 Force (on the play)
    +2 TNN
    +1 Dismember
    +1 Rough // Tumble
    +1 Abrade
    +1 Ancient Grudge
    +1 Pithing Needle
    +1 Sylvan Library
    +1 Snapcaster

  10. #2570

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    As GP Seattle comes closer, and having played a lot of Grixis Delver to help my friends test, is there any reason we aren't playing some number of Gitaxian Probe? I've been trying 2, and while we don't have Young Pyromancer utility, it fills our graveyard for free for Goose, it allows us better control over our cantrips, it helps us play around removal, know when we need countermagic up, what to keep with Brainstorm, and whether we go turn 1 threat or hold up Stifle, It seems phenomenal, and trying out 2 right now I'm really liking it.

    Thoughts? Have people already tried this and determined it's not any better than the other things to be doing?

  11. #2571

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    With regards to the Probe comment, and because I don't think anybody has mentioned this list in the thread yet:

    Ondrej Strasky GP Madrid 2018 RUG

    Comment from twitter:
    "This is what I played at the GP. Wouldn't recommend moving forward but I think it's better than my record (X-6) shows. I punted 2 matches I maybe could have won. The offline meta is different to online and this deck is much worse offline"

    4 Flooded Strand
    4 Polluted Delta
    3 Volcanic Island
    3 Tropical Island
    4 Wasteland

    4 Probe
    4 Brainstorm
    4 Ponder
    1 Preordain

    3 Stifle
    4 Daze
    4 Force
    1 Pyroblast

    4 Bolt
    1 Forked Bolt
    1 Dismember

    4 Delver
    4 Mongoose
    2 Tarmogoyf
    1 TNN

    SB
    2 Flusterstorm
    1 Spell Pierce
    2 TNN
    2 Surgical
    2 Sylvan Library
    2 Pyroclasm
    2 Pyroblast
    1 Grudge
    1 Price of Progress

    With no YP, Delve cards, or Cabal Therapy, in my mind Probe is moving towards 'training wheels' territory for this deck.
    I don't think it's an awful decision to play it, as having perfect information does sometimes allow you to make plays that would be suboptimal otherwise
    However, there are enough matchups where the lifeloss is important that I think the drawback outweighs the upside

    I do think playing 4 (As Ondrej has done) is excessive when you have no other payoff except Threshold/Info
    Note that playing Pyroclasm over Rough//Tumble is fine if you expect to play against Grixis all day but is obviously much worse against e.g. Elves

  12. #2572

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    My experience with the deck leads me to believe Probe is a trap. For one, the decklist is very tight, and there's really no significant need to dilute the deck any further with even more air. The state of the format right now is such that running any fewer than 6 removal spells is straight insanity, as unanswered DRS neuter your game plan so strongly that you must answer them as soon as possible. However, at the same time, you need countermagic to help you gain and preserve tempo - I would not play with any less than 2 Spell Snare at any point right now given how prevalent 2cmc brick walls are that are difficult to answer otherwise (Strix, Stoneforge, and Chalice on 1 being among a few that RUG traditionally struggles heavily with). At the end of the day, where do you find room for all these cards while preserving the tempo game plan?

    I think the information Probe yields is certainly not anything to dismiss, but as kombatkiwi says, there are so few other tangible benefits to Probe otherwise that it's really just not worth the inclusion. Even if I were on Mandrills, I still wouldn't consider running the card - it just doesn't do enough relative to other cards you could run in RUG Delver.

  13. #2573

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Quote Originally Posted by BeetsandOlives View Post
    My experience with the deck leads me to believe Probe is a trap. For one, the decklist is very tight, and there's really no significant need to dilute the deck any further with even more air. The state of the format right now is such that running any fewer than 6 removal spells is straight insanity, as unanswered DRS neuter your game plan so strongly that you must answer them as soon as possible. However, at the same time, you need countermagic to help you gain and preserve tempo - I would not play with any less than 2 Spell Snare at any point right now given how prevalent 2cmc brick walls are that are difficult to answer otherwise (Strix, Stoneforge, and Chalice on 1 being among a few that RUG traditionally struggles heavily with). At the end of the day, where do you find room for all these cards while preserving the tempo game plan?

    I think the information Probe yields is certainly not anything to dismiss, but as kombatkiwi says, there are so few other tangible benefits to Probe otherwise that it's really just not worth the inclusion. Even if I were on Mandrills, I still wouldn't consider running the card - it just doesn't do enough relative to other cards you could run in RUG Delver.
    The argument that it's 'filling your deck with air' makes no sense and is not something I agree with at all.
    Yes 6 removal spells seems to be a 'good number' but if you have 4 free cantrips in your deck you are more likely to draw these spells, not less. Maybe you have to cut 1 removal to fit and 3+ probes, but the math might work out about the same (or at least there would be some other configuration that would be beneficial)

    If it cost 0 life and 0 mana it would be an auto include, the only reason not to use it would be if you expect to play against Thalia/Thorn all the time

    For example I think Andrejs list would be good if probe was totally free
    Maindeck pyro is probably still too 'online' but the rest of it makes sense

  14. #2574

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Probe isn't technically free. It costs 2 life to play it "for free," which is a real cost, especially in Delver mirrors. In addition, the mere inclusion of Probes means that you have to shift the ratios of the cards you include. Most lists have at most 10 flex slots to play around with, after you account for the 18 land core plus a minimum of 10 creatures in the main deck. This also assumes that you do not include Pierce and Snare as part of your RUG Delver core, which is something I do not agree with. Playing Probe carries with it a non-negligible opportunity cost in that your ratios of action spells just don't work out well enough to enable you to fit everything into 60 cards; my opinions based on my experience with the deck is that RUG Delver really requires a critical mass of cheap countermagic to enable its otherwise middling cards to eke out wins, and really, if I could afford to play fewer removal spells I would gladly do so if not for the existence of DRS. That being said, Probe in RUG Delver has always been an interesting topic and it's worth discussing, especially whenever cards are printed that enable more synergies within the deck such as Mandrills.

    Regarding Strasky's list: you can see what I mean with regards to how the Probes take up deck space to the exclusion of other cards that you would want to play. He's not playing Pierces nor Snares, and while he's got a Pyroblast maindeck, it's really not enough countermagic as a whole for me to feel comfortable personally. Shaving Snares hurts your matchups across the board, and I can't imagine him having a very hot game 1 against combo on the back of just Daze, Force and Pyroblast.

  15. #2575

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Probe isn't technically free. It costs 2 life to play it "for free," which is a real cost, especially in Delver mirrors.
    I have never disagreed with this, and it is the reason why I don't play probe. Go back and read my posts again

    In addition, the mere inclusion of Probes means that you have to shift the ratios of the cards you include.
    Yes, this is something I also said in my previous post

    Playing Probe carries with it a non-negligible opportunity cost in that your ratios of action spells just don't work out well enough to enable you to fit everything into 60 cards
    This is an extremely bold/absurd claim that requires way more justification than you have provided
    In a deck with no tutors the utility of having playing situational answers is very small. Sure, I like playing Snare and Pierce and Seal of Fire because I think they are good cards. However, I have to look for these other 'good' cards because I am only allowed to play 4 of the best cards. In most situations I would rather just have 6 bolts and 5 Dazes. (Or something around there; I would have to test a bit to find an optimal ratio if such a thing was allowed)

    Have you ever considered playing 61 cards (or more) in order to fit extra Pierce/Snare/Removal?
    If your answer is 'of course not' (which is the correct answer and what I expect you to say) then please pause for a second and re-think your opinion on Probe

  16. #2576

    [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Hello all,

    On probe: during the treasure cruise days, many of us experimented with probe with the significant upside of having cruise. My configuration for GP New Jersey was 3 probes, 3 cruises and 3 pyromancer.

    Even with all that the deck felt schizophrenic ( ie multiple personality disorder like):
    I like the training wheel aspect going into 9 rounds with not as much practice as many. Being able to play the young pyro game with ton of draw was great. Being able to also play the delver daze game was also great. Being cut in the middle was bad. Top decking into strategy 1 when on a strategy 2 game was far from optimal but we could afford it because of the benefit and the absurdity of treasure cruise.

    I would consider 2 going into a large event less prepare to help me against a wide meta.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #2577

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    I missed your earlier comments on Probe and life loss, so that's my bad.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but our primary point of debate, it seems, centers on two factors:
    1. What exactly does opportunity cost entail in including cantrips?
    2. Does the benefit to playing Probe outweigh the inclusion of other, more "situational" cards?

    On my end, I don't see how my claim that playing Probe has a non-negligible opportunity cost is bold. You and I both appear to agree that deviation from 60 cards in the maindeck is a mistake, so understandably, the inclusion of a card in your deck necessitates the exclusion of another card. If we wanted to look at this issue from a different standpoint, I see the question as such:

    Given 10 flex slots to supplement the 50 card RUG core, is the inclusion of any number of Probe going to alter the number of other cards that would otherwise be included?
    We seem to agree that 6 removal spells is the minimum we would run, so really that's 8 flex slots.

    Here it's worth exploring the second point: what exactly is the benefit to running Probe and how do we value it relative to other cards?

    My opinion on Probe's information is pretty similar to yours - I think the information is helpful for sure in guiding decision making, but the most relevant situation I can think of where the information is relevant is turn 1, when you decide whether to cantrip, lay down Delver, or hold up Stifle/Pierce/Bolt. Besides assessing quality of hands in combo matchups and determining whether to drop shields to deploy a goyf, these are the main situations where I see the information as being of significant value. It's basically training wheels, and I agree with you with that assessment. The information aspect in most other matchups begins to lose relevance over the course of the game as both players make land drops and play out cards, so my impression is that this would incentivize us to play more rather than fewer Probes to see it more often in our initial 7 and maximize this benefit, especially when you consider that there's not much else to Probe otherwise.

    Probe as a cantrip is crud by Legacy standards, since it sees one card compared to other cantrips. Keeping a hand and factoring Probe as a card to improve your card quality is a mistake since it replaces itself with a single unknown card, so you can't evaluate Probe as a cantrip in the same vein as Preordain. It won't dig you into lands or action the same way.

    To tie it all together, given that you'd likely want to play Probe at least as a 3 of, if not a 4 of to maximize the number seen in your opening hand, I don't see Probe as something I would want to include to the exclusion of, say, Spell Pierces and Spell Snares, or an 11th creature, or a Preordain, or a 7th removal spell, to mention what the Probes are competing for space with. I personally feel that I would rather increase the amount of relevant interaction in my deck than include Probe.

    As you and I both agree, the minor synergy of accelerating threshold and increasing sorcery count for goyf barely factors in this decision, and the life loss is definitely not negligible. These are just my opinions though, and I definitely respect that other pilots have successfully run Probe in RUG Delver to success. It's not wrong to play Probe in RUG Delver, but the way I think about RUG Delver leads me to think I'd rather play other cards instead of Probe.

  18. #2578

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    I still don't think you get it

    If probe didn't cost life, the only drawbacks are metagame considerations, e.g:
    - It is bad against tax effects because it's typically not good value for 1 mana
    - It's bad against Chalice because it costs 1 (but this is only a meaningful drawback if you would be playing cards with other CMC instead)
    [NB] replacing 'actual cards' with 0-mana cyclers does make mulligan decisions harder, which is another slightly relevant downside, but it's worth remembering that often when this argument against probe has been made in the past, it's for decks like Charbelcher where the specific contents of the opening hand is much more important.

    Apart from these insignificant downsides, no-life probe has all the benefits of actual-probe:
    - Puts another card in your yard for threshold/delve
    - Gives you info on the opponent's hand
    - If it's replacing lands or creatures in the list then it increases the % of Delver flips
    - Most importantly, replaces itself. For 0 mana. YOU GET TO PLAY A 56 CARD DECK

    If you definitely, confidently, 100% wouldn't go over 60 cards to play more removal spells or more spell pierces or whatever,
    Then surely you must be willing to consider playing 59 cards to ensure you draw your best cards more often?
    You seem to be suggesting that no, exactly 60 cards is the most optimal configuration to win games. Isn't it convenient that somehow that is also exactly the minimum amount of cards that the DCI allows? What a coincidence...

    Probe as a cantrip is crud by Legacy standards, since it sees one card compared to other cantrips.
    OTHER CANTRIPS COST MANA

  19. #2579

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Kiwi, are you supportive of Gitaxian Probe or no? I was having a hard time determining your stance on the matter from your posts.

    My thoughts on probe are that the slots in our deck are too precious - there are much more impactful cards than probe.

    The whole comparison about a 56 card deck is pretty wrong, IMO. Of course, theoretically speaking, a 56 card deck would be better than a 60 card deck because you would have a higher probability of drawing better cards. However, comparing a 56 card deck to a 60 card deck with 4 probes is quite disingenuous. When you draw an opening hand with probe its difficult for it to be evaluated - since you don't know what you'll draw off the probe (even discounting the fact that you'll pay 2 life). With 56 cards, you can build your decks manabase and creature count around that. With 60 cards and 4 "cycle spells", you still have to design your deck with 60 cards in mind, as you may not draw the "cyclers".

    Grixis delver benefits from probe on 2 other axes - 1. cast triggers for young pyro and 2. cabal therapy (in addition to fueling the graveyard for gurmag, whereas we fuel the graveyard for mongoose / goyf). So consider that when evaluating why its such a good spell for grixis, but not a great spell for RUG.

  20. #2580

    Re: [Deck] Canadian Threshold (aka RUG Delver, Tempo Thresh)

    Here's another way to view the Probe issue and deckspace considerations, if you don't understand my line of reasoning.

    Remember the controversy years ago about including fetches in every deck because of the argument that thinning the deck of lands enables you to draw over action over the course of a game? Including Probe purely to thin your deck in this fashion is reminiscent.

    Consider this scenario: you're on the draw and you have a deck with 4 Bolts for removal only because you cut cards to fit 4 Probe. Your opponent resolves turn 1 DRS and you don't have a Bolt in your starting 7.

    Without getting too involved in the statistics, as I'm not a statistician, the odds of you drawing a Bolt as your first draw of the game are 4/53, or 7.5%. Even if you go with the very simplistic view of Probes decreasing your deck size to 56, your odds of topping a Bolt go up to 4/49, which is a mere 8.1%. This is most likely an incorrect treatment of the numbers, but this is also a best case view of how the numbers would be given your interpretation of how Probes are supposed to increase the likelihood of drawing live.

    As an additional calculation, the odds of Pondering into a Bolt on turn 1 don't significantly increase with this comparison, going from a 25.6% to a 27.2% success rate when comparing deck size of 52 vs. 48 respectively.

    This is because decreases to deck size, or the denominator, are almost negligible, especially when factoring the life loss associated with fetchlands and Probe, which you yourself have also concurred with as being significant. What isn't negligible is changes to the number of actual hits, or the business spells. If you run 6 removal spells, the hit rate goes to 6/53 or 11.3%, which is more significant a bump than going from 4/53 to 4/49.

    As I've stated before and rlesko is saying, slots in RUG Delver are very precious. The decklist is very tight, so every inclusion has to count. Diluting your deck with cards that don't do enough to warrant their inclusion is not something I personally am a fan of.

    If your line of reasoning was one more agreed upon, more decks would run Probe and Mishra's/Urza's Bauble, but most decks don't because of the need to run cards with actual relevant text.

    I really have no idea why you're getting so worked up over this debate, but we can agree to disagree.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)