How is it a dangerous philosophy? Having a single creature that helps you out more than not, seems reasonable.This is a dangerous philosophy to endorse, and it seems to go against the basic premise of RGSA.
How does it go against the basic premise of RGSA? What is the basic premise of RGSA? There are other one-of creatures that can usually only be found in your hand by tutoring for them with Survival of the Fittest, such as Viridian Zealot, or Goblin Sharpshooter. None of the one-of creatures are going to be top-decked very often.
Since Ranger would be a one-of, it's not going to lose you games, because you will rarely top-deck it. Besides, if you do top-deck it, you will almost always be happy to see it, because it gives you more mana. The only time it does not, is when you have no mana-creatures on the board. How often do you think you will top-deck the Ranger while also having no mana-creatures on the board? There is much more chance of top-decking a Zealot, or, Sharpshooter when you don't want them. A top-decked Ranger is useful many times more often than a Zealot, or Sharpshooter. Even an FTK can be a dead card (when there are no creatures in play), and there are 4 of them in the deck.
A creature that is good (by 'good' I assume you mean 'can only reliably be found to be in your hand once you've resolved a Survival') IS exactly the type of creature that will win you games, because you are only going to Survival for it when you think you require it to help you win a game.What you really need to say is that Ranger's utility will win you more games than her shittiness will lose. And in this deck, a creature that is only good once you've resolved Survival probably won't do that.
Besides the mana acceleration, and ability to protect your Lands from being destroyed, Quirion Ranger also works well to untap a Sharpshooter, so you can kill 2 toughness creatures.
The Ranger is a multi-purpose card. It is very useful, and very powerful. I do not remember ever being disappointed when top-decking one.
Anyways, that's my opinion on Quirion Ranger.
quicksilver: what's your opinion on Uktabi Orangutan? I see you're only running one Viridian Zealot, and I think in a lot of games you might like having a 2nd artifact-kill spell. I guess you do have Burning Wishes for that, but how do you feel about running 1 Zealot and 1 Sex Monkey?
Luis
I guess I should clarify what I meant by calling Diablos' statement dangerous. The idea that adding a 1-of won't hurt the deck all that much because you'll almost never draw it can be used to justify the inclusion of pretty much any situational card, because you have Survival to fetch it when you do want it. However, embracing that sort of thinking will weaken the deck, because RGSA's premise, as I understand it, is to function as well as possible without a Survival. Even in its most basic form, the Survival engine (Survival, Squee, Genesis, and Anger) is powerful enough to win games on its own, so maximizing the deck's non-Survival game is logical and a major reason to play RGSA in the first place.
Basically, I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that Ranger is going to win you a significant number of games because you need Rofellos to produce more mana once Survival is online. However, I do not find it difficult to imagine you losing a comparably significant number of games because you don't have a Survival out and you topdeck a Ranger instead of a good card.
Again, you can't expect to get the Survival engine online every game, and focusing on winning those games that you don't seems more worthwhile than just improving your ideal scenario.
As for Zealot and Sharpshooter, they are both more powerful, and more versatile. Zealot is a 2-power beater (2 is much better than 1), and Sharpshooter on its own is an incredible topdeck against Goblins and other creature decks. However, their presence in the deck undoubtedly does impact its consistency; the utility effects of each, with or without Survival online, have been proven to outweigh this drawback. Of course, Ranger is far more situational than either of them, because it relies on interactions with other cards to be useful.
Edited By Obfuscate Freely on 1129244203
Originally Posted by nitewolf9
It wasn't a statement that I'm trying to embrace. I'm just saying, as mentioned earlier, Ranger will end up doing you much more good than harm. There's a small, small chance drawing Ranger will have a significant impact on the outcome of your game if drawn at the wrong time, when there's a great chance you can win the game quicker thanks to her.I guess I should clarify what I meant by calling Diablos' statement dangerous. The idea that adding a 1-of won't hurt the deck all that much because you'll almost never draw it can be used to justify the inclusion of pretty much any situational card, because you have Survival to fetch it when you do want it. However, embracing that sort of thinking will weaken the deck, because RGSA's premise, as I understand it, is to function as well as possible without a Survival. Even in its most basic form, the Survival engine (Survival, Squee, Genesis, and Anger) is powerful enough to win games on its own, so maximizing the deck's non-Survival game is logical and a major reason to play RGSA in the first place.
So, you're saying the ability to cast an extra Baloth or FTK a turn earlier isn't going to make much of an impact? If I'm able to cast two Baloth's on turn four instead of one then I'd damn well like to do that.Basically, I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that Ranger is going to win you a significant number of games because you need Rofellos to produce more mana once Survival is online.
It's like you aren't grasping the idea of a survival deck or something. Since when has getting 'more mana' been a bad thing when running a Survival engine? Never. The more mana you have, the faster you play, the more creatures you play, and the faster you win. It really can't be broken down further than that. You can access nearly double the mana as the turns progress, and you rush out of the floodgates like crazy.
True, but you also can't assume that every game you're going to draw a singleton compared to a powered-up playset of something like Survival, Witness, Baloth, FTK, etc. At worst it's a chump blocker. It's flexibility is too great to ignore though.Again, you can't expect to get the Survival engine online every game, and focusing on winning those games that you don't seems more worthwhile than just improving your ideal scenario
Well I guess I either disagree with Diablos' statement, or your interpretation of his statement, because I don't believe having a Ranger in the deck will hurt the deck at all. If the deck had no Survival in it, then you'd want to run more than one Ranger. The reason one is enough is because you DO have Survival in the deck. Top-decking a Ranger is not a liability. If you top-deck a Ranger, the chances that you cannot take advantage of it are very slim, since you simply need to have at least one mana-creature in play (you have 9 of them in the deck), or a Sharpshooter in play, or be playing against a deck full of Wastelands (or other Land Destruction). At least one of those situations will almost always be present.I guess I should clarify what I meant by calling Diablos' statement dangerous. The idea that adding a 1-of won't hurt the deck all that much because you'll almost never draw it...
It's really not that much of a situational card. Or more correct would be to say that the "situations" that it helps in are VERY often present. There is rarely a time that it doesn't help you. Almost every game I play, I WANT the Ranger on the board. If Survival is not in play, I hope to top-deck it. If Survival is in play, the Ranger is one of the first creatures I tutor for.The idea that adding a 1-of won't hurt the deck all that much because you'll almost never draw it can be used to justify the inclusion of pretty much any situational card
Although this statement is technically true, it's place in your argument is, I believe, flawed because the other cards that it needs to have around to interact with, are almost always present.Of course, Ranger is far more situational than either of them, because it relies on interactions with other cards to be useful.
New question: What are people's current thoughts on running equipment? (i.e. Jitte or SoFI) Can equipment be fit into a version running Burning Wish? I want to add 3 Jittes to my version very badly since Sligh and Gobbos are running rampant, but I can't find the space while still running Burning Wish. The weakest slots in my deck are probably the 4 Trolls I run, but if they get cut then the Jittes also become weaker. Is it worth running equipment? Furthermore, are Trolls even worth running with Landstill on the decline?
In addition, is Rabid Wombat enough of a threat to merit Flashfires as a Wish target?
I realize these are all questions that only thorough testing can answer, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that my time and resources are solely limited.
The problems I see with RGSA for now are the issue of its good match on the decline. Landstill is easy to beat with a version running burning wishes, but goblins still is not an easy match-up. Their best hands simply trump whatever we can do. As it stands i would not take RGSA to a tournament due to its combo matchup and goblins being less than 50%. If your ot running the wishes you should really question why. What do you lose by running them?
In light of what we all know but don't want to admit, RGSA no longer has the matchups to warrant being on top. We all know this. What I am asking myself is why has the black splash not been more closely considered. Myself and a few other Ohio players have fiddled around with using the Therapies main and it has done WONDERS to our matchups. It resolves wishes more often, it knocks Piledrivers/ Ringleaders out of Goblin decks hands, it knocks out Wrath of God. It does so much to help this decks problems. The only thing we have run into is the manabase problems. If this can be resolved to a good amount, the decks maindeck and sideboard become MUCH stronger against the entire field
Birds of Paradise never kills that first turn lackey. Sakura Tribe Elder does not sack to therapy. Wood Elves doesn't come down on turn 2 unless a mana elf lives for a turn which happens less and less for us. I don't have a decklist handy as I have the deck torn apart at the moment but I just wanted to catch some of the other survival players opinions on this issue.
Team Meandeck
What matchups are you afraid of? You have inevitability over Landstill so long as you're not an idiot - plus you have additional threats in Burning Wish for Ruination or Tsunami. Wall of Blossoms maindeck means that Goblins isn't punching through without a huge army... which incidentally gets rolled up by the Wish for Pyroclasm.
To be blunt, Burning Wish is the only reason I would play this deck anymore... and it isn't even in the best colors to abuse that really freaking retarded tutor.
Are you saying that in all your playing that goblins is a good matchup for you. This is insane. They are flat out faster can gain more card advantage early and can disrupt us easier than we disrupt them. Trust me its not a bad match up but by no means good.
@Lyle H: Mana base issue forced me to abandon black splashes. It takes away from this decks strength, reliability and resieliency. And by the way I did admit it.
One of the strongest points of disruption from Goblins come from Ports and Wastelands. Adding a 3rd colour is quite suicidal in that regard.
Burning Wish version here obviously have the advantage of Wishing for Pyroclasm and such, possible SB suggestions would be additional Sharpshooters. I honestly believe that 2 active Sharpshooter will almost definately means a win for that match. Other considtions includes Spike Feeder, (Coming down on turn 2, can trade with Warchief and Piledriver and gain life.), or even as extreme as Mogg Fanatic, giving the deck more 1 drops to nullify the Lackey nut draw.
Nothing witty to say.
I watched Survival Advantage vs. Goblins this week at our PTQ, and Sword of Fire and Ice was the nutz! The RGSA player was already having a field day with Flame Tongue Kavus and Baloths, and then the Sword started punching Baloths through for 6 and killing the important goblins. Between FTKs and the Sword, the goblins player could not keep relevent cards like Piledriver, Warchief, and Goblin King on the board. Even without Survival he was able to smash the goblins player. Cards like Troll, Baloth, and FTK are amazing in the matchup, and topdecking cards like Elder, Zealot, and Sex Monkey are all still good in the matchup. I disagree that it is a bad matchup.
If the Goblins player leads with Lackey, it can get dicey. However, if we get the survival engine on line, we should win. Turn 1 mana critter, if its a birds, let lackey through, if elf, I would still be tempted to let it through if Survival or Troll is in hand. Turn two drop either Elder, Survival, or Troll, Survival being the best. Then every turn, drop an FTK or Baloth, then grab Sharpshooter and stuff...and you just win. Your life total will drop close to that all important last point, but the first 18 don't matter (19 except for topdecking fanatic for the win...), or 16 if they play bolt and have not yet used one.
I also disagree with the removal of the Troll. He is a very solid blocker in the Goblins matchup, killing any goblin in the deck with 1G. He is very solid against control and any deck packing StP. If you are running SoFI, he gets even better!
Now, I understand Burning Wish is a great card in the deck, and that some argue that it is as good as Survival itself, but I disagree about removing Troll. I am also curious to see what people think about SoFI, because it is not dead in any matchup, and it is very good in several. Is there anyone that continues to run the SoFI?
InfoNinjas
@Angry: What you saw was the best case scenerio for the goblin matchup. Usually if you can get to 5 mana with survival on the table then you should win, thing is it doesnt happen every time. Good goblin players will murder your mana men and can gain sugnificant card advantage through ringleaders. This can happen before the survival engine and mana come together. If they get a less than stellar hand or are bad players congrats you should win that one. Don't expect it every matchup.
@SoFI: Too slow, too mana intensive and the worst topdeck w/o a creature on the board already. I've removed it to run my wishes.
Use Quicksilver's list one page back.
The thing is, to murder the mana men, they have Mogg Fanatic and Incinerator (on the play), and Lackey. I can choose not to block lackey depending on my hand. Once I hit three mana, there are Trolls, Elders (in some builds), or Survival to cast. Elder and Troll trade with everything they have. Survival with mana left over lets me win. Even if they do kill my mana dude that turn, I fetch another elder or troll for the next turn with Surival, or have regeneration mana for Troll, or can drop another threat from my hand for 3. The whole game plan is to drop a blocker a turn until you can stabalize with FTKs and Baloths. Elder trades, and Troll will trade or better. Even if troll just trades, we get to dictate what it kills....if they want to trade a piledriver or a warchief, go for it! If they just swing with stupid goblins because they don't want to lose the important ones, kill a 1/1 and take a few points of damage.
If Survival can survive to turn 5, it should be able to win. Turn three and four are the most important, becuase if we drop Baloth and FTKs on turn 3 and 4, we should win. If we drop them turn 4 and 5, we should win. Baloth dies to Incinerator and Piledriver, and it takes both of them with it while boosting your life. FTK eats Warchief, Piledriver, or King, then trades with anything in the deck that swings. Without Survival, the matchup is still very winnable. If we do get Survival, if we survive to turn 4, we should win. Getting to turn four is easier if our mana dude survives, becuase we go turn two Survival, turn three Elder/Troll, turn four FTK, turn five find squee and Baloth/FTK, etc.
InfoNinjas
I had trouble with Solidarity at the GPT. I lost to it twice. Both times it was close, but they all seemed to have the answer. I might have to run Ichnemon Druid, in Philly. I would drop that on turn 2, before I survival. I think Survival is kinda slow in this matchup. I think you need to win before turn 4, if you draw a hoser. (wish for tsunami main deck) I would only survival on basis of speen (power) if i didn't have early hate.
Survival will be good forever... kinda like a maraschino cherry.
When I was still playing RG versions of the deck(as I mentioned I have been playing around with GBR even though it has a bad manabase) I found that the deck was really able to abuse the Vial builds. Sure it is slow, but if you buid the deck right it really startes to abuse recurring Baloth every turn and has the distinct advantage of being able to Vial a Dosan/Druid into play on combo decks.
Team Meandeck
I'm playing the wish build and I played 2 vial goblin decks today. Both matches ended in a draw after time was called. I think that more sideboard hate is warranted. I'm thinking about running 2 gempalms and 1 pyromancer in the sideboard. I suppose that the vial build could use this too.
I don't like the Pyromancer strategy. With a toughness of 2, it's very easy for them to kill it by the end of the turn, in which case it will not trigger and will not destroy all goblins. Incinerator on the other hand, rocks.
I haven't had time to test the Vial version of the deck, but I've determined that the Burning Wish build is far better than every build I've ever played. SoFI is broken when it hits play and stays there, but when I played this deck at a recent GPT, SoFI really didn't do that. It either got destroyed, didn't have a creature to equip or was totally win-more.
The build I'm testing now runs 1 Ininerator maindeck for Goblins and 1 Druid maindeck for Tide. I haven't decided yet if I want to keep it that way for good.
For a long time I was a proponent of Quirion Ranger in the deck, but he just doesn't do much for me. There is only one situation where I have ever needed a Quirion Ranger recently, and that was in the early game to help my mana issues if I kept a 1-2 land hand without drawing another: hands that were questionable to begin with. When I'm all set up he's a card I do not want to see. He produces lots of mana with Rofellos, but the only time I ever found that useful was back when I was still running Masticore and Silklash Spider SB. However, I was very often in a position where I needed a semi-decent creature topdeck and drew Ranger instead, flat out losing me the game. The statistic probability of that isn't high, but it happened way more than the number of times I found Quirion to be useful.
As for Goblins, I found the matchup to be about 55-45 in their favor. It's very difficult, and if they lucksack there really isn't anything you can hope to do. Goblin King hurts a lot (what the fuck was WotC thinking...). However, if you both draw your average hands, RGSA is usually able to slow the match down a lot with Kavu/Baloth/Incinerator/Wall (whichever 1/2 you draw) and eventually Sharpshooter. Wish->Clasm is a tremendous help as well. After that it just comes down to keeping King off of the table and you should be ok. Just as long as they don't print Crystalline Goblin, which at this point wouldn't surprise me.
Texan2thaBone
Team Ziggurat - Bad decks > Good decks.
http://www.themellin.com/arcade.php <-- best free arcade ever
I was just wondering what is the best version of R/G SoTF.
This is what I run.
Mountain x1
Wooded Foothills x4
Taiga x4
Forest x12
Genesis x1
Anger x1
Squee x1
Rofellos x1
Deranged Hermit x1
Kamahl x1
Spore Frog x1
Wood Elves x1
Viridian Zealot x1
Llanowar Elves x4
Bop x4
Ravenous Baloth x3
FtK x4
Sharpshooter x2
Burning Wish x3
Wall Of Blossoms x3
SoTF x4
Eternal Witness x3
SB:
Pyroclasm x1
Hull Breach x1
Ruination x1
Tsunami x1
Regrowth x1
Duplicant x1
Dwarven Miner x1
Caller Of the Claw x1
Pyroblast x3
REB x4
Is this a good decklist?
Wood Elves was only needed in ATS because it was using 3 or 4 colors and if it needed a land of a color it didn't have(taiga for Anger, it would tutor up the Wood Elves so it could get the haste it needed.
Spore Frog was good in ATS not RGSA, and I use the term "good' very loosely as it was nothing more than cute.
Team Meandeck
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
