Worse then manabond in that slot, both are cut post board but a resolved manabond almost assuredly wins you the game on the spot.
Printable View
Worse then manabond in that slot, both are cut post board but a resolved manabond almost assuredly wins you the game on the spot.
I tried burgeoning for a week or two but it often useless and there is no match where is better than manabond (maybe in the mirror but It's not a game you will play often).
I tried crucible but I was not fully satisfied, I tried nissa too but the best solution I found is chalice on 1 because it's more versatile and easier/faster to cast.
Tireless Tracker becomes a draw engine in the face of graveyard hate. I bring it in for most matchups because it's an extremely potent threat with Exploration, fetchlands and a single casting of Life from the Loam.Quote:
Originally Posted by UseLess
Tracker is a great cards in grindy/long mu (4c loam, miracles, d&t and shardless to some extent) but I found boseiju md and chalice/boil/grip post side enough to handle those decks and set the trackers aside to improve our poor mu vs combo.
Greetings Everyone,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciubulu
This is my first post on this site, I look forward to learning from you all.
A few months ago, I like "UseLess", jumped onto this page hoping to learn more about how David Long's list performs relative to Daryl Ayer's list. Because I, like "UseLess", was unable to find a clear analysis between the two decks. Therefore I started gathering data on my own, here are my findings:
The result:
Regarding the quote above, my findings have been the opposite. I find David Long's Dark Lands list to be the superior deck.
The process:
1) I constructed both decks on MTGO.
2) I have completed 12 leagues with each of the decks on MTGO (alternating between the two decks after each completed league).
3) I am in the process of analyzing the results, but I find David Long's list to be the superior deck.
a) David Long's list: 68% match win% (61% game win%)
b) Daryl Ayer's list: 62% match win% (58% game win%)
I have kept great records of each game of the 120 matches, and find that many of the deck's weaknesses (Sneak & Show(!) and Miracles) are weaknesses for both versions.
Are you guys seeing different results when you compare the decks?
Next Steps:
1) I'd like to work with this community to compare results to determine which list is the superior list. I'd also like general feedback regarding my process and how I should improve it.
2) I'd like to work with this community to figure out a consistent way to beat Miracles, I am only winning ~35%-40% of games against Miracles. What am I doing wrong? How do we beat Miracles?
3) Deathrite Shaman seems extremely good against our deck. It has me considering Toxic Deluge on the Sideboard (I like that it also hits Leovold and True-name). Has anyone experimented with Toxic Deluge yet?
Really nice to meet all of you.
UseLess, I'd urge you to consider the Dark Lands list if it interests you.
Respectfully,
Steve
I've typically been taking out 1 loam, 1 depths and 1 useless bullet land to bring in 3 trackers nearly every matchup. i'm unsure if its right...but feels good so far. what are you taking out normally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatto
Obviously theres some exceptions, like storm I leave 4 depths, 4 loams and make room for 3 trackers and the rest of my sb choices in other ways.
I also feel like the only matchup i dont want Trackers is burn.
Deluge has been great for me so far. Has won me games vs dnt/noble bug/infect nearly on its own. I only play 1 right now, but that may be increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
but i dont bring it for DRS alone. we have other ways to handle it, plus as mentioned above, I rely heavily on tracker and not the GY in post games.
I usually cut 1 Manabond, 1-2 Loam (usually going down to two when I know there will be GY-hate), 1 Gamble and/ or Crop Rotation, some utility-land (could be anything). I never cut Dark Depths, never thought about that one. Even against Burn I would board TT: they could potentially attract a Burn-spell, which is fine by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by djxstream
EDIT:
Welcome Steve!
If you could give an indepth review on your analysis, that would be great. I'm intrigued by the % of wins you present to us. I'm by no means an expert on RGb, because I sticked to straight RG from the beginning. My personal view is not backed with statistics, but rather with personal preference.
What is interesting is that RGb does not give an advantage in those MU's where straight RG struggles. My question would be: is the choice between RGb or straight RG nothing but preference?
Thanks to all for the answers and info, I'm at least convinced now to not mess with the trackers in the board, haha. I'll be soon trying out the deck online to get a feel for it, starting with the RGb version :).
Wouldn't bring him in against burn TBH, tapping out for him turn 2/3 is likely to kill you and you just trying to race them (or lock them out with chasm)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatto
Which is something I didn't thought about. Frankly, I never played Burn with TT in my sb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds
I don't think tracker is good vs burn because it's quite slow and need to be fueled by many land drops... that's a dangerous thing to do against a deck that plays 4 price of progress. Our best weapons are a fast combo or the chasm lock that makes the trackers a hopeless target for their burn spells.
Chalice post side is helpful too.
What i really like with rgb lands is the thoughtseize\duress sideboard, especially when playing quarters over ports. Spheres + ports are really good, but with quarters over ports the sphereplan is weaker and discard is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by UseLess
Went 2-2 yesterday, with the list in my sig.
R1 vs Miracles, 2-1
My opponent borrowed the deck, and wasn't all too familiar with it yet.
G1: I die to Mentor & co.
G2: Chalice on one, and a Big Witch seal the game.
G3: Chalice on one, and TT ftw.
R2: vs DnT, 0-2
G1: I can't get through, and don't find any burn.
G2: I probably boarded wrong, putting in way too many cards. I once again don't any relevant cards and die horrible.
R3 vs BUG Control(?), 2-0
G1: Burn away creatures, play Tabernacle, win from there.
G2: WaQu-lock seals the deal.
R4: vs Deathblade(?), 0-1
G1: TNN kills me.
G2: again a TNN, alongside DRS. I stabilize, land a TT, and we just glare to eachother. At this time I'm ar 6. I need PuFi to clear new DRS's, with two PuFi's that get eaten in the process. As we go into time, and turns, I find a third PuFi pretty late in the process, and don't seem to get the kill going. All this time I draw cards thanks to clues, but can't find DD: too bad Marit Lage hasn't got Haste, as I found DD in t5.
All in all, a good night. I probably need some more practise against DnT, and in the secret art of the PuFi-kill.
Won the first locals we had last night
R1: New player borrowing UR delver, managed to waste him out g1 and lock him under chalice g2
R2: 2-0'd burn, managed to counter a lethal fireblast with chasm and dodged a land drop the next turn, allowing me to make a 20/20, then got myself down to 1 setting up a chasm lock
R3: New player on eldrazi, lost game 1 as I failed to find a punishing fire or tabernacle against a horde of 2/x creatures, games 2 & 3 were more standard wasteland lock games
Hopefully the first of many more legacy weeklies
Chatto,Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatto
I will work toward a summarized and in-depth review of the effort that I have put into (and continue to put into), both decks.
In the mean time, I have thoughts regarding the second portion of your question:
While my findings on RGb indicate that it struggles in the same MUs where RG struggles (particularly problematic are Miracles, Sneak and Show, and Storm), the RGb list seems to yield a higher win percentage against the decks where we are strong.
If we are already strong, then why does it matter if we are a little stronger?
The answer to this depends on our goals with the deck, my personal goals are as follows:
1) To win 3/5 matches consistently in MTGO leagues
2) To win 9/12 matches to earn a day 2 appearance at a GP (Vegas)
My logic here might be flawed, but here we go:
As I mentioned above, I believe that we are naturally weak to 3 of the most popular decks in the Legacy meta game (Miracles, Storm, and Sneak & Show). If we are only winning 40% vs. Miracles (Games not Matches), 40% vs. Storm (Games not Matches), and ~0% vs. Sneak & Show (Games not Matches), then we have a strong need to win all of our remaining matches, and we cannot afford to drop matches that we are favored to win.
I believe that the extra match win% that RGb (~68%) holds over RG (~62%) can be attributed directly to the black splash (which helps us increase our win% in the match-ups where we are already strong).
Examples:
1) Delver: While racing them may be the best way to beat them, if we are losing the race, Abrupt Decay and Toxic Deluge have increased my win rates from ~55% (RG) to ~75% (RGb).
2) D&T: Less reliance on 2 drops combined with blowout potential from Toxic Deluge have increased my win rates from ~65% (RG) to ~77% (RGb).
3) Problem creatures: Goyf, Knight of the Reliquary, Gurmag Angler, Tombstalker, True-Name Nemesis, and Leovold all become a little easier to deal with if we incorporate the black splash.
RGb gives us access to these three over-performing cards (ranked):
1) Abrupt Decay (3 in the MB)
2) Toxic Deluge (2-3 in the SB)
3) Thoughtsieze (3-4 in the SB)
What do you think?
Has anyone else seen similar results in their testing?
Respectfully,
Steve
Hi Steve!
Thanks for sharing your results, that's very interesting. I also tried out the RGb list for a while and really liked it. Last year at GP Prague I managed to win against storm and S&T twice and was really happy about that. Indeed the combo MU seems to be stronger than with the RG list.
But... I realized that the list has issues with consistency. According to my experience it was not as fast as RG and even with three maindeck decays my Miracles MU was not as good as with the TT/CotV RG list. Meanwhile I think that it is easier to win against Miracles with a mainboard Boseiju and the TT/CotV/Grip SB package. The landbase is more stable, I don't need two different colors to remove Bloodmoon... and even Sanctum Prelate doesn't seem to be much of an issue with Barbarian Ring.
So I basically accepted to lose against S&T and storm (I don't play spheres anymore) to have a better Miracles MU and a faster & more consistent list. Trackers & Chalices are helping me a lot against surgical extraction (which seems to be my enemy #1) and the list seems to be better against Bloodmoon decks (4 Krosan Grips feel way better than 3 AD + 1 Grip against Bloodmoon). Sometimes I just go Forest into Loam --> Seismic Assault/Vortex and just ignore the resolved Bloodmoon.
Just my 2 Ct.
I have a couple of questions for the lands experts:
I saw many list were playing barbarian ring main, is it so important to have a slot main deck? I know it's for d&t but post side they have rip to make it useless and g1 we have molten vortex/pfires/Tabernacle to fight against their creatures...
I have an anti-creature slot post side and I'm open to suggestions. I actually have k.return but I'm still undecided if it's better to use a second molten vortex or a seismic assault. I opted for k.return because it's not graveyard dependent and lately I faced many surgicals out of almost any deck (even d&t extracted my loams)...I'm open to any good argument.
I'm thinking about the 3 cotv I have in my sideboard. They are great on paper but almost all the decks are now well prepared to face them and they harm us a lot. I side them in many MU's because they can stop surgicals (and many other nasty cards) but they almost always get destroyed quickly enough to do not generate any vantage for me and then my loams get extracted anyway...i started to think about removing the anti-sinergic cotv to use their slots to have a backup plan like crucible or Nissa (or both). What do you think?
Being able to pick off a pesky baleful strix with an uncounterable barbarian ring has led me to victory more than once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciubulu
So dont count out the ring. Yet i will agree there are times when I wish it were any other land.
Exactly. And being able to insta-tutor a removal card is as awesome as retrieving an accidentally dredged SB card? Have you every dredged-away your most powerful card? It just hurts ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by djxstream
I feel this about almost every land in the deck! If only it were <other utility land!!>Quote:
Originally Posted by djxstream