[Deck] GW Survival

I am playing vengevine survival for the last three weeks now, with a red and black splash for cabal therapy/shriekmaw and orcish lumberjack,
basically my list is +4 orcish -4 mother +4 bop -4 noble +2 maw +3 cabal +1 loam -4 goyf -2 qasali +2 demigod - iona combo
+ 2top +1 land +1 squee -4 sword
I am quite sure orcish has to be play in this deck, it has really good synergies with shaman and survival and gives way more mana.
Just think about it turn one orcish turn two survival, gives 9 mana to play with survival on turn three whereas turn one noble turn two survival only 5. That's really a big difference of tempo. You are not going all in by saccing your lands with orcish simply because you just need two mana to cast two creatures and make your vengevines come back.
Orcish has good synergies with fauna shaman allowing to easily cast two creatures in the same turn such as knight+ whatever.

As for the black splash, cabal therapy is really insame against blue decks/combo decks, it gives you game by resolving your survival/knights etc..
Shriekmaw is quite good with lumberjack and is a creature to help vengevine's ability trigger it's also very good to kill opponents goyf that doesn't allow your vengevine attacking. Shriekmaw is WAY better than sword in all the matchups but gobelin.

My one off loam is good with both lumberjack and wasteland recursion, I have top to find them but I am still wondering if it's worth.

As for demigods they are remplacing the iona combo they have quite the same role being good with fauna shaman while being easier to hardcast if in hand.

The one off squee is in test I still i am not sure if it has a place because of fauna shaman.

As for the side, I am quite sure you need to play at least a one off burrenton forger to fight firespout going for vengevine combo then hardcasting burrenton to be firespout proof is quite good. The card is still good against gob/ichorid/burn.

Wait you cutting nealy everything in GW and adding two colors and still want to call it GW survival? there are other versions of Survival with Demigod and so on, but i think this is not something tht should be discussed in this thread. GW-Survival.

GW survival is actually no more a GW survival thread but a vengevine survival thread for decks that don't play blue.
I am quite sure you guys need to understand it, we are not yet sure which version of vengevine survival is the best, and we want to discuss it here.
As far as the deck i proposed is concerned, it still has all the basics ie 4 vengevine+4 knights+4 bop (basically noble)+4 shaman+1 basking+1 qasali.
The changes I proposed are quite logical, you want to be more aggro play orcish, you want your survival to resolve/ having more disrupt play cabal therapy, you want a back up play with shaman that's not useless on his own play a two off demigod. You want to tutor a way to get ride of blockers while being able to tutor for them (basically wonder in blue decks) play maw.

Also any deck playing path to exile in sb but not a one off maze is wrong, maze is way better than path in sb : being able to grap it with knight while being at least as good if you draw it and answering things like jitte/sword etc..is nutz.

I disagree this is the GW survival thread. Create a new topic for lumberjack survival ;)

Adrieng, I am sure you have tested your list and that it has it advantages but I agree with Rigero and Waikiki that it doesn't belong in here. Two of the strengths of GW are consistency and that you have high card quality.

Going 4 Color will lead to more Mulligans and Mana issues during the game and it will make using Wasteland tougher. Orcish Lumberjack is a card with high variance - saccing a Forest early on for 3 Mana can have big advantages and disadvantages. But the GW version usually seeks consistency.
Not playing Swords, Hierarch, Goyfs and Mother of Runes will affect the overall card quality. MoR is just insane, I repeat that over and over again, 4 MoR is a key part of the deck, protecting the important guys from Swords vs. Control and dominating the combat vs. creature based decks. She is even more important now that we have Fauna Shaman. Goyf if you like him or not is a threat when being the aggressor and a wall when you need a blocker. Having a Hierarch or a Bird on the board is the difference between attacking into a 4/5 Goyf with VV or not. I don't think I have to tell anyone about how good Swords are.

I think you are better off in the general Survival thread or if you feel the deck is powerful enough make an own thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrieng

Just think about it turn one orcish turn two survival, gives 9 mana to play with survival on turn three whereas turn one noble turn two survival only 5.

---

Wait, what? It's probably me, but can you explain this logic? On turn 3 I count 6 with Lumberjack, 4 with Noble...



I agree this is the GW Survival thread, not generic Vengevine. There are even lists with no Vengevine at all on here. That said, I do like the idea of Forge-Tender sideboard, I'll try it.

Hi everyone!
I don't know if this is the appropriate thread to post my list, but I figured it's theone from whom the most useful responses might come, so here I am.
First of all, I've played GW Survival myself with quite some success so I don't deny the powerlevel of this deck. That said, I do think it can be considerably improved:

[SPOD] Angry Cat Survival (SACS)

4 Wooded Foothills
4 Windswept Heath
3 Savannah
2 Taiga
1 Plateau
2 Forest
4 Wasteland
2 Horizon Canopy
1 Karakas

4 Wild Nacatl
4 Noble Hierarch
1 Birds of Paradise
4 Qasali Pridemage
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Knight of the Reliquary
2 Kitchen Finks
1 Squee, Goblin Nabob
1 Stingscourger

4 Survival of the Fittest
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Lightning Bolt


I'm currently 19/3/2 with this list (1st @ 15 people Karlsruhe, 4th @ 53 people Hassloch, 12th @ 204 people Aschaffenburg, 1st @ 17 people Karlsruhe). I'm not saying this to brag (ok, maybe a little =) but rather to establishe that this is a configuration that has proven itself.
Ok, time to do some explaining:

Lightning Bolt vs Mother of Runes
There are several reasons why I like the instant over the Mother:

• Lightning Bolt is much better in any tribal MU: Imagine you're on the draw and your opponent starts with a Lackey. Now, Mother opens you to any kind of Incinerator/Weirding/Stingscourger shenanigans. the same holds true for Merrow Reejerey and Elvish Archdruid. Lightning Bolt kills dudes.
• Utility guys like Dark Confidant, Wort, Boggart Auntie, Knight of the Reliquary (granted, you have to get lucky with this guy), Painter's Servant, Vampire Hexmage... Again Lightning Bolt KILLS dudes =)
• Planeswalker
• Having Lightning Bolts in your deck forces our opponent to play more defensive. The psychological effect of the possibility of "eot Bolt, mainphase Bolt", can't be denied.
• The posibility to be the aggro.dec from time to time.

All in all Lightning Bolt is the more versile card, while Mother isn't all too impressive without another (real =) creature.

Wild Nacatl vs Weathered Wayfarer
Ok, truth be told I don't like the Wayfarer at all. I see how he potentially can provide cardadvantage, but in my eyes he's mostly a puny 1/1 that gets pretty unspectacular if you're on the play (yeah, yeah, Fetchlands, I get it, but nevertheless) and is just a horrible topdeck. I prefer to have a real creature.
Again Nacatl allows this deck to be way more agressive without the broken enchantment. And putting pressure on your opponent seems like a much better plan than to hope the Wayfarer goes there on back of Wastelands.

No Vengevine/Rootwalla-Combo
Ok this might be a big one and perhaps my philosophy of Survival.decs differs from the main philosophy in this thread, but I think this combo is utter overkill.
And I get it speeds up the kill of this deck remarkebly, but in my opinion this doesn't justify 5 dead cards. Yes, I said "dead" and I'm not taking it back. 4CC 4/3 haster and 1 mana 1/1s are dead cards in my opinion.
Rootwalla just isn't good, I think we can estabish that but he obviously is an necessary evil. Vengevine on the other hand gets outclassed by the format's most common 2-drop and costs twice as much. It's basically a blank in your opnening hand against any deck with a fast clock. Maybe I'm completely wrong on this one, but it seems to be an underwhelming creature to hardcast in a field of Goyfs, multiple Lords, KotRs, Terravores, Dreadnoughts, Stifle/Waste...
And if you have Survival online, you win anyway (belive me, I did it repeatedly), without any fancy combo-finish. I just don't see it as a good idea to trade of some of the decks consistancy and high quality of single cards for a faster finish.
I see how this should imporve the combo MU, but if you improve that MU by let's say 20% and weaken every other by 2%, than common sense dictates that this isn't a good idea.

Stingscourger
I REALLY like this guy! Getting immideately rid of Marit Lage-Tokens, Emrakuls, Dreadnoughts, KotRs,... and letting you bash in for one more turn. Another card that emphasises the more aggressive approach of my lists.

So, that was my monologue. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

You can't really compare your list with standard GW Survival, it is a different approach so the 1-1 comparisons are not very useful. Playing Nacatl makes Bolt better and Vice Versa. Also WW has left most lists some time ago, so if you compare it would be Nacatl + Bolt vs. MoR + Vengevine. But of course I agree, in the current Meta filled with Goblins, Merfolk and Zoo Bolt is a good card.

However, it is quite easy to see that your list is well thought through and I would also think that it belongs into this thread. This thread is about aggressive GW decks using Survival as an additional win condition but not relying on it and your list fits that definition. It seems like a wild mix between Zoo and GW Survival but like a solid one. On the plus side you are more aggressive, faster and you have a 3rd color of creatures. On the other hand you are more vulnerable to Wastelands and Mana issues and you are less explosive with SotF. One more thing about the Rootwalla: It is obviously no good card, but it is still better than Squee ;)

@SOFW:

If you are going to the more aggroish route with survival, would you consider Path to Exile over Swords to Plowshares? It made me thinking, seeing you are incorporating Zoo into a Survival list...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atwa

@SOFW:

If you are going to the more aggroish route with survival, would you consider Path to Exile over Swords to Plowshares? It made me thinking, seeing you are incorporating Zoo into a Survival list...

---

I thought about that myself for quite some time, but I really dislike to give my opponent that land. As this deck still is fairly midrange I'd rather see my opponent on more life than with more ressources. Plus, it would weaken the very awesome KotR into mass Wasteland plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tao

One more thing about the Rootwalla: It is obviously no good card, but it is still better than Squee ;)

---

Ok, that is indeed a very valid point =)

@spirit of the wretch


About Mom vs Bolt: the cards are so different that it's impossible to compare them, but just off the top of my head, here are some arguments for keeping Mom: negates the opponent's Jitte, protecs your hatebears from bounce/removal (backbreaking for many combo decks), makes your lethal, 12/12 Knight unblockable against Goblins/Merfolk/monocolored decks and she is NOT in a 3rd color. I think one of the strongest points about this deck is its rock solid manabase and I think the splash color would have to provide something seriously broken in order to justify the significantly weaker manabase. Bolt/Nacatl don't fit that bill, in my opinion.

@Vengevine: this card is basically the reason why this deck is heavily favored against all blue control/aggro-control decks (except maybe the ones with NoProg). It's actually more than just a clunky combo finisher. Counterbalance locks and infinite counterspells don't matter when you get recurring, uncounterable beaters. It's also basically impossible to make a Jace stick against Vengevine decks. In my testing I have also beaten Humility just by continously getting back a bunch of 1/1's. Having 2 Vengevines in hand does suck against most decks (which is why I think 3 is the correct number), but having 1 in hand is fine and it's not hard to "hardcast" them with this deck. Vengevine, in combination with your other threats, also enables this deck to go lategame against any Landstill deck and STILL win.

I don't know what matchups you want to improve with the red splash, because I think GW Survival is already heavily favored against the decks you are gunning for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikoo

About Mom vs Bolt: the cards are so different that it's impossible to compare them, but just off the top of my head, here are some arguments for keeping Mom: negates the opponent's Jitte, protecs your hatebears from bounce/removal (backbreaking for many combo decks), makes your lethal, 12/12 Knight unblockable against Goblins/Merfolk/monocolored decks and she is NOT in a 3rd color. I think one of the strongest points about this deck is its rock solid manabase and I think the splash color would have to provide something seriously broken in order to justify the significantly weaker manabase. Bolt/Nacatl don't fit that bill, in my opinion.

---

I don't think the manabase is significantly weaker to be honest. Many of the lists in this thread do only play three basics, so going down to two isn't the worst change. I don't have less green or white mana sources than the standard list and counting the Bird I play 12 red sources.
I always like to play the active deck ("there are no wrong threats"-reasoning) and Bolt/Nacatl is way better suited to pressure your opponent than Mom/VV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikoo

@Vengevine: this card is basically the reason why this deck is heavily favored against all blue control/aggro-control decks (except maybe the ones with NoProg). It's actually more than just a clunky combo finisher. Counterbalance locks and infinite counterspells don't matter when you get recurring, uncounterable beaters. It's also basically impossible to make a Jace stick against Vengevine decks. In my testing I have also beaten Humility just by continously getting back a bunch of 1/1's. Having 2 Vengevines in hand does suck against most decks (which is why I think 3 is the correct number), but having 1 in hand is fine and it's not hard to "hardcast" them with this deck. Vengevine, in combination with your other threats, also enables this deck to go lategame against any Landstill deck and STILL win.

---

Against Counterbalance 2 or 3 CC guys always did the trick for me (since the curve of modern CB.decs is just so bad at countering CC2 spells). Also against control (which deck can really be considered control in legacy?) I'd rather have a nice, aggressive curve that doesn't fold to postboard graveyardhate.
Speaking of postboard: REBs definitly help that MU! REB + Bolt keep Jace of the table just as reliable.
I just don't see how hardcasting VV can be better a good plan against Stifle/Waste-Tempo.decs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikoo

I don't know what matchups you want to improve with the red splash, because I think GW Survival is already heavily favored against the decks you are gunning for.

---

True it is favored, but I frankly don't see the downside of improving them even more. Especially since I don't think you weaken any MUs by removing Mom/VV.

I've already been playing your survival Zoo list a bit since diffy posted one of its early incarnations, but so far I haven't been impressed by Kitchen Finks at all. If I get a Survival going I am most of the time busy playing KotR's and don't want to search for Finks. Without Survival they are not very strong in the zoo shell as well. Are they needed for the Zoo matchup that much? It should be favorable anyway already.

Imo these Finks should be replaced with 2 Vengevines. The Tempo advantage of Survival into Vengevines is just too sick to pass and Vengevines by itself aren't nearly as bad as SotW says. In fact, they aren't bad at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tao

In fact, they aren't bad at all.

---

Signed 1 million times. Hierarch, turn 3 VV makes for a hasty 5/4 attacker. You counter? No care. You sword it? One less for my knights. And that is without survival....

I finished 3-1 today at our monthly legacy tournament, beating Thopter Foundry, Survival Elves and Rbg Goblins easily without dropping a game and losing 0:2 against Pox, partly me punting and also partly because of him having double extirpate in his starting 7 in G2.

As far as I see it, nor SotW or adrieng are GW builds. Why? They have a non GW manabase, that's all. As it has been said, in this thread there are builds with/without VV, wastelands, MoR... but they all are GW manabase i.e. no pernicious, no cabals, no bolts...

That said, and this may have to me moved to the main survival thread, I really like the lumberjack build although it seems like quite a gamble... I will try it.

@SotW I _love_ the zoo survival build, I guess you have already checked the SPOD diffy's build found here:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18282-[Report]-Team-SPOD-July-Hassloch-Legacy-Event-aka-Back-in-Business
That list seems more compact to me, kind of more "zooish"

My two cents.

@Tao: I saw your winning list from the Magic League Trial, some questions:

-) How has the MD Gaddock Teeg been treating you? With 8 ways to tutor for him he might be worth reconsidering (I never ran him MD).
-) You went down to 3 Vengevines, how was that?
-) Currently I run a 23 land manabase with -1 Gaeas Cradle - 1 Karakas + 1 Wasteland + 2 Forest, pretty happy with that, I don't ever feel the need for Cradle or Karakas with that Manabase.
-) How has that SB been treating you?

I am testing differents builds at the moment one that I think is really good, and better than the lattest is zoo vengevine list.
The list seems amazing at the moment. (not sure for the manabase still)
You are quite always the aggroish player, and sylvan library is awesome with orcish really, turn one orcish turn two library draw three cards play three creature.
// Deck file for Magic Workstation (http://www.magicworkstation.com)

// Lands
2 [U] Taiga
2 [A] Savannah
2 [A] Forest (1)
1 [MI] Plains (1)
4 [TE] Wasteland
2 [A] Plateau
4 [ON] Wooded Foothills
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
3 [ZEN] Arid Mesa

// Creatures
4 [ZEN] Steppe Lynx
1 [FNM] Basking Rootwalla
4 [ALA] Wild Nacatl
4 [ARB] Qasali Pridemage
4 [CST] Orcish Lumberjack
4 [CFX] Knight of the Reliquary
4 [ROE] Vengevine
4 [M11] Fauna Shaman

// Spells
3 [LG] Sylvan Library
4 [EX] Survival of the Fittest

// Sideboard
SB: 2 [LRW] Gaddock Teeg
SB: 1 [WWK] Bojuka Bog
SB: 3 [SHM] Faerie Macabre
SB: 3 [LRW] Burrenton Forge-Tender
SB: 1 [DK] Maze of Ith
SB: 1 [LG] Karakas
SB: 2 [TSP] Krosan Grip
SB: 2 [TSP] Ancient Grudge

Edit : Fauna shaman > goyf

One issue that popped up immediately after browsing your list: Do you manage to keep your Nacatl at a stable size and still be able to abuse the Lumberjack at the same time?

Most of the time yes, you still play 24 lands and library to find your lands.
Though if your opponent plays huge land desturction it can be tough, but after side your bring two more lands (karaks+bojuka) and it should be fine.