Quote:
Well, I've been looking over your list since you put it up. As a longtime Survival Player, I have a couple of questions. Not an attack on it, certainly; I'm going to put it together and start playing with it, but these are just some questions about your list so far.
Just to note, and attack would be fine as well. :) I'm expecting harsh criticisms, but I also feel I can pretty much defend anything thrown at me. Of course though I'll accept defeat on the rare occasion.
Quote:
First, the manabase seems a lot weaker in this version, between playing 2 fewer land and a forth color. That certainly seems like it won't help the Goblins Matchup. Second, only one Baloth? I guess your list has Tinder Walls to block Goblins early, maybe circumventing the need for life gain, but Baloth is an excellent topdeck if you can't find Survival.
The manabase is weaker, yes. I am fully aware of that. I am fully aware of the potential hazards that brings against Goblins. However, there are almost as many mana accelerants in the deck as there are lands. I'm unsure why everybody is going nuts about the manabase when in reality there are 33 mana sources in the deck. That's more than half the deck. The odds I'm going to be seriously hindered with mana development is rather slim, plus Brainstorm helps it.
There's only a singleton Baloth because that's all the room I could afford. Removal spells are more important than lifegain, because potentially I only need a single one to win. Also, in most circumstances, topdecking an FTK or something of the like is better than topdecking a vanilla 4/4. At the GAGG, the single Baloth won the entire first round matchup (Burn) and game 1 of round 2 (Goblins). You really need only one to stabilize, because you can just recur it turn after turn from then on. Another one would be nice, because it provides another out as well as efficient beater, but there's just a lack of space.
Quote:
Flametongue Kavus. Only two? I realize you are playing 2+1+1 for four total, counting Bone Shredder and the Masticore, but in RGbSA we run 4 FtK and a Boneshredder, and sometimes Duplicant or Masticore to take out nasty things. I can certainly see the Tradewind Riders making up for this, by serving as removal for things like Akroma and Exalted Angel, while also being useful against things like Solidarity, Iggy, Life, and Salvagers Game. Are they part of the reason you don't use the full four Kavus?
I count Tradewind Riders in the removal aspect of the deck, so technically yes I would say you can count those are Kavu 3 and 4, and a total of 6 removal slots in the deck. Masticore is essentially an FTK in a deck that pumps mana like this. Also, it has the option to kill bigger creatures that FTK can't. It's not often an issue because those creatures can be dealt with by Tradewind, but the option is there. Masticore also mows down the entire Goblin army. FTK is only a 2-for-1.
As far as RGBSA goes, I've yet to see a list online that runs any removal outside of FTK. I'm going from the RGBSA thread and tournament results, and unless Dave Price has changed his list I can't believe otherwise. But even so, that still counts for less than (or if you run the full 4 FTK, 1 Shredder, then 1 Masticore) we'd be even on removal.
Quote:
My final question is this: What benefits, specifically, does this deck have over the three color RGBSA list? That one struggles with the same matchups this one does, and is strong in the same places. It also has a stronger manabase, running 2 Swamps, 2 Mountains, a plethora of Forests, and the fetches/duals. Does this deck function that much better without Survival because of the Bobs? Are Tradewind Rider and Bob better then 4 Duress mainboard and Burning Wish? I do not mean these questions to put down this list; I am simply curious to see what your thought process was comparing the two.
You hit it on the head with Bob pretty much. Bob is a big reason why this deck can compete, because it has the option to still gain an advantage over an opponent without Survival on the table. It also has Brainstorm to fix draws. Without Survival, all RGBSA is is a deck full of 4cc creatures to attack with. Although that's not a bad gameplan, this deck features more options without Survival. Also, RGBSA seems to have a tougher time with Goblins because they have fewer men to halt the early attack. Granted, if you get to untap with Survival with 4 mana you're in a good position, but that deck has issues with Goblin Lackey moreso than this does. Their only early-game out is Burning Wish -> Pyroclasm.
I really dislike Duress maindeck. If I wanted to play it main I would, but it's a dead draw against Goblins. Game 1 against combo even with Duress it's too much of an uphill battle, but post-board you get so much disruption you can create a positive game. However game 1 against Goblins is highly winnable, and I wouldn't want to jeopardize that by drawing something dead like Duress.
I also personally think Burning Wish is a tad bit overrated in that deck. It just tutors for a card that can be decent in a situation, but doesn't create any advantage in the league of Bob. If you're running without a Survival, which card is going to generate you more of an advantage? Burning Wish, which will find a single card that will only buy you a little time (such as Boiling Seas, Pyroclasm, etc whatever) or something that will allow you to rip the cards you need while providing a threat?
Honestly, I'm not sure why those decks haven't been running with Bob. There's a number of high casting cost men, but the advantage Bob creates well outweights the potential risks.
@ Portent: Mr. Nightmare summed up my thoughts. I really don't know what Va's infatuation is with that card, because I just think it's trash. I mean, you were comparing Portent to Brainstorm. Don't look at that example of finding a turn 1 Survival as an excuse, but Brainstorm is in almost any case the better card.
