Didn't Mad Zur beat the ever-loving crap out of you and teach you why that silly little blue deck loses to aggro-control?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewokslayer
Printable View
Didn't Mad Zur beat the ever-loving crap out of you and teach you why that silly little blue deck loses to aggro-control?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewokslayer
He might have done that in the Swiss. :cry: I believe he had red Gro standard bag of tricks maindeck and boarded in 4 REB and 3 Stifle. Not to mention Fire/Ice is damn annoying when combined with Daze.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnwarA101
Of course he lost to Zoo in the top 4. :rolleyes:
Actually if you maindeck a Pyromancer or Gloomdrifter, the Goblins matchup gets a lot better. You can usually stall until you can get one of them out and then stabilize. Often I found I would stabilize around 5 life, but you end up with enough mana to either use Survival to play Baloths every turn or you can Genesis back Baloths off of Vial and crank the life total back up.
About the combo match: play Survival in a metagame where you feel you have an accurate grasp of what will or will not show up. If you predict a lot of combo, then it's probably not the best thing to be playing. Have we talked about the combo match enough? Can we move onto other things? It's basically Chalice or No, because that card breaks open the combo match if you have it in hand.
And I stand by my claim that if you are running Survival, you have to have Anger in there somewhere. If there was any card that bought back all the tempo and resources spent in setting up Survival, it's Anger.
And STE is nuts, I'm really digging it.
And Pendelhaven making Rofellos weaker? ngaplz? The deck has 16 forests in it along with recurring ways to find more forests. Oh noez, a little bit of lack-of-synergy, I guess we should drop the basic mountain because it also has bad Rofellos synergy?
I want to emphasize that this list is highly customizable.
Choke is more on the board for stuff like UWB Fish and Landstill. At times, they can just out-tempo you. Sometimes they are rough matchups postboard, so I think boarding in something like Choke is a fine idea. Remember that it neutralizes a significant portion of the metagame too. Think of it as Chalices that you board in when you take the Chalices out of the main. The deck needs some sort of disruption to slow the opponent down and Choke is a fine card like that.
Scrumdogg, the lack of 1-drops is fine versus Thresh because this deck is the control and not the beatdown for most of the match. You control the midgame and dominate the lategame, so there's time to play around things like Daze and make sure that your threats resolve, because Thresh isn't going to kill you in the first few turns.
Of course this deck drops games to nuts hands from Goblins, find me a deck that doesn't.
Something else that I forgot in the article is that Hail Storm is a really, really good sideboard card too. Better than Clasm because the color requirements are easier and the instant speed is brutal versus Goblins and their Ringleaders/Warchiefs.
That all requires you getting a Survival and a Vial (with 4 counters) (Instant speed Gloomdrifter seems hot) before you die. Not imposible, but Goblins can win through a wrath every turn thanks to its own Vial and Warchief.Quote:
Originally Posted by hi-val
I hope no one has said that Anger shouldn't be in Survival. That seems like a poor idea.Quote:
And I stand by my claim that if you are running Survival, you have to have Anger in there somewhere. If there was any card that bought back all the tempo and resources spent in setting up Survival, it's Anger.
So... why should I play survival again?Quote:
Why You Should Play Survival
Survival is, in my opinion, the closest analog to Weissman-style Keeper that the format has.
I keep trying to tell him the same thing, and I actually disagree (Goblins is the closest analogue because it has the best card-drawing, the best selection, and the best mana accelerants available) with his premise.
hi-val, you still haven't answered my question about the proper splash-colors and why you dismissed 3-color builds so quickly.
Spatula has voiced similar concerns.
With cards like Deed, Therapy, Duress, Swords, Hierarch and a bajillion sideboard options, Black&White are clearly better complimentary colors than Red.
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewokslayer
The most effective Survival builds right now are GBW. Anger has no place there. Contrary to popular belief, Anger is not a must in Survival.
Great articles for the first month everyone keep it up. Hope this series doesnt get dropped after GP: Colombus.
P.S. Doug is the least geeky looking of the four of ya'll.
Bongo: my problem with splashes, and trust me, I ran Black for the longest time, is that they mostly 1-for-1. Therapy is nuts versus Goblins but you end up spending a card or two to essentially get lucky once and hone in on something else afterwards. Swords is the same case-- I don't think Survival can afford to 1-for-1. There aren't creatures that are dangerous enough that you have to answer them immediately in most cases. Same for Duress. I could see boarding in Duress and Therapy but seriously, if you're that scared of combo, then don't play Survival in the metagame : ) Deed I think takes the deck closer to Rock, where I don't think it needs to be. I like Baloth more than Hierarch because it is completely Swords-proof and a little easier on the mana. All told though, Hierarch is a pretty good dude, so I think he's fine.
So in short, the problem with splashes is that they don't do enough damage to justify the splash (perhaps apart from Black, which gives the AMAZING Gloomdrifter).
Ewokslayer, actually, you don't really need Vial out in that situation at all. The deck has many options that converge on getting something huge out on turns 4 or 5. For example, if you landed Survival on turn 3, you can go get Pyromancer and cast him on the fourth turn. Vials in that case make things nuts, but you can usually stabilize by just pulling out a Pyromancer first and then recharging on life with Feeder and Baloths until you have enough lands to get Genesis rolling.
TeenieBopper, because it doesn't up and lose to ALL of the random Legacy stuff that you encounter. That's why I like the deck so much-- it has strategy superiority against a lot. Rian will disagree with me until the end of time about how valuable strategy superiority is and whether Survival is good because of that, but I would say that if you don't want to play combo or aggro, then Survival is the control deck to roll with.
On Eternal Witness: If you look at my list, you'll see a dearth of stuff actually needing to be Witnessed back. No Instants, no Burning Wish bullets, no search. I have one Witness in because it's awful in my list but kind of needed. I would never go up to 2 witnesses maindeck because I don't have anything that needs to be recurred. In a deck with lots of Swords and Duress and Therapy and stuff, I could see Witness, but that deck is probably a lot better if you don't put Survival in it.
Firebrothers: LOL. That pic is actually a cropped version of this: http://photos-198.ak.facebook.com/ip...15198_4741.jpg
After seeing that picture, I figgered I'd jump in here. Who's that girl, how old is she, are you still dating her?Quote:
Originally Posted by hi-val
Your freakin MARRIED!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hi-val
Um... Yea. Any bit of avoidable antisynergy is worth changing. It's like a 61st card. It's risk reward. Is the +1/+2 buff to your precious 1/1's going to win you the game? Sometimes that 1 extra mana is huge. Sometimes Getting wastelanded is pretty bad, regardless of the majority of the time.
The basic mountain is in fact cuttable. ATS never ran it because it was bad with Rofellos, which is a main engine of Survival. It WAS in fact an unwastable mountain for Anger which was worth it in RGSA but not so in ATS. It's also only on that side of the fence if you have a strong portion of castable red cards that need to be Wastland proof. This deck qualifies for both of those points, thus making it worth it.
Pendlehaven is awful. Seriously. No Ngaplz about it.
It appears that we differ only on whether the utility of Pendelhaven is undermined by the loss of utility with Rofellos. I will say that I have never had the problem come up where Pendelhaven is the only land in my hand or where it interfered with Rofellos. I've been testing with it for two months, btw. Admittedly it was better with mana elves because it represented a bluff for other aggro decks, but I see little reason not to run it as a 1-of.
Gifts decks in block ran a singleton Okina, Temple to the Grandfathers, even though the opponent could conceivably Gifts up their own or Top into it and strip you out. Even though Okina only pumped 4 creatures in the deck, it was worth it to run even though there were risks to it, because the benefits outweighed them.
Anyway, the whole thing is a simple remedy-- if you don't like Pendelhaven in the deck, cut it! I happen to like it a lot. I could see putting in another Cradle (maybe if they weren't $30).
Did anyone else notice that he mentioned the errata on Great Whale, but then he didn't mention that they removed said errata? Sadness.
Also, pretty much all of his matchups were listed as bad or difficult. Remind me again why I'd play that deck?
Plus PoP, for what it's worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by hi-val
Umm, I believe GAGG kind of ruins this statement, as WRGU Survival made top 4, RGBSA took 9th, RGWB took 10th, and Di took EATS to 4-2. All of these decks ran red, because anger is the shit, along with FTK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongo
This also kind of shows that HiVal's statements that 3/4 color survival aren't viable. Running 3-4 colors is also very viable in this format. Birds of Paradise along with Vial make it very easy, and resilient.
Pendelhaven has no place in this deck. Considering that STE almost never attacks, Fanatic already essentially pumps himself, and Rootwalla does pump himself. Rofellos is almost always found very early, so pumping with Pendelhaven takes two mana- the land you tapped, and the mana you lost by not having it be a forest.
Also, an anti-combo survival build does not have to bastardize every other match possible to win. You want a lot more creature removal to deal with, ya know, the rest of the format.
So basically your saying just don't play the deck if there's combo in the metagame? Or pray you avoid it? If that is your way of thinking (maybe it's not), but if it is, I will ask you this: Why the fuck are you even wasting everyone's time? It's as if you make it sound like this deck is aimed at being played at a local 10-man tournament instead of a competitive metagame. Realize combo decks as a whole make up a greater percentage of the field than Goblins, so what the hell are you trying to accomplish by giving it a hit or miss strategy? Honestly if that's your way of seeing things then all this effort is a complete waste of time. We (or at least I am) playing a Survival deck because I believe it can compete in the metagame and have a decklist that is designed to play against the entire metagame. I didn't design a deck with only a small portion of the field in mind and hope to dodge the rest. That's just retarded.Quote:
About the combo match: play Survival in a metagame where you feel you have an accurate grasp of what will or will not show up. If you predict a lot of combo, then it's probably not the best thing to be playing. Have we talked about the combo match enough? Can we move onto other things? It's basically Chalice or No, because that card breaks open the combo match if you have it in hand.
The basic Mountain is acceptable because you run STE. That's fine. But Pendlehaven should be a forest. If you believe that a little bit of anti-synergy with the deck is ok, then I seriously question your credibility regarding Survival in general. Now, I realize this deck isn't nearly as reliant on Rofellos as other decks are because of Aether Vial, but there are situations where it actually can make a difference. I've played Rofellos in Survival probably longer than anyone else on here, and I'm tellin you that shitty Pendlehaven isn't worth it.Quote:
And Pendelhaven making Rofellos weaker? ngaplz? The deck has 16 forests in it along with recurring ways to find more forests. Oh noez, a little bit of lack-of-synergy, I guess we should drop the basic mountain because it also has bad Rofellos synergy?
Also while I'm on the subject, Gaea's Cradle is awful too. Wayy too many games in testing it bite me in the ass because I opened a potentially fine one-land hand and couldn't keep because Cradle won't add mana without a man in play. With your lack of 1-drops I'd cut this just on the basis that opening it could be an issue.
Landstill maybe, but UWB Fish should be a breeze. I tested that matchup to death with Mr. Nightmare, and it is incredibly in favor of Survival, and he can attest to it. I'll say it again, those should really be anti-combo slots.Quote:
Choke is more on the board for stuff like UWB Fish and Landstill. At times, they can just out-tempo you. Sometimes they are rough matchups postboard, so I think boarding in something like Choke is a fine idea. Remember that it neutralizes a significant portion of the metagame too. Think of it as Chalices that you board in when you take the Chalices out of the main. The deck needs some sort of disruption to slow the opponent down and Choke is a fine card like that.
What about the lack of 1-drops against Goblins? Your deck practically scoops the game without a Survival in play, because Sylvan isn't the best thing to find answers if it'll cost 4 life to dig. The only out you have to blocking a turn 1 Lackey on the draw is the single Mogg Fanatic or Basking Rootwalla, of which they have 8 removal spells to possibly deal with it. You don't have a very good early protection game at all without a Survival, which leads me to believe you can barely beat the deck without it.Quote:
Scrumdogg, the lack of 1-drops is fine versus Thresh because this deck is the control and not the beatdown for most of the match. You control the midgame and dominate the lategame, so there's time to play around things like Daze and make sure that your threats resolve, because Thresh isn't going to kill you in the first few turns.
Most effective? How? You are over a full turn slower than Anger builds. In a heads up Survival matchup, I see them walking all over you just because their men gain haste and will be attacking faster than yours. Unless you can justify a slower deck in a format that demands speed, then your statement is nothing but falacy.Quote:
The most effective Survival builds right now are GBW. Anger has no place there. Contrary to popular belief, Anger is not a must in Survival.
Again as I pointed out earlier, you need to build the deck so it can fight all decks expected to be played. The point of building and refining decks in this format is so they can compete at a high level. Adding a 3rd color to improve your worst matchups well outweighs the potential hazards from Wasteland, a card that is generally only seen in one deck, as opposed to, you know, the 3 good combo decks in the format that you auto-lose to.Quote:
Bongo: my problem with splashes, and trust me, I ran Black for the longest time, is that they mostly 1-for-1. Therapy is nuts versus Goblins but you end up spending a card or two to essentially get lucky once and hone in on something else afterwards. Swords is the same case-- I don't think Survival can afford to 1-for-1. There aren't creatures that are dangerous enough that you have to answer them immediately in most cases. Same for Duress. I could see boarding in Duress and Therapy but seriously, if you're that scared of combo, then don't play Survival in the metagame : ) Deed I think takes the deck closer to Rock, where I don't think it needs to be. I like Baloth more than Hierarch because it is completely Swords-proof and a little easier on the mana. All told though, Hierarch is a pretty good dude, so I think he's fine.
I see your point on Pendelhaven. I'll graciously concede that you're probably right about it. Cradle was a holdover from when the deck had a bunch of mana elves; if you run Birds or Elves over STE, I certainly can see keeping Cradle in. However, again, I fully accept that it is less good with less mana elves.
Can we seriously stop kvetching about it now?
And the combo matches are not autolosses. Please understand that I've been testing and refining this list for a long time now. I know, I know, appeal to authority, but it's not like a deck with a mediocre first-game combo match is unplayable (Goblins, anyone?).
And on the topic of the Goblins/combo matchup, they run typically 8 anti-combo cards on the board-- 4 Chalice and 4 Pillar. The same cards are still able to be run by Survival, and hell, four of them are maindeck and if you see them in your grip, you're in really good shape. I mentioned in the article that you can mulligan into them too, stunning concept there. Now I know that Survival doesn't have the same speed that Goblins does, even if Goblins dilutes itself with 8 sideboard cards. My point here is that with anti-combo stuff, you can have a decent shot at winning because the deck has a fast clock when it is able to buy 2 turns with anti-combo equipment.
If Chokes on the board really bother you, replace with Boil. I've smoked High Tide with those more times than I can remember. I don't see Tide anywhere anymore, so I don't sideboard against it. Choke, by the way, has a non-negligible effect on Solidarity, but that's neither here nor there.
On the topic of splashing: I haven't really found anything that excites me in splashing outside of Red. Everything outside of Gloomdrifter, Ghost-lit Stalker and Cao Cao, Lord of Wei just end up being 1-for-1s or very close trades. If someone has a good, compelling card to splash for, I'm all ears! Of course I would want to make this deck better! I've been playing Survival decks for two years now and I think this is the culmination of finally getting the Danger of Cool Things out of my system. Running blue for Ovinomancer is really, really good, but it just isn't necessary, I feel. It goes back to Survival needing to recoup card advantage instead of purely needing to play really good dudes. Keep in mind that 3color builds are certainly fine, but one of those colors must really be red for Anger; if you're just splashing for Anger, then it's pretty close to a 2-color build. Running Duress, while it seems strong on the surface, doesn't jive with me. It's a 1-for-1 trade, it's dead a lot of the time, and if I'm boarding something in, I can probably board in something better.
What do you think of that concept? Does the idea of building Survival as a card-advantage engine have merit? I think I explained it well in the history and analysis section. Did I mis-execute the concept? I welcome constructive criticism!
No, they're not autolosses, but they aren't by any means near good. Fighting to get them towards 40-60% is the best we can do really, and by all means it's important to at least try. I realize Chalice of the Void is the nuthigh against combo decks, but without it the deck crumbles. Also, Solidarity does run Force of Will and Remand (if you give them time), and TES can fight through a Chalice in many situations or just Burning Wish -> Shattering Spree. It's hella good against Iggy Pop though, who only have a single out against it.Quote:
And the combo matches are not autolosses. Please understand that I've been testing and refining this list for a long time now. I know, I know, appeal to authority, but it's not like a deck with a mediocre first-game combo match is unplayable (Goblins, anyone?).
And also, game 1 Goblins against combo is still around 45-50%. The deck is still Goblins, which means it can just go stupid. Solidarity generally combos turn 4 at the earliest, but has the potential to fizzle if forced to go off too early and Goblins applies a LOT of pressure. All they need is a Lackey and then a Rishadan Port to follow up and their pretty much golden.
It's not that it bothers me, I just think it's unnecessary (and technically suboptimal, but that's already be beaten to death). Generally the matchups you would board it in against already feature a strong matchup anyway (Thresh, Fish) and although it's decent against Landstill PoP is also the nuthigh in the matchup which should be strong enough. However, replacing Choke with Boil as you mentioned makes perfect sense, and is worthy of the slot. I played Boil in my own sideboard for a long time until I figured Arcane Lab would just be better for the combo matchup(and still feel that way), but Boil is still an excellent option.Quote:
If Chokes on the board really bother you, replace with Boil. I've smoked High Tide with those more times than I can remember. I don't see Tide anywhere anymore, so I don't sideboard against it. Choke, by the way, has a non-negligible effect on Solidarity, but that's neither here nor there.
The idea of adding colors isn't there for the "ability to do cool things" so much anymore (but GOD how it used to be there...) but moreso the ability to expand your resources to make the deck versatile. For instance, when you add black, you gain the option to disrupt a contol deck to force through your important spells, and also get a Goblins hoser with Engineered Plague. It isn't like people are running black so they can play some overcosted cool black creature or something of the like. People add colors to increase the overall efficiency of their nonland slots at the expense of "weakening" their manabase, and I put that in quotes because I personally question the popularity of Wasteland in the metagame. Out of all the tier 1/tier 1.5 decks in the format, how many run it? What.. Goblins, and...black decks? Against Goblins it's understandable, but if the land was a basic against a black deck, they would Sinkhole it anyway, and then Hymn out the card you wanted to play (and on a side note, despite a black deck being able to disrupt your manabase, they have a very hard time with Survival). Basically in this argument I suppose my own deck could be taken into question because of the fact that it runs 4 colors (though technically, it's actually GB with a splash of blue and red) because of the playstyle and unorthodox manabase. However, I do not run all those colors because I think I am playing "cool cards" (and please, Tradewind naysayers, don't give me additional lip and make my piss and moan why I think it's good.) I run all those colors because I feel together they can create a decklist that has the necessary tools to win each matchup. Sure there's risk involved, but sometimes that's what it takes to win.Quote:
On the topic of splashing: I haven't really found anything that excites me in splashing outside of Red. Everything outside of Gloomdrifter, Ghost-lit Stalker and Cao Cao, Lord of Wei just end up being 1-for-1s or very close trades. If someone has a good, compelling card to splash for, I'm all ears! Of course I would want to make this deck better! I've been playing Survival decks for two years now and I think this is the culmination of finally getting the Danger of Cool Things out of my system. Running blue for Ovinomancer is really, really good, but it just isn't necessary, I feel. It goes back to Survival needing to recoup card advantage instead of purely needing to play really good dudes. Keep in mind that 3color builds are certainly fine, but one of those colors must really be red for Anger; if you're just splashing for Anger, then it's pretty close to a 2-color build.
Maindecking Duress is awful, simply on the notion that it's bad against Goblins. Cabal Therapy is insane though. Sometimes you can't just look at it as a 1-for-1. Not because it can potentially multiple cards out of the hand, but because it can hit devastating cards out of the opponent's hand. Would you consider a Cabal Therapy hitting Goblin Ringleader a 1-for-1? I sure as hell wouldn't. I understand what your saying about the whole theory of 1-for-1'ing being poor, but in some circumstances you need to look beyond that.Quote:
Running Duress, while it seems strong on the surface, doesn't jive with me. It's a 1-for-1 trade, it's dead a lot of the time, and if I'm boarding something in, I can probably board in something better.
Diablos, thanks for a really good post. I see what you mean about running more colors (and I'm glad we're both grooving on Black). The thing for me is that there really isn't a lot that impresses me in other colors that cannot be achieved with red and green. The big thing is hand disruption, but that seems to only matter against combo. Against control, the stream of threats is, IMO, significant enough to get wins without needing to force anything out. The other thing to consider is this: Chalice is the best anti-combo card, period. Chalice also conveniently cuts off Duress or Therapy if you run one of them. The closest compromise I could see would be maindecking Pillars too, but I don't know how well that would work. If I have to choose between Chalice and Therapy though, I have to go with Chalice. If there's strong hate that goes with Chalice that I can maindeck, I'm all for it. I'm also in complete agreement with you about squeaking out that 60% if you can. The POPs on the board go a ways towards speeding the postboard kill up as well. If I had blue in the deck, I would run Meth Lab in a heartbeat.
Oh, and trust me, I've got plenty of love for Therapy too. I ran 4 before I grabbed Chalices over them. It's really an either-or thing with Chalice and Therapy and I think the former ends up being a lot stronger. Therapy seems to shine best against Goblins, and nothing is better than making them discard 3 Warchiefs and then flash for the Ringleader. However, that most of the time requires a nonbasic against a deck that will punish you for it. And most of the time, you don't get ridiculous plays like that. I ran Therapy also when I had mana elves/walls in the deck; with STE instead, Therapy is a lot harder to flash.
I feel like with any person who has played Survival for a long enough time, there are some wild tech cards to be shared. Got anything that I missed? I remember back when you could get away with doing Cool Things and still win, I had Living Deaths in my deck and would just ramp up mana to Kokushos and win with one or the other. Oh, the days...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablos
It doesn't matter that you are a turn slower because GBW Survival is not the aggro deck here. The format demands a way to DEAL with the speed if you're going the control route. You only have to be speedy if you're aggro or combo.
You are more effective than Anger builds because you have the stronger midgame and the stronger means to get there.
1) Survival needs some way to get into the midgame faster than normal. It can do this with walls, counters, disruption, or a combination of these.
-> Therapy, Swords, STE, Walls
2) Survival works best when it is used to create inevitability through recursion or Genesis.
-> Genesis, Recurring Nightmare
3) Survival needs a plan to win without Survival on the board.
-> Control the board with Therapy, Swords, Deed, Witness, Hierarch, dig through your deck with Top & E-Tutors
4) Survival is a card used for board control.
-> check. Survival fetches the answers to stay in control.
I think I justified my statement, GBW is better in all of those points. Additionally, Therapy (actively) & Pernicious Deed (reactively) gives you an additional way to remove Pithing Needles.
As for the matchup with Anger builds, I feel pretty confident with GBW. Hierarch, Swords and Deed deal with hasted creatures and allow me to play the control role far better. Once in the midgame, Genesis & Nightmare give me the better lategame.