Printable View
This is the list I'm currently using and its performing well
// Lands
3 Windswept Heath
3 Swamp
2 Plains
2 Savannah
2 Scrubland
2 Bayou
4 Marsh Flats
3 Verdant Catacombs
1 Forest
// Creatures
4 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Dark Confidant
3 Doran, the Siege Tower
// Spells
2 Smother
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Thoughtseize
4 Vindicate
2 Gerrard's Verdict
2 Diabolic Edict
2 Duress
I assume that when you cut the wastes that your mana issues went away. How's Bob been for you? Have you thought about upping his count or has 3 been enough?
im gonna post my version of the deck and is also up for discussion:
bloodstained mire x4
windswept heath x4
scrub land x4
bayou x4
waste land x4
swamp x1
plains x1
thought seize x4
hymn to tourach x4
dark ritual x4
swords to plowshares x4
vindicate x4
sensei's divining top x3
tidehollow sculler x4
dark confidant x4
tarmogoyf x4
tomb stalker x3
sideboard
leyline of the void x4
duress x4
pernicious deed x3
engineered plague x4
i was considering to add volraths stronghold and a copy of a forest in case so they cant waste away my lands. i find this a more control version as it controls the field and the hand. please give me any ideas or concerns you have about my deck thanks
Haha, me and gvbarroso aren't the same person, but it's true that our lists are VERY similar. About Bob, I've had literally no time to test my list, so I can't really say. Cutting a Doran for Bob is always an option, since Doran is legendary. I'm still torn on the Wastelands. Maybe I'll try to work on some calculations, seeing how many 1 colored land + 1 wasteland hands would turn into 2 colored land hands if I made the switch. If the percentage is high enough, I'll consider cutting them, but I still want a Knight of the Reliquary lock. Maybe a singleton Dust Bowl would work for that?Quote:
I assume that when you cut the wastes that your mana issues went away. How's Bob been for you? Have you thought about upping his count or has 3 been enough?
@gvbarroso: Have you ever missed having Pernicious Deed? Having 12 spot removal (what you have) might be the better approach, since it speeds up the deck.
@james ribis: That's an interesting list. Looks kind of like Deadguy splash green for Goyf. A 4 Bayou 4 Scrubland manabase vs. my 2 Savannah 2 Scrubland 2 Bayou manabase is interesting, yours might be better since you want to hit BB turn two for Hymn. I'm questioning Dark Rit though. It can only accelerate you into Seize + Hymn, Seize + Confidant, and Stalker. It seems more suitable for Eva Green style decks that can also accelerate into Hypnotic Specter, Seize + Sinkhole, a quick Jitte + equip, or a late-game Shade pump. I don't know if it does enough in your deck to warrant having it.
... Oops. Didn't notice the name. sorry about that. Dust bowl sounds like a good option and can be used a couple of times. Maybe that's the way to go.
Overall I'm a fan of KotR but, both of your lists are so color Dependant that he's almost unable to be used to his full potential.
@James - You should look at Brian Kowal's List from GP Chicago. It is your list, almost to the letter. He's running Mesmeric Fiend over Sculler to have more synergy with Ritual.
yea i was thinking he fiend over sculler but i find sculler better as it is a artifact and if it dies tarm power. i know the rites only excel for discard power then pretty much dead for say but in certain cases turn one thought hymn is game. any suggestions what i can turn them into or perhaps changing making my list better
Yes, I took the list of brianw712 as a template, because I like it very much, and then modified it to fit Bobs and improve the mana base. First I was thinking about keeping a singleton Wasteland and even a Dust Bowl. But the single Wasteland is not very impressive and Dust Bowl is just TOO slow. This way I can run 21-22 lands (using the later numer currently) without worrying about getting screwed by colorless mana.
I believe 3 is the best number for Bobs. It feels very good, and it provides me the card advantage needed not to run SDT.
Cutting Deeds was a consequence of including Bobs, and the deck is faster now. I actually dont miss them...
I also cut 2 Gerrard's Verdict for 2 Duress because my mana curve was too focused on 2 and I wasnt beeing able to cast 1st turn drops.
@ James - I'm all for Kowal's list but I am not a fan of Plague. In most cases landing 2 against a tribal deck is game but, you have to successfully cast them both. Additionally, the 2 tribal decks that are being played now are Gobs and Folk. Both of these decks play lords (some play multiple lords). That means that you have to remove them from the game as well as land 2 plagues.
@gvbarroso - The color dependency has got worried. How has that been for you? are you able to operate off of limited lands (due to waste or style)?
I agree, I'm a BIG advocator of Infest over Engineered Plague. Sure E. Plague sticks around, but, one Infest is usually enough to swing the game heavily in your favor. It might not be right for your list since it kills your own scullers and confidants, but in general I think that Infest is better, because it can't be Gripped/Disenchanted/destroyed in any way.Quote:
@ James - I'm all for Kowal's list but I am not a fan of Plague.
Its not hard to play around wasteland with my list. But sifle is different. Things can get pretty bad if one stifle hits one of my fetches in the first 4 turns, depending on my hand...but I think getting a fetchland stifled is a serious problem for almost every deck!
I wasnt sure what to side in against aggro, but I believe I'm also adopting Infest. Do we have another options? Also, what to side against Zoo?
This is the sideboard I'm currently tinkering around with:Quote:
I wasnt sure what to side in against aggro, but I believe I'm also adopting Infest. Do we have another options? Also, what to side against Zoo?
3 Gaddock teeg
4 Infest
4 Diabolic Edict
4 Extirpate
I just side in the Edicts against Zoo. I like Edict because I can also side it in against Tempo Thresh, Team America, anything that plays Progenitus, anything that plays Iona (they will name white), and anything else that plays a lot of creatures. Of course you already mainboard two, maybe put two in the side and two Paths in the side as well? You could also try putting in Deed in the side, since it's good against not just Zoo but Enchantress, any Stompy list, Stax, the new UW Tempo, most decks that play Noble Hierarch, and it's pretty good against Aggro Loam (hits Moxen/Chalice guaranteed).
Don't forget that against Zoo you can save lands in your hand for Gerrard's Verdict targeting yourself, and of course the old trick of Swordsing your own creature.
By the way, I haven't done the math I was talking about doing, but I think that Wasteland really fits in the deck. Sure it might up the mulligan percentage/keeping a bad hand percentage, but it just wins so many games for me. They're not just good because of the KoTR lock, but just drawing and playing one screws your opponent up so much, especially if preceded by a Hymn. I think the addition of Confidant really helped, since it can help you find more colored mana, and you don't need a colorless open every time like Top. So for now, for me, Wastelands are here to stay.
For my list, I think that P. Deed is here to stay. It's just so good against so many decks. I don't know why, but I just really like the way my mainboard is right now :smile:
Alright I did some math. For a list with 23 lands, 19 of which produce colored mana and 4 of which are Wastelands, the probability of drawing a hand with one Wasteland and one colored source is 8.578%. We'll call these hands borderline. The probability of drawing a hand with only two lands, both of which are Wastelands, is 0.677%. We'll call these hands unkeepable. The probability of drawing a hand with two lands, both of which produce colored mana, is 19.300%. We'll call these hands keepable.
For a list with 22 lands, all of which produce colored mana, the probability of drawing a hand with only two lands is 26.072%.
So, comparing gvbarroso's list with mine, a 22 land configuration has about 7% more two-land keepable hands than a 23 land configuration with 4 Wastelands.
Of course, hands containing one, or three or more lands were not taken into account. Post-mulligan hands were also not taken into account.
Eh, 7% is kind of high, but even if Wastelands win you the game only 3% of the time, I feel that their inclusion is worth it (since not every mulligan leads to a game loss). And I think that Wastelands win more than 1/33 games that you play.
What advantages are there to playing the Aggro version of The Rock versus something like Eva Green? To me, Aggro Rock is trading in the explosiveness of Eva Green's Dark Ritual brokenness for a slightly better mid-game.
I think you're right in saying that. However, I also think it's a matter of consistency. A lot of Eva Green's cards are very situational. Dark Rit is only really good in the opening hand, Putrid Leech is only good vs. no Tarmogoyfs, Jitte is only good with creatures in play, Nantuko Shade isn't all that great of a turn two play, Sinkhole is only good early, and Hypnotic Specter is only a good play turn 1. This leaves Eva Green with a lot of hands that go like: Dark Rit, Jitte, Swamp, Verdant Catacombs, Nantuko Shade, Reanimate, Maelstrom Pulse. Not that that hand is bad, it's just not as "broken" as it could be. A single STP leaves that hand in topdeck mode. Meanwhile, Aggro Rock is a lot more consistent. Maybe you get hands like: Verdant Catacombs, Marsh Flats, Gerrard's Verdict, Dark Confidant, Tarmogoyf, Pernicious Deed, Wasteland. It's not very explosive at all (it doesn't even have a turn 1 play!) but the combination of the must-answer Confidant, the must-answer Goyf, and the answer-all Deed makes it a very strong hand.Quote:
What advantages are there to playing the Aggro version of The Rock versus something like Eva Green? To me, Aggro Rock is trading in the explosiveness of Eva Green's Dark Ritual brokenness for a slightly better mid-game.
I just came by to say that I'm runnin a singleton wasteland and that I'm happy with it.
As for the Eva green vs. Aggro rock, I have to agree with brian. Not that one deck is strictly better than the other. Its more a matter of playstyle and kind of a metagame choice...
Brian hit the nail on the head. I'd like to go in more detail though.Quote:
What advantages are there to playing the Aggro version of The Rock versus something like Eva Green? To me, Aggro Rock is trading in the explosiveness of Eva Green's Dark Ritual brokenness for a slightly better mid-game.
In general, Rock wants to build it's advantage and win by hindering its opponents development and current board state without extensive damage to its own, improving, state. To put it simply, Rock plays almost as a Mid-ranged tempo deck. Its spells are typically meant to provide versatility to issues that could come up during a match (Vindicate hits permanents, Thoguhtseize grabs a non-land, deed recovers a lost board position). Everything down to it's creatures are meant to be more than what they look (Knight increases the probability to draw a spell over a land, Sculler assists in controlling a hand, Goyf to remove creatures). In general, Rock builds are constructed to be able to use all of their spells as swiss army knives.
Eva Green is an adaptation of Suicide black, a deck that is bent on destroying the opponent's board/hand even at the cost of it's own resources, and Eva Green stays true to it's roots in most situations. The creatures are typically more efficient power-wise but less efficient in the mid to late game, as majority of them are also not multi-purposed or have drawbacks which hinder their own production (Tombstalker but must have a graveyard built to cast, Shade must be pumped, Gofy's power can be hindered by casting a Tombstalker).
The difference between Agro-Rock and Eva Green is simply that Rock wants to be able to adapt to the match it's in (without having to adjust much of it's core). Eva Green tends to side in answers to the issues it provided Game 1. Rock should be siding in more issues to be dealt with, as it should have the answers to most decks main and simply be increasing it's game-play style against whatever it plays.
Because of the difference, Rock decks are more resilient than Eva Green and able to adapt to an issue presented by the opponent better than an Eva Green player. It does lose the explosive starts and has to almost play catch-up with the faster decks.
So to answer your questions with one word, Resilience. You play Agro-Rock over Eva Green because it's more Resilient.
On a side note, I believe that Rock decks are also harder to pilot as you have to weigh each decision amongst what could be. This is why I don't see the deck getting played as much as it used to.
-----
gvbarroso - I'm curious why only 1 Waste? I do like the idea and you can fetch it with Knight but, I don't see what one Waste really does for you. It seems that without a way to either reoccur, it is just a random LD spell. There are much better lands to play over the Waste if you only want a 1 of.
I run only 1 Wasteland just in case I see my opponent is having a hard time with its manabase. I also run 4 Vindicate, so I can often hit 2 lands if I see he's in trouble in that way. I would like to play 4 Wasteland, but a 3-color deck can't afford them, in my opinion.
I would run 2 or 3 (preferably 3) should be ok. The 4th is a bad idea because of the amount of generic mana required for your spell (it's really low) so you need the colored mana more than the Generic that you'll get. I would try testing it with 2 and then after that (if you like it) with 3. That way you can figure out how to wing with the extra colorless.
I did some more math to contribute to the Wasteland vs. no Wasteland discussion.
First off, I'll start off with my loose definition of a mulliganable hand. Mulliganable seven-card hands consist of:
1. No lands.
2. Only one land.
3. Only two lands: one color-producing land and one Wasteland.
4. Only two lands, both being Wastelands.
5. Only three lands: two Wastelands and one color-producing land.
6. Only three lands, all three being Wastelands.
7. Only four lands: three Wastelands and one color-producing land.
8. Only four lands, all four being Wastelands.
9. Five lands or more.
Of course, not everyone always adheres to all of these guidelines; there are certainly situations in which you would keep one land hands or five land hands. This is only a simple model. However, it is still pretty close to reality, and so is still useful.
For a 23 land build with 4 Wastelands, the mulligan probability is about 34.77%, which is pretty high. For a 23 land build with 0 Wastelands, the mulligan probability goes down to 23.34%--over an 11% difference. If you assume that each Wasteland contributes an equal amount to the mulligan rate (which isn't true, but it's not a bad assumption), then you can calculate mulligan probabilities with 1, 2, or 3 Wastelands as well.
You can do the same thing for any number of lands and any number of Wastelands. Personally, although I would like closer to a 25% mulligan rate, I think I'm still going to include the four Wastelands. Maybe I'll cut it down to three, I'll have to think about it some more.
Yes, I was in doubt about running 1 or 2. When I'm done testing 1, I will add another one. But I don't think I will make it to 3...Not with 22 lands, at least, and I don't like the 23rd land at all.