Printable View
But there is one small, yet important difference. When we, the common folk, spin around when debating around single cardchoices it affects our own lists. Even if we post them every now and then it still says "decklist:XYZ". What we do not do is like "THE OFFICIAL HAIL TO GOD COPY MY DECKLIST"style of things, you know?
Greetings
Yeah, I didn't mean to be negative. It is just nice and sometimes entertaining to see all the steps to a natural conclusion. Nice work.
First of all, that kind of harsh criticism is not based on facts. We discussed deck lists that exchanged perhaps 4-5 cards if not less - The meta game is shifting and we are testing for weeks now and I do think that it is appreciated that we post every step in the think process. It is a thread with a great discussion culture where every single question is answered or every idea is discussed. Every idea that seems not bad at first glance is tested. So show me one single thread here that has that approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Star|Scream
And the end result matters. The list now is perfect and the primer is to be taken more seriously than half of the primers on the source - or when was the RUG Delver primer updated and how many primers are so short that they read like a long post?
So I sincerely ask you take back your offense. Real bad move.
Yeah if you followed the thread you would know that I always appreciate more ways than the one in the primer. But as Carsten and I want to promote the deck here in the US and make it viable there we need just a bit of marketing. And catch words like "official ultimate list" sound nice, huh? ;-) But the more important reason for that approach is that 4 color decks can be messed up quite hard if not done right. It is such a fragile construction that always can break if 2-3 cards are exchanged. For example: 3-4 more black cards in the main deck make bUrg total garbage. That is why I want official lists so that no one can come and say that bUrg is a bad deck although they played a bad list :) I hope that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Einherjer
When you boast three different "OFFICIAL" and final builds three days in a row, there is no way you can be taken seriously. Just yesterday you said two TNN were better than one. Now you are saying one is better. Earlier you were advocating playing Ashiok in your lists. I stand by my statement that it is hard to take you seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasan
If you don't like his or anyone else's ideas, then you are under no obligation to follow them. If you find it entertaining to simply watch the discussion, then enjoy, but please do so quietly and/or respectfully. Thanks in advance!Quote:
Originally Posted by Star|Scream
Regarding the list, I'm sticking with the non-TNN build, in part because I don't have them, and in part because I think the 4/4/3/2 Delver/Goose/DRS/Goyf team is still the right one for me. I had good performance with the Forked Bolt in the 3rd Spell Snare slot on day one of the GP, only missing day two by the last round to end at 6-2-1, but in a side event on Sunday I tried out a third Abrupt Decay in that slot. It didn't seem to help or hinder, so at the moment I'm trying a Maelstrom Pulse to see if that speaks strongly to me, one way or the other.
One thing that I did develop a firm belief in over the course of the events is the 8 fetch mana base. This one feels right to me, and I expect it's what I'll stick with even as minor changes take place around it.
Well then I cannot take you seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Star|Scream
Ashiok stays a great card but the SB space is limited due to the Golgari Charms. Only the first and last list were official. The second one was a test build. The difference between the first and third is minor. And it was too much changing of lists in some days that is true. I can only stress that the differences were only 3-4 slots. I do not know how that harsh criticism can arise. But perhaps you have better manners in real life. And perhaps you can let you crushed by my list to take this seriously. I would just download Cockatrice just for you. But stop bashing and posting nonsense in the otherwise great thread that has been praised for its discussion culture by Glenn Jones from SCG. Where is your primer that you manage with labor and love? Yeah there is none . You are a troll.
As stated in the primer 8 fetch lands is totally fine :) But in a tempo heavy meta 7 is perhaps slightly better just to dodge opposing Stifles a bit more. And your creature base is just slightly changed from the new proposedQuote:
Originally Posted by fdiv_bug
one. Just respectable changes you made and these should work out well :-)
Ah and the Spell Snare choices are always playstyle dependent and meta choices. A Snare/Pierce split or a Removal Spell more might work there too. If you run maelstorm pulse please do not run TNN as 2 cc3 spells and 4 cc2 spells would make the mana curve a bit high.
I don't know why you're taking this so defensively. I'm just saying that you somehow claiming to have created the perfect "OFFICIAL" decklist yet you keep changing it over and over is comical. I'm not being a troll. You're just not approaching this from a serious deck-building mindset. Official lists aren't set in stone every other day. They take weeks and months to hone. It just seems like you try one thing and fail, so you try another, then back to the first, and so on and so forth. That's not being serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasan
Please don't call my manners into question because I am not being mean. I am just being honest.
I cannot repeat myself more: One list was suggested by a forum member and I said that I would test it to say if it is a good approach. The other lists were just like the list now. I bet my ass that all lists - except the test list that was never mentionned in the primer - were and are top notch and can beat all decks to beat. I would understand you if I had posted a single bad list but all lists are beasts. They are all so sweet that deciding on the right one is not easy. And take note that one list was by me, one by the community and the last one double checked with Carsten. You know that you get different results if you have different people tuning it? The core was always the same and only the creature base was changed. Just get over it and try to build similar lists on any archetype and then come and talk about deck building theory. And one thing must be repeated again: Just stop trolling.
And believe me we test different lists just after the first TNN spoilers appeared. No list was half-tested. All
work incredibly well.
Edit: I just looked it up.
The first list was posted during the GP weekend or so. It was a conservative approach as the impact of
TNN was believed to be just a hype.
Then there came a list that was and is perfect for the meta game of the moment.
The newest list considers the trends that all decks plan to hate out Nemesis and therefore mongoose becomes better.
The rush is not my fault. It is the result of the meta vacuum we are now on. The lists of Esper Blade two weeks ago, one week ago and today have changed dramatically. This does not get criticized? Well I hope that you return to normal arguments and stop bitching.
I'm not bitching. I'm not trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasan
I said I cannot take you seriously when you proclaim you have the one and only official decklist. Oh but that's changing today, then tomorrow, now back to 1 TNN, or maybe 2? It's silly.
It doesn't mean the deck is bad or you didn't test it well. It just means you're being silly and it's hard to take you seriously. Get over yourself. You're not the owner of the archetype.
Thanks.
And a discussion process can lead to a conclusion that is not that much changed from the stock list of
the last months :-) A discussion must be open-minded.
***I'll make a disclaimer that the variance in opinions could be related to local meta***
Sasan, the creature package you propose is very similar to what I ran last week and I must admit it didn't work for me.
Last week I ran (14 creatures)
4 Nimble Mongoose
4 Delver of Secrets
3 Deathrite Shaman
2 Tarmogoyf
1 True Name Nemesis
Your proposing now that the creature package is: (13 creatures)
3 Deathrite Shaman
4 Delver of Secrets
3 Nimble Mongoose
2 Tarmogoyf
1 True-Name Nemesis
The difference is (1) Nimble Mongoose which has some relevance. From my experience I didn't like the singleton True-Name Nemesis. Maybe it was me, but having only 1 copy I may have over valued it and would want to only play it when I had counter back up. To be honest, based on a lot of the content in this thread I was convinced to play fewer creatures, Going down from 14 to 12. I wanted to add more control pieces, initially I considered cutting stifle to make room for 3 pierce and 3 spell snare. I quickly added the stifles back in, but I was still stuck on what should I cut from the deck to make room. I really like Lemnear idea of cutting goose. The current builds of bUrg have a difficult time of achieving Threshold early. We run only 7 fetchland and 0 gitaxian probes. We are 2 turns behind RUG's threshold with their 4 free cards (3 probes and 8th fetch) and rely on our Deathrites to hold off their buy time for our threshold plan. There are a lot of times where goose is 1/1. Yesterday, there was no absence of graveyard hate. In 4 rounds I had 3 rest in peace cast against me, twice it resolved and, at least as many deathrite shaman battles. So right now at my meta, I feel good about cutting goose (-4) for +1 Deathrite Shaman(4), +2 Spell Pierce(4), +1 True-Name(2) Having 2 True-Name made cutting goose easier.
Having less green makes it easier to switch the Taiga to a Badland, since green is only needed for 2 abrupt, 2 goyfs and deathrite activations. I am also considering cutting another fetchland since Threshold isn't important anymore and adding a 8th mana producing that which makes me better against the stifle/wasteland decks in my meta. (top 4 decks yesterday were all delver decks bUrg, UWR, Grixis, BUG.) I'm not suggesting that everyone should play this, but it seemed really strong for me yesterday, the deck seemed to 'flow' better than any of the other bUrg builds I've played so far.
This is what I have built in response to yesterdays performance. (For the record I went 4-0)
I'd like to nick-name this 'gooseless' variant:
'HeisenbUrg Delver' in honor of Walter White :tongue:
4 Deathrite Shaman
4 Delver of Secrets
2 Tarmogoyf
2 True-Name Nemesis
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Daze
4 Force of Will
4 Stifle
2 Spell Pierce
2 Spell Snare
2 Abrupt Decay
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Scalding Tarn
4 Polluted Delta
2 Underground Sea
2 Tropical Island
2 Volcanic Island
1 Badland
4 Wasteland
sideboard
2 Red Elemental Blast
2 Golgari Charm
2 Submerge
2 Flusterstorm
1 Life from the Loam
1 Ancient Grudge
1 Grafdigger's Cage
1 Umezawa's Jitte
1 Grim Lavamancer
1 Dread of Night
1 Liliana of the Veil
Simple design and the numbers are pretty good
sideboard discussion:
Having 3 red blast vs True-Name seemed like a bit much. But I wanted an answer for it. Adding a Badland open the idea of running a Liliana in the Veil. Likely its greedy, but I'm willing to give it a go. Having turn 2 Liliana is a nice option.
Since I was off the threshold plan, There is an opportunity to play Grim Lavamancer as a removal option.
Since I was off goose, there wasn't as many reasons not to run Umezawa's Jitte. Having 12 bodies live for equipment. True-Name Nemesis + Jitte is combo against fair decks. You swing with this, you win.
Dread of Night might get switched to a massacre
You know that I only call it official deck list if the inventor of the archetype approves it? I cannot see where that is the case except the Team America Thread of Daniel. That is why the term official is not wrong. It is the stock list for discussions. So everyone can say: I played the stock list - 1 Goyf + 1 TNN for example. It streamlines the discussion and helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Star|Scream
Well if you say the lists are good and tested, where is the point in criticizing my person? Is that approved by the forum guidelines or by social behavior? if must be great to sit behind a computer and insult people, huh?
Respectfully: Can we please just get back to the subject?
the noise is distracting from the content.
I am not insulting you!! I am saying you are acting silly and I can't take you seriously! Please read what I just wrote again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasan
Anyway let's stop. It's going nowhere.
Thanks for your input. I appreciate your list and perhaps we can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tormod
Plus sides:
-12 Creatures (meaning more spells)
- better mana base (badlands is better than taiga in your list, 4 Shaman therefore make sense)
- Only Shaman suffers from RIP.
Possible Down Side:
- Only one: You lose Mongoose and have only
2 Shroud creatures. While Goyf or Mongoose are perhaps equally good versus many decks Goyf is quite bad in matchups where you face a Swords to Plowshares.dec or a deck relying on Decay. Those are the times you miss 4 shroud creatures. Versus Control more shroud creatures are appreciated, too. On the other hand it is true that Mongoose is slower in bUrg than in RUG. I am happy that RUG players slowly begin to abandon their Probes so that the difference will not be that significant anymore. I think that Mongoose in bUrg asks for a conservative and not aggressive
playstyle. bUrg is tending to be on the control side of tempo decks. But if you want to play more aggressively Mongoose seems slow. So a playstyle option.
@Sideboard: Let me know how Lilli works for you. It seems bit greedy tough.
Massacre harms your Shamans and Delver too much.
@my creature base: You said it: Do not treat Nemesis as a holy card that must be cast with counter backup. Just think if you draw it: Oh another Mongoose/Goyf (just depends what you need at the moment) and treat it accordingly :-)
@Sasan
How has the SB Golgari Charms in the TNN lists worked for you? I'm planning to run a TNNless burg list just for the sake of casting Golgari Charm on them TNNs.
Although I miss the second Fire Covenant I think running 2 Charms is the right move now. You need at least 4 slots of TNN hate, as you need to kill him on the stack or just the turn he lands or the turn after. The reason is that pumping the TNN will give you a hard time to use Charms. That is why only Charms will not work, some REBs must come in. I am on the point where boarding in Charms versus Merfolk is useless due to their pump lords. But with 2 REBs, 2 Charms and some forces/Dazes that are not boarded out you get there. Charm happens to be a blowout versus DNT and Elves. As this is the case, it is not a narrow SB card. REB neither. So we are in the happy position to have 2 solid answers to TNN without dedicating that much SB space. Note that a 3 REB and 1 Charm configuration will work, too. Playing 2 Charms and one TNN as supposed in the new list is ok, as the anti-synergy will not often occur and if it the case you must see if you are ahead or left behind in the damage race. Then you can chose whether to cast Charm or not ;)
LOL. I have forgotten the Merfolk decks and just focused on the Delver-TNN lists. Might run a singleton Engineered Plague with the 2 Golgari Charms. Tho I don't think they should be a problem for a deck with Abrupt Decay, Lightning bolt and REBs. I'll post my insights once I get to test. Been spending time testing ANT and RUG but I have been getting the itch to get into the Burg train again.