Printable View
that's the whole point, playing an extra color just for one SB card sometimes is hard (especially if it gets wasted during your first/second turn) and i'm just wondering if it's worth it ...
I'll think about it for awhile, discuss our meta here and let you know what i played at the tourney ;-)
How can you not be confident about the merfolk match up? They have almost no way to beat you, barring a god draw while you draw the doodoo.
Wouldn't it be smart, to start a new thread for the Survival-less builds, instead of posting it into the Elf Survival Thread?
I will still play this deck with Survival, because I think Survival is better then 4 Cabal Therapy.
And yes, i tested both variants.
I believe it would actually better to keep it in this thread, as this seems to be the way that the deck is evolving. I didn't want it to be true, because I love the card survival so damn much, but the deck is clearly much more effective without survival.
about my experiences with the merfolk matchup:
For me, it is just a race to who gets the most creatures the soonest ...
- they play 2-3 jitte main;
- they play 11 lords, about the same as we do
- their mutavaults tend to get BIG because of elvish champion ...
- i have the idea that they draw more cards than we do (we only have messenger, they have standstill + adept + some builds play cold-eyed selkie)
Its just my feeling, like I said earlier I did'nt test with SB, so i guess after side, i should be in the advantage ...
anyway, i will keep testing this 'new' (W/O survival) build to see for myself if it is better than the survival build.
Regarding threat: don't we just play aggro elves now instead of TEES?
Regarding your issues with the Merfolk matchup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teumie
- Umezawa's Jitte
Wirewood Symbiote does an excellent job of offsetting this. You can just block the equipped creature and then before damage bounce it using Symbiote, preventing the Jitte from getting counters. I've also been running Jitte in the sideboard of Elves for quite some time, and you should be doing the same to not only improve this matchup but other aggro matches as well.
- They play 11-12 lords, same as we do.
True, but we get them out much faster than they do. Merfolk is a slow deck in comparison to us as we play so much acceleration. Generally speaking, we can have a 2:1 lord ratio to them within the first few turns and go on the offensive, thus causing them to leave their lords to play defense. If they do so and it goes to the midgame, you have a better chance of winning because you have much threats than they have answers and have fewer dead cards (ie Standstill, Aether Vial, or Stifle). Outside of lords their only relevant card is Force of Will, and that will have to deal not only with our own lords, but also Sylvan Messenger, Natural Order, and maybe Wirewood Symbiote. And even then, we have Cabal Therapy to knock out Force of Will and/or other nasty cards in their hand.
- Their Mutavaults tend to get big due to Elvish Champion.
This can be an issue pretty much because it makes them unblockable. However, the deck runs Wasteland to help combat stuff like Mutavault, and you can also use Quirion Ranger to return all your lands to prevent forestwalk. But aside from this narrow scenario, it's difficult for them to play aggressive against us as we run nearly double the amount of creatures they do.
- I have the idea that they draw more cards than we do.
In theory they do because they run more spells, but this isn't necessarily true. For the argument I'm also assuming the builds in question don't run Cold Eyed Selkie, because it's terrible. Silvergill Adept is only a single card, and Standstill is terrible beyond turn 3-4. If they draw it when we have creatures in play the only use they can get out of it is saving it for FoW fodder. Meanwhile, Sylvan Messenger can be returned constantly with Wirewood Symbiote to generate card advantage and overwhelm the opponent, and even without Symbiote it isn't uncommon to hit 3-4 creatures off it. We match their card advantage quite well imo.
Regardless of pre/post-board, we have a favorable matchup against them. Outside of Umezawa's Jitte they have a tough time handling creatures, especially when they come out as fast as they do in Elves.
Ok, guess I will be wrong then (must be my play style ;-))
I'll try the matchup again this week and see what happens.
Di, can I ask you what SB you use if you play jitte side? Did you cut the absolute laws? I'm not sure about our meta, but I guess there will be 'some' zoo & goblins (less sligh around here). How much of those 2 is obviously guessing ;-) I anticipate a lot of merfolk and 'a lot' of countertop + tempo ThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh.
Anyway, thanks for your feedback
My side is currently in a state of flux because I'm not finished testing for the next large event (which is next Saturday for me). However, this is what I've been running lately:
4 Krosan Grip
2 Tsunami
2 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Absolute Law
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Loaming Shaman
2 Pithing Needle
It's an ugly board but it's fulfilling my needs atm. I added Needle for a way to deal with control matchups and it's been working well, otherwise the rest is rather self-explanitory.
hehe, it is indeed ugly :wink:
I try to avoid boards like that because in my opinion a 2-off is just not enough to consistently draw it (like, you really want to draw an absolute law against red decks and a choke/tsunami against blue decks).
I'm not too sure about the relics, are those really necessary? when NO for loaming shaman, you can deplete one graveyard ...
Anyway, thanks and I'll keep you posted with my findings ;-)
Natural order costs 4. That's sometimes too slow, nor is it enough against them. Plus Relic comes in against tempo thresh and loam builds. The rest is just an effort to fit in as much as I can, as although I disagree with that strategy, the deck needs to have options to fight against a variety of decks.
4 Natural Order
1 Progenitus
4 Cabal Therapy
4 Llanowar Elves
3 Fyndhorn Elves
2 Priest of Titania
2 Quirion Ranger
4 Imperious Perfect
4 Elvish Archdruid
4 Elvish Champion
4 Sylvan Messenger
3 Wirewood Symbiote
3 Wren's Run Vanquisher
4 Windswept Heath
2 Wooded Foothills
3 Bayou
2 Savannah
3 Wasteland
4 Forest
I've been testing this out, and the addition of the vanquishers is working out very nicely.
Beastman: How have the 2 Priest of Titania worked out for you? Are they needed?
Personally I've added W'sR Vanquishers in my survival-less test build too, because starting with Di's concept, I've been unhappy with the complete lack of 2CC-drops.
I want to add more removal like Maelstrom Pulse, but fear that this will make it only slower without many gains.
Adding in Vanquisher to beef up the deck is fine, but cutting Priest to do so is wrong. The role of Priest and Archdruid is paramount in this build due to not only our high curve, but because the fundamental turn of the deck is turn 3. The deck will always want to hit a t2 Priest effect to explode on turn 3, otherwise the deck can occasionally lag as it gets cluttered with 3 and 4 drops. I'd honestly cut the 4th Champion and possibly the 4th Messenger before cutting the Priests down that low, or at least keep them at 3. The deck relies heavily on Sylvan Messenger as its engine now, and having less opportunity to play out more spells on a Messenger turn can hurt the deck a bit, because without those mana boosters the deck can stall pretty easily.
@ removal (Maelstrom Pulse)
If any removal would go into the deck, Eyeblight's Ending is the card. It kills everything in the format and you flip it on Messenger. It's solid for those who have the space.
I admit that cutting the priests seems wrong in hindsight, but I would never cut a messenger. I'll go back to 4 priest and 3 champion with only 2 vanquisher and see how that works.
interesting, I was just wondering why you cut 1 ranger and no symbiote.
In my testing i found the ranger a real bomb (it accellerates so much) whereas the symbiote is slower in my opponents vision, less of a bomb ...
I've been thinking about the eyeblight's ending as well, but cannot find room for it, except if i throw out the therapies ...
If you trow out creatures, it will make the deck less aggro, while it can now be insanely aggro on turn 4
last tuesday i tested against merfolk a lot again, and in one game, he had 7 lords in play, me only 4 (with 2 champions in hand, no willing to play them because he could kill me with his mutavaults)
anyway, I NO for messenger and draw another lord, I bounce the messenger for another lord, play all 4 lords and swing with bigger and more creatures than he has ... priceless :o)
The symbiotes just do so much crazy shit, such as bouncing in response to removal, and recycling messengers. Also, they are not elves, so they are much harder to find.
Cutting Symbiotes down would be a huge mistake as they're invaluable to helping out with problematic matchups. The fact that they stop Jitte alone makes it worthwhile, but it's acceleration, Messenger recursion, and removal protection make it one of the strongest cards in the deck. I've also had a couple occasions where I was able to Natural Order under Plague (and sometimes double Plague) because he wasn't an elf. If you went below 3 it
wouldn't be worth running at all because you'll rarely see them, but unfortunately I don't have space for the 4th.
Colin, have you tried fitting a couple jittes MD? Seems like they could be power cards that could help fill the survival slot.
MD Jitte was one of the first cards I looked at with this build, and even tried it with the SotF build too. I didn't end up liking them maindeck though because they could be clunky at times, and I saw them a bit in matchups that I never wanted to see them in. However, I still keep them in the board because they're still ideal for all the aggro matchups, but I couldn't justify keeping it main given how that's only roughly 1/3 of the decks you're likely to face.
What decks would you not want to see jitte against that a card you would cut for it would be better?