[Deck] U/R Delver

are you Andrew himself? If so well done on the results! I've run your list with some slight modifications in a tournament here in Italy earlier in the month and it did well too, despite the meta being quite different i assume vs the US one. That said, FoW is a bit of a liability where you have to discard other "good" blue cards... I'm tesing a version of your list without FoW.

Overall a kickass deck, that I'm liking a lot!! I am thinking of testing small changes to it with maybe even something like Psionic Blast in 1 or 2x (and I agree with you on the usefulness of Fireblast but no more than 2x too) or the likes of Incinerate too...

Has anyone tried out Snapcaster Mage along with Repeal? It seems mana intensive, but flashing back a Repeal with a Snapcaster seems like a good way to net cards while slowing your opponent's board development. It's probably better suited for a more controlling build, but filling up a hand with burn seems like a reasonable idea also. Also, consider casting Repeal on a Snapcaster already in play. Then recast Snapcaster, flashback Repeal, net 2 cards. It's mana intensive, but it keeps your hand stocked.

Has anyone tired these two together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw1985

Has anyone tried out Snapcaster Mage along with Repeal? It seems mana intensive, but flashing back a Repeal with a Snapcaster seems like a good way to net cards while slowing your opponent's board development. It's probably better suited for a more controlling build, but filling up a hand with burn seems like a reasonable idea also. Also, consider casting Repeal on a Snapcaster already in play. Then recast Snapcaster, flashback Repeal, net 2 cards. It's mana intensive, but it keeps your hand stocked.

Has anyone tired these two together?

---

Wouldn't Snap work at least as well? -1 card, +3 mana(the mana you didn't spend on Repeal).

if we're going to pull out decklists and compare shit here's another of andrew shrout's lists that top 8'd. http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...p?DeckID=42656

Personally I'm not willing to run anymore than 2 daze maindeck. Fireblast is actually a card I'm seriously considering because sometimes your opponent just gets lucky and plays another knight/tarmogoyf in their second main RIGHT AFTER you forced/burnt one off the board and sometimes bolt + grim lavamancer damage just isn't enough to protect your ass from a beating. Right now I'm playing U/R Delver in standard and Vapor Snag has become my #1 favorite card in the format right now. I suggest anyone who is considering some sort of bounce in this deck to check it out. If you do end up bouncing one of your snapcasters you're only going to get pinged for one and the low casting cost fits perfectly with the low curve of this deck. At the very least, having a vapor snag or possibly chain of vapor may give your opponent a little pause before he turns anything sideways.

also jrw this deck has a few good ways to keep card advantage, viz. gitaxian probe and ponder. these cards should keep you well-stocked and holding the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutangkillabeezonaswarm

also jrw this deck has a few good ways to keep card advantage, viz. gitaxian probe and ponder. these cards should keep you well-stocked and holding the answers.

---

These are not sources of card advantage, unless you're also running Pyromancer's Ascension or something.

Just going by the hands I've been dealt. I probably just used the incorrect wording for it.

I am seeing a lot of abuse with Surgical Extraction in my area and it is deffinately a good reason to potentially limit the number of 4offs in the deck

Anyway I have my own version of Izzet Delver and here is my Mana Base.
Mana -- 4 volcanic island, 2 island, 2 mountain
Fetches -- 4 scalding tarn, 1 bloodstained mire, 1 wooded foothills, 1 flooded strand, 1 misty rainforest.
Utility -- 3 wastelands

It can help avoid having mass removal of fetches from an opponents surgical extraction and has started me to believe that using more 2-3 offs in the deck will help yet again, especially where my snapcaster mage will get me a 4th copy anyway. First card cut down to 3 off was FoW, and so far I have had the 4th copy in the sb; but I don't think I have ever needed it.

Here is the rest of the deck, feel free to give me your thoughts.
Deck List
4 x Brainstorm
2 x Daze
4 x Delver of Secrets
2 x Fire//Ice
3 x Force of Will
2 x Gitaxian Probe
3 x Ponder
4 x Snapcaster Mage
3 x Spell Snare
2 x Vendilion Clique
3 x Chain Lightning
2 x Fireblast
2 x Goblin Guide
2 x Grim Lavamancer
4 x Lightning Bolt

Sideboard
3 x Surgical Extraction
1 x Force of Will
2 x Hydroblast
3 x Pyroblast
3 x Smash to Smithereens
3 x Price of Progress

Now I know that it is a blend of control, and aggro; but this is where I am at and I would appreciate any comments.

You really need to be running submerge in your sideboard. I'd suggest putting all 4 FoW in your main; G2 & 3 you can side one out in favor of smash or whatever you're going to put in. Matter of fact just cut out both vendilion cliques for another FoW and Chain Lightning. I dunno there's a bunch of other stuff I can mention but I don't know how this particular list functions against other popular decks. All I can really say is the main path to victory with this deck is not swing damage but damage spells. Snapcasting PoP is so awesome. Or bolting your opponent when they have enough creatures on the board to do lethal to you next turn and you just end it then and there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutangkillabeezonaswarm

You really need to be running submerge in your sideboard. I'd suggest putting all 4 FoW in your main; G2 & 3 you can side one out in favor of smash or whatever you're going to put in. Matter of fact just cut out both vendilion cliques for another FoW and Chain Lightning. I dunno there's a bunch of other stuff I can mention but I don't know how this particular list functions against other popular decks. All I can really say is the main path to victory with this deck is not swing damage but damage spells. Snapcasting PoP is so awesome. Or bolting your opponent when they have enough creatures on the board to do lethal to you next turn and you just end it then and there.

---

Going to have to disagree with that. This deck isn't burn and it can't win like burn unless your opponent willingly lets you kill them by being retarded. Unless the last 2 cities I went to for 30-36 man tournaments and my local scene are all super anomalies, when people realize you play PoP in your deck, they avoid duals like the plague and unfortunately PoP for 2 damage doesn't really cut it.

I find that delvers, guides, and lavamancers carry me through more games than not--I simply keep them alive. Burn reach wins a lot of games too, for sure, brainstorming EOT into a grip full of burn is amazing, but you don't get there without beaters. This deck is unique in that your removal, unlike most decks, can be turned toward your opponent--STP / GD / etc can't do that, so we have a ton of removal that can also win us the game.

I'd prioritize keeping beaters alive over getting a burn through almost unanimously unless it'll kill them.

You've played a lot more games with this deck than I have and I can only speak from my experience.I'm having trouble prioritizing which spells should and shouldn't be let through. I find my creatures, esp. delver and goblin guide are great until I've gotten my opponent down to about 10 life and they stabilize and drop a goyf and put me on the defensive for the rest of the game because I wasn't holding FoW/spell snare to stop the beating. The last few matches were almost all tit for tat and the last I won only through a nut draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wutangkillabeezonaswarm

You've played a lot more games with this deck than I have and I can only speak from my experience.I'm having trouble prioritizing which spells should and shouldn't be let through. I find my creatures, esp. delver and goblin guide are great until I've gotten my opponent down to about 10 life and they stabilize and drop a goyf and put me on the defensive for the rest of the game because I wasn't holding FoW/spell snare to stop the beating. The last few matches were almost all tit for tat and the last I won only through a nut draw.

---

Yeah, the deck often has trouble with large creatures sadly. I find it odd as a sidenote, that as a general statement, Price of Progress is the card I absolutely want to see the least of. I'd almost rather it be Lava Spike or Fireblast. I can count on one hand the number of times it's done more than 4 damage after my opponent knew what I was playing--which they do, frequently by turn one or two.

I may just drop them for fireblasts / spikes back in the deck for more direct damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kich867

Going to have to disagree with that. This deck isn't burn and it can't win like burn unless your opponent willingly lets you kill them by being retarded. Unless the last 2 cities I went to for 30-36 man tournaments and my local scene are all super anomalies, when people realize you play PoP in your deck, they avoid duals like the plague and unfortunately PoP for 2 damage doesn't really cut it.

I find that delvers, guides, and lavamancers carry me through more games than not--I simply keep them alive. Burn reach wins a lot of games too, for sure, brainstorming EOT into a grip full of burn is amazing, but you don't get there without beaters. This deck is unique in that your removal, unlike most decks, can be turned toward your opponent--STP / GD / etc can't do that, so we have a ton of removal that can also win us the game.

I'd prioritize keeping beaters alive over getting a burn through almost unanimously unless it'll kill them.

---

I've had very different experiences than you have with this deck, and I suspect it comes down to a difference in the way we play. I also suspect it's the reason we disagree on certain card choices.

First and foremost, I mull very aggressively with this deck. If a hand has more than 2 lands in it, I will strongly consider mulling. If it has 3 lands and no Brainstorm I'll almost always mull it. If it has more than 3 lands it's unkeepable.

I also look for hands with at least one Delver or Guide in it, preferably 2 or 3. In my experience, Guide and Delver are extremely valuable in the first couple turns, and lose a great deal of value every turn thereafter, as your opponent has a chance to stabilize and develop his board position.

Guides and Delvers always get priority in the first couple turns. I rarely use burn to clear the way for blockers (especially Guide) unless I'm sure my opponent has no other means of dealing with them. After the first couple turns, I usually hang onto Guides and shuffle them away with Brainstorm.

If you can get 5-7 damage in the first few turns with creatures, you can reliably dole out the remaining damage with burn and Lavamancer damage, assuming you haven't been using it on creatures. That's been true for me even when my opponents are playing around PoP.

In short, mull aggressively, prioritize your beaters in the first 2-3 turns, and mostly disregard them after that, and use burn on opposing creatures only when absolutely necessary.

Am I correct in assuming you play the deck pretty differently? If so I'm interested in hearing details about it. I want to try it your way to see how it works for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

I've had very different experiences than you have with this deck, and I suspect it comes down to a difference in the way we play. I also suspect it's the reason we disagree on certain card choices.

First and foremost, I mull very aggressively with this deck. If a hand has more than 2 lands in it, I will strongly consider mulling. If it has 3 lands and no Brainstorm I'll almost always mull it. If it has more than 3 lands it's unkeepable.

I also look for hands with at least one Delver or Guide in it, preferably 2 or 3. In my experience, Guide and Delver are extremely valuable in the first couple turns, and lose a great deal of value every turn thereafter, as your opponent has a chance to stabilize and develop his board position.

Guides and Delvers always get priority in the first couple turns. I rarely use burn to clear the way for blockers (especially Guide) unless I'm sure my opponent has no other means of dealing with them. After the first couple turns, I usually hang onto Guides and shuffle them away with Brainstorm.

If you can get 5-7 damage in the first few turns with creatures, you can reliably dole out the remaining damage with burn and Lavamancer damage, assuming you haven't been using it on creatures. That's been true for me even when my opponents are playing around PoP.

In short, mull aggressively, prioritize your beaters in the first 2-3 turns, and mostly disregard them after that, and use burn on opposing creatures only when absolutely necessary.

Am I correct in assuming you play the deck pretty differently? If so I'm interested in hearing details about it. I want to try it your way to see how it works for myself.

---

I aggressively kill my opponent's creatures to make way for my own--if a delver gets 3 swings in it's the most mana efficient damage possible. I often ride a single creature to victory (some get removed, for sure, but by the end of the game if they can't remove that delver it's going all the way). I only flip on burn mode if I know it'll kill them, and I couldn't have gotten to that point unless my creatures could survive.

If I willingly let one die, it's guide. I personally aim for Lavamancer's in the opening hand (conveniently got a 4th one in a trade so I'll probably -1 guide +1 lavamancer, as I find they just perform better).

Lavamancers and Delvers are how I win most games, with the burn and counters as means to keep the path clear and keep the creatures alive. I almost want to run dispel just to stop instants but, too many threats are 2 cmc. I don't have access to spell snares atm but I will in the next month or two.

For a quick minute there I was thinking to myself that I might like a different color other than red better, like white, but it's not the same. The fact that our main source of removal doubles as a means to kill the opponent is absurd. Sometimes, ten damage just comes out of nowhere and they die, and I like that.

Not saying you are playing it wrong, but it feels like you want to play Can Thresh/RUG tempo, really..?

Your style reminds me of seeing a friend who usually plays Tempo Thresh or similiar builds play it, and he raged when it wasn't the same deck.

I'm thinking Zillas way must be the way to go. But I could be wrong.

Well I can easily swap out the 2 Vedilion Clique for +1 Grim Lavamancer and +1 Goblin Guide; but the Clique was actually doing exactly what Zilla was talking about. I allowed me to focus on Delver and Guide initially, then mid-late game dump them for grims and cliques to use for recurring damage and hand manipulation.

PoP is in the SB as I see a lot of mana hungry decks in my area; but I could easily trim it down to 2, remove something else and bring in a couple Submerge (nice thought here, and I can't believe that I missed it).

Thanks for the discussion guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by berry

Not saying you are playing it wrong, but it feels like you want to play Can Thresh/RUG tempo, really..?

Your style reminds me of seeing a friend who usually plays Tempo Thresh or similiar builds play it, and he raged when it wasn't the same deck.

I'm thinking Zillas way must be the way to go. But I could be wrong.

---

I don't see why I would play RUG Tempo or Can Thresh. We have super efficient beaters with a ton of removal that can extend to hit the player. Those decks have like, Lightning Bolt and that's about it.

I just find dishing out 13-15 damage with burns to be highly unreliable and against any deck with even the slightest lifegain that plan stops working. I guess it might be the sheer dominance of Jitte around my area that drives that thinking though. Every deck I've played against with the deck generally has stoneforge + jitte, the only one in recent tournament experience that I played against that didn't was a mirror of this deck.

Jitte is brutal against this deck, as it forces you to aim all your burn at every creature that can carry one. In my experience, the best way to answer Jitte is with 3 Smash to Smithereens from the board and 3 Spell Snare in the main.

Honestly if my meta were full of decks packing Jitte, I'd question whether or not I wanted to be playing this deck at all.

Hrm. I always thought of this deck as Blue Sligh basically. Using creatures to get the job done, burn to make sure the creatures connect, and burn for those last points of damage.

But you're saying this should be played like burn?

I feel like we have two separate decklists developing here: 1 that plays the burn plan and runs FoW in the side and 1 that plays the sligh plan with more MD counters to protect its creatures.

Is this like a Team America vs BUG Control thing?

My version is basically straight burn with blue for filters and counters in the board. I still think it's totally situational. Against creature-heavy decks like Zoo and Maverick, you're probably best off trying to burn the opponent out because you just aren't going to win the ground game with Guides. Really the only time I'm going to bother burning a creature is if I'm getting extra value out of it, like offing SFM and maybe Hierarch/Birds/Arbor early.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

Jitte is brutal against this deck, as it forces you to aim all your burn at every creature that can carry one. In my experience, the best way to answer Jitte is with 3 Smash to Smithereens from the board and 3 Spell Snare in the main.

Honestly if my meta were full of decks packing Jitte, I'd question whether or not I wanted to be playing this deck at all.

---

StS's have been all-stars, I board them in almost every game, half want to just mainboard them haha. Spell Snares I don't have access to at the moment but I will shortly. Spell Pierces are their current place, unfortunately not as stellar--still useful in many situations but, not useful enough it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supa_tim

Is this like a Team America vs BUG Control thing?

---

Not quite I believe it is more like RDW And Sligh, which all in all, are very similar in goal and gameplay, with RDW having just a little more burn and explosiveness IMO. They both want to use creatures and burn to either clear the way for attacks or to deal direct damage.

Anywho, I have tomorrow off from work, I am hoping I can edit the primer and fix it up more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supa_tim

I feel like we have two separate decklists developing here: 1 that plays the burn plan and runs FoW in the side and 1 that plays the sligh plan with more MD counters to protect its creatures.

Is this like a Team America vs BUG Control thing?

---

I believe what makes the deck so good is its versatility, that you can decide if you want to aggro or control role in a game. One example is a topdecked Delver, go aggro and play it to push some more damage through or keep it in hand together with FoW. Of course it depends on the situation you're in. So that's the excellent way to have options and answers.
So every game you need to decide which way to go, whether the brutal burn plan or the counter/control plan. I wouldn't argue about directions and where to go, but to keep a balance of both. Personally, I play 10 burn spells and 9 counters, together with 14 creatures and it works really good against a wide variety of decks.
I also made the experience that jitte is already to slow against this deck. Of course it's the best to counter the SFM right away but if you can't, jitte needs to be played and equipped, which takes already 4 mana and usually 2 turns until it attacks, in that time you usually have a burn spell ready for it or an active lavamancer, to declare blockers and shoot your own creature or something like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

If it has 3 lands and no Brainstorm I'll almost always mull it.

---

Well, I agree that this deck goes down to 6 quite a bit, but what exactly are you hoping by giving away 4 business spells and 3 lands?

I like playing with 2 lands and once a BS shows up naturally I want a fetch to go with it.

The average 6 is prolly 1 or 2 lands. Are you really more comfortable with playing 5 spells ans 1 land than 4 spells and 3 land?

Maybe thats just the control freak in me speaking, but I really would like some input on the matter.

I generally like to mull only when i get 4+ lands. 3 is not the greatest but when i do i check to see what my 4 spells are. if its daze, 2 delvers and a brainstorm i'd keep it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paK0

The average 6 is prolly 1 or 2 lands. Are you really more comfortable with playing 5 spells ans 1 land than 4 spells and 3 land?

---

Yes, absolutely. There are exceptions, of course, but anything less than 5 business cards without a Brainstorm or at least a Ponder is probably not going to be a winning hand, from my experience.

Bearing in mind that I don't play Snapcaster, anything beyond the first two lands is mostly overkill. Keeping a 3 land hand is basically identical to mulling to 6 anyway. The chances of mulling into a 6 card hand with more business, or with the same number of business cards and a Brainstorm are reasonably high, and it's a chance I'm typically willing to take, unless the original 3 land hand is very strong on its own merits.

For example, I would likely keep a 3 land hand with a combination of 2-3 Delvers and/or Goblin Guides. I might keep a 3 land hand if I know what I'm playing against and I think the hand will be particularly strong against that deck. For me at least, generally speaking, a hand must have very strong business cards to keep a 3 lander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

Yes, absolutely. There are exceptions, of course, but anything less than 5 business cards without a Brainstorm or at least a Ponder is probably not going to be a winning hand, from my experience.

Bearing in mind that I don't play Snapcaster, anything beyond the first two lands is mostly overkill. Keeping a 3 land hand is basically identical to mulling to 6 anyway. The chances of mulling into a 6 card hand with more business, or with the same number of business cards and a Brainstorm are reasonably high, and it's a chance I'm typically willing to take, unless the original 3 land hand is very strong on its own merits.

For example, I would likely keep a 3 land hand with a combination of 2-3 Delvers and/or Goblin Guides. I might keep a 3 land hand if I know what I'm playing against and I think the hand will be particularly strong against that deck. For me at least, generally speaking, a hand must have very strong business cards to keep a 3 lander.

---

Ok, I can see your reasoning.

The thing is that 1 landers are always a little sketchy to me. If its a Volcanic, the chances of just loosing to a wasteland are pretty high and if its a basic, there is a good chance that some cards might be stuck in your hand for too long.

I'll prolly gonna do some testing myself to see where the 1-land approach will take me^^.

Not sure how to put the card tag around on this forum yet but was wondering what the thoughts were about Phantasmal Image. The target drawback is not much of one in this format because most things that target dudes would kill what we are copying anyway... aka swords, bolts, path, ect.

Cards we would like to copy:
Guide
flipped Delver
Lavamancer (not 2 strong but not horrible)
Goyf
Legendary dudes
Bob
Other?

These decks are already tight for space so far but just wanted some feedback to see if anyone has already tried a few of these guys yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paK0

The thing is that 1 landers are always a little sketchy to me. If its a Volcanic, the chances of just loosing to a wasteland are pretty high and if its a basic, there is a good chance that some cards might be stuck in your hand for too long.

---

This is a valid concern, but in my build at least, there are 11 fetches and 3 basics, so you've got a fairly good chance of having a Wasteland-proof first turn, even with only one land. Granted, there are certain times where a one land hand is not a risk you'll want to take. Under those circumstances, a 3 land hand may be just fine to keep, depending on the other cards in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millerd33

wondering what the thoughts were about Phantasmal Image

---

The deck isn't really lacking for creatures. If anything it wants more room for burn and counters. I could theoretically see Phyrexian Metamorph as a sideboard option, because it can answer problematic creatures and doubles as Jitte removal, but in a general sense I think the deck has all the creatures it needs in Delver/Guide/Lavamancer/Snapcaster.

[card]Card Name[/card] for single card tags, btw. You can also use [cards] around multiple card names divided by line breaks for decklists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilla

This is a valid concern, but in my build at least, there are 11 fetches and 3 basics, so you've got a fairly good chance of having a Wasteland-proof first turn, even with only one land. Granted, there are certain times where a one land hand is not a risk you'll want to take. Under those circumstances, a 3 land hand may be just fine to keep, depending on the other cards in it.


The deck isn't really lacking for creatures. If anything it wants more room for burn and counters. I could theoretically see [card]Phyrexian Metamorph[/card] as a sideboard option, because it can answer problematic creatures and doubles as Jitte removal, but in a general sense I think the deck has all the creatures it needs in Delver/Guide/Lavamancer/Snapcaster.

[card]Card Name[/card] for single card tags, btw. You can also use [cards] around multiple card names divided by line breaks for decklists.

---

I don't think [card][/card] works anymore. And yeah, we already have enough very good creatures for the deck. Unless Dark Ascension gives us another spectacular creature card I don't see much changing there.

In my list I'm looking to drop Price of Progress out of the deck, it's 3 slots that could be something else that against the decks I play against, I never need them. I'll board those 3, but I'm sick of seeing it in my opening hand and knowing I'll never land any real damage with it unless my opponent has a virtually non-basicless mana-base, which in my area, is highly unlikely. Most of the decks are 2 color control or combo decks--or it's just like super jank decks people use when they just get into legacy..Even the people that play Bant and Rug have a large number of basics to play with.

I dropped Fireblast out, I might throw them back in.. My list looks something like this right now:

//Creatures:
4x Delver of Secrets
4x Grim Lavamancer
3x Goblin Guide
3x Snapcaster Mage

//Spells:
4x Lightning Bolt
4x Chain Lightning
3x Rift Bolt
3x Price of Progress
4x Brainstorm
3x Ponder
4x Daze
3x Spell Snare

//Lands:
18x Lands -- never an issue

I'm thinking I should drop PoP for a fourth Rift Bolt and 2x Fireblast.

Thanks for the info Zilla.

This is what I'm thinking about running this weekend at my local shop.

Land:
4 arid mesa
4 scalding tarn
4 misty rainforest
2 volcanic island
2 mountian
2 island


Spells:
4 daze
4 spell snare
4 brainstorm
4 ponder
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
2 price of progress

Dudes:
4 delver of secrets
4 goblin guide
2 Phantasmal Image
3 Snapcaster Mage
3 grim lavamancer


SB:
4 Force of Will
4 Surgical Extraction
3 Smash to Smithereens
1 Grim Lavamancer
3 Bounce (prob echoing truth or repel)

Maybe -1 [card]ponder[/card] +1 [card]price of progress[/card]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millerd33

Thanks for the info Zilla.

This is what I'm thinking about running this weekend at my local shop.

[cards]Land:
4 arid mesa
4 scalding tarn
4 misty rainforest
2 volcanic island
2 mountian
2 island


Spells:
4 daze
4 spell snare
4 brainstorm
4 ponder
4 lightning bolt
4 chain lightning
2 price of progress

Dudes:
4 delver of secrets
4 goblin guide
2 Phantismal Image
3 Snapcaster Mage
3 grim lavamancer


SB:
4 Force of Will
4 Surgical Extraction
3 Smash to Smithereens
1 Grim Lavamancer
3 Bounce (prob echoing truth or repel)[cards]

Maybe -1 [card]ponder[/card] +1 [card]price of progress[/card]

---

The one at the ends need to end with [./cards] without the and I'm fairly certain the singular card tag doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kich867

The one at the ends need to end with [./cards] without the and I'm fairly certain the singular card tag doesn't work.

---

Just use the [ cards ] [ /cards ]

Around even single cards. It still works, but requires that you use the 's'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millerd33

Phantasmal Image.

---

Thought about it last night. Played a modified list with phantasmal image and some extra counters.

Meh.

I like the discussion in this thread. I'd like to call a point to the differences in each of our metagames, and how that's affecting our lists of the deck. For this deck especially, you can build it a number of ways, so I think it's especially important that we focus on developing lists that are optimal in a "developed" Legacy metagame. Dropping Price of Progress could be correct for your area, even imperative to your success, but lets not hear about it here, because it's not important to the thread. Also, budget restrictions are not worth posting about. In general, don't post a list unless you think it's the absolute best it can be, with cost not being a factor.

Upon further examination, Price really is metagame dependant tho. Stoneforge decks do pack a ton of basics, and I could see needing to cut it MD. Trouble is, it's so damn easy to board out, and steals so many game 1's, especially in the Snapcaster variants. Time will tell, but I still like me my 3x FoW Counterish lists, that lean on PoP to win.

It may be suboptimal in some matchups(high tide for example) but I've won more games with the PoP/snapcasterish type of list opposed to a more counter-heavy strategy. I find I'm just not able to keep a pair of legs on the board to continue swinging long enough to make any impact and my burn is too unreliable to reach out and just end the game or blow up creatures.

I do feel I have to mull a bit more than I want with my current list but some matchups it's not really a liability to keep an extra land or two. Pox/thresh variants/maverick etc have many ways of keeping you from getting off the ground so it could be more helpful in the long run to hold a hand that had maybe 3 lands max against certain matchups. Possibly 4 but only if you held a brainstorm/ponder/preordain. I'm getting the hang of playing this type of deck a little more now and I think the most important rule is to treat each of your spells like a brainstorm and cast them ONLY when you must. One bad habit I've had to train myself not to do is to respond immediately to a creature with burn whenever it comes into play. Even with snapcaster you must economize your damage output. If anyone's had luck playing a control-oriented deck I'd like to hear your thoughts/opinions/state of your local meta.

With price of progress and snapcaster in the same list I tend to find that it's far 2 mana intensive. I never really want to hit 4 mana in this deck. I would rather hold them in hand after my 2/3 land drop and make my brainstorms insane. Games normally go my way that start with tap island.. daze your dude... return island... brainstorm... put back instant and island on deck... flip delver... draw instant from top.. drop fetch shuffle.

I play both price and snapcaster as 3 of's but I am not sold on that for sure. Price is a great finisher and with all the ponder/brainstorm I think 2 may be the right number to play.

what would you run in place of a 3rd price?

I would like get my ponder number back up to 4. Those 1 drop deck manipulation spells alongside 12 fetches have made my life so much easier and also makes it so I don't have to Mull as much.

I don't actively want 4 ponder in my deck. We don't win from nowhere, like reanimator or storm for instance, we win given time. Paying 1 mana to have a smooth game from then on is worth it, but the deck is plenty smooth as it is, and casting Goblin Guide with that mana is more akin to our overall gameplan. Two color decks are super consistant already, have dense card quality, and early game mana can always be better used.

Burn lists should probably forgo Snapcaster altogether, imo, for the reasons you're stating. If you can't support having 4 lands in play, than you can't play Snappy + PoP. My list plays 3 Force, 2 Daze, and 3 Snare, so 8 counters. The more counters you play the "slower" your gameplan, in exchange for some safety. Lists with Rift Bolt and Fireblast, in turn, shouldn't be running Force (and probably snare), because you're a 7 card combo deck again. Putting yourself in the middle of the spectrum is bad, is my point, because your deck loses focus in its plan.

I see what your saying about picking a side and going all in on that strategy. Are you still running the same list you have from page 2 of this thread or have you made changes. If so could you please PM me the updated list. I have to make my final card decisions tonight for tomorrow tourny so all the information I can get about the different builds of this deck would be very helpful.

I Guess it comes down to what style is going to play better against the local meta as it seems both styles have their good and bad.