[Primer] Elves!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nudon

If you want more utility in the form of v. shaman/ooze/sliver, fair enough. However, I think birchlore helps push the fundamental combo turn closer to 2 while being a better top deck than llanowar. It also helps DRS generate mana the turn it comes down when RiP is in play and provides off color mana for sb cards.

---

I agree with Koby here.

Also, I don't get why so many of the same people that are on the "This isnt a ultra-focused glimpse combo deck" also favor playing 4 Birchlores. That's Birchlores main role...adding more explosiveness to the deck.

Birchlore also causes you to play directly into postboard cards that are best against us, ....sweepers. (i.e. he promotes playing stuff out)

Also, you cant NO a morph'ed Birchlore, it's colorless. And please tell me you're not referencing some weird scenario where Rest in Peace is in play...? And a 2/2 is not beating any chalice or CB deck...ever. And a topdecked Llanowar vs Birchlore in any late game scenario is the same thing...there's no appreciable bonus.

Additionally, no one seems to mention or understand that the Untap part of Quirion Ranger is huge for having sufficient un-summoning sick attackers available when you actually get to cast Craterhoof after comboing or NO'ing, which generally involves lots of tapping of guys.

If you really wanna push the combo to turn 2, add in a crop rotation and a couple Elvish Spirit Guides and have a ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absolutflipz

Also, I don't get why so many of the same people that are on the "This isnt a ultra-focused glimpse combo deck" also favor playing 4 Birchlores. That's Birchlores main role...adding more explosiveness to the deck.

---

Because he helps outside that combo and while that combo is no longer the be all and end all of the deck, its still in there and its still a threat. While not the main route taken, it does no harm to NO to have a second out.

I don't think that accelerating the deck's Glimpse and NO (especially for Sideboard Fatties) while creating several Black mana, which turn DRS into a huge threat with Quirion and Symbiote, is a bad thing.

It's doubtful, if you want to go into the midgame with Elves any try grinding out the game with 1/1's.

It doesn't hurt having Birchlore Rangers. It hurts the deck having fewer flex slots. I don't think the 4th copy of Birchlore Rangers is going to be effective compared to Scavenging Ooze, Priest of Titanita/Elvish Archdruid, or Viridian Shaman. The circumstances in which you need to play turn 2 NO are extraordinarily rare.

(1) T1 forest and Quirion, T2 play forest and Nettle plus Heritage, tap them for 3 mana, play one more elf, untap with Quirion and again tap for 3 mana
(2) T1 forest and Nettle, T2 play forest and Nettle plus Heritage, tap them for 3 mana, play one more elf and again tap for 3 mana
(3) T1 forest and random elf, T2 play Cradle and random elf plus Heritage, tap them for 3 mana (1 mana left from Cradle)
(4) T1 forest and mana elf, T2 play Cradle and Birchlore and random elf, tap Cradle for 3 and two guys for 1
(5) T1 forest and random elf, T2 play forest and Nettle plus Heritage, tap them for 3 mana, play Symbiote, return tapped elf and untap other tapped elf, replay returned elf and finaly tap them for 3 mana.
(6) T1 forest->mana elf, T2 ranger+heritage druid off double forest, tap for 3, bounce forest and untap mana elf
(7) T1 forest->mana elf, T2 symbiote + cmc1 elf off mana elf and forest, Cradle for 3, bounce cmc1 elf and untap mana elf
(8) T1 forest->ranger, T2 ranger+heritage druid off double forest, tap for 3, play another elf and bounce 2 forests to untap 2 elves, tap for 3
(9) T1 forest->ranger, T2 cmc1 elf+heritage druid off double forest, tap for 3, play 2 cmc1 elves, bounce forest and untap elf, tap for 3
(10) T1 forest -> GSZ for Arbor, T2 Cradle, Ranger = 4 mana

So, from these possible Turn 2 NO scenarios, only one involves Birchlore Rangers, and the several need Cradle. The remainder need Nettle Sentinel and Heritage Druid. I'm sure there's more scenarios, but these are the ones we came up with on the first page of this thread.

A turn 3 Natural Order is laughingly easy regardless of what your hand composes of. I'm still failing to see how the addition or reliance on Birchlore Rangers is a big fucking deal with casting Natural Order on turn 2 consistently. Remember, we recognize Birchlore Rangers are useful as part of the deck. I don't reason that the 3rd or 4th copy are "OMG I NEEDZ IT NAO!!1" in order to make the deck competitive. Making black mana is useful, but that's why we also run an excess of fetchlands and Bayou.

For my Taste too much scenarios (all?) require 2 lands which isn't always the case and a reason why I run 19 lands to make the deck more stable. However, 1-landers with Birchlore have potential and are insane with a Nettle in addition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

For my Taste too much scenarios (all?) require 2 lands which isn't always the case and a reason why I run 19 lands to make the deck more stable. However, 1-landers with Birchlore have potential and are insane with a Nettle in addition

---

But check this out. One-landers with Quirions are more likely and more efficient at making two mana.

I certainly appreciate the approach that wants to square up the list and stick to the meat & potatos. For decks like Sneak & Show, this makes sense - cut the cute bullshit and focus on the important things. However, in a combo deck with this much tutoring (4 GSZ 4 NO) you can afford a little bit of flexibility in the creature department.

The point of contention that I see with the decklists are:

18 vs 19 land?
Keep the flex slots or square up the deck (all 4-ofs)?
Amount of fetches to run in the mana base?
Determination of Ruric Thar main?
Sideboard card that impact a variety of matchups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by igri_is_a_bk

But check this out. One-landers with Quirions are more likely and more efficient at making two mana.

---

Not a question of "or" but of "and"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koby

1. 18 vs 19 land?
2. Keep the flex slots or square up the deck (all 4-ofs)?
3. Amount of fetches to run in the mana base?
4. Determination of Ruric Thar main?
5. Sideboard card that impact a variety of matchups?

---

Here's my opinion on these.
1. 19 land - based on the math we've seen here and lots of personal experience.
2. Our most explosive draw is still slower than other combos' most explosive draw, so why bother with it game one? I really don't think add'l Birchlores will win you more games against combo than tools like V. Shaman will against shit like Jitte, Chalice, E. Bridge, etc.
3. Minimum of nine and I say it gets better up to 11, but you'd be pushing 20 lands at that point.
4. Haven't tried him, but I can't imagine him in my deck before Teeg.
5. This part sucks because our bad MUs are on opposite ends of the legacy spectrum, but they are each heavily noncreature-spell based. Thorn and Thalia are still the best I can think to play that hits both combo and Miracles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Not a question of "or" but of "and"

---

Not to anyone who has cut a Quirion, which I've said is a bad idea forever.

@Koby
I may have missed it, but did your scenario listing include:
T1 Forest, mana Elf, T2 Quirion, Cradle (2 mana), twiddle Elf (4 mana) => NO? A similar scenario works with Birchlore IIRC, but does need an extra dude.

Birchlore has upside imo because he allows your utility elves to tap for mana when they otherwise would not. Heritage Druid does the job 100% more effectively, but she (along with symbiote) is a lightning rod for removal.

I like Qranger as a 3-of personally because I run 19 lands, making the proposition of bouncing a forest less appealing. Untapping guys is huge when you need extra guys to swing with hoof, but I believe that 7 effects still gets the job done quite well.

There is no need to freak out about why some people play 4 of this while others run 4 of that. Arguments can be made in favor of either one. It comes down to preference.

Things come down to preference in slower decks, not faster ones. I.E. there is a 'most efficient' configuration, and once that's figured out, it is foolish to play anything else. It's the nature of the format, get used to it. So when you say things like the numbers in an elf deck come down to preference, you simply haven't tested the decklist enough to figure the configurations properly for your given matchups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absolutflipz

Also, you cant NO a morph'ed Birchlore, it's colorless. And please tell me you're not referencing some weird scenario where Rest in Peace is in play...? And a 2/2 is not beating any chalice or CB deck...ever. And a topdecked Llanowar vs Birchlore in any late game scenario is the same thing...there's no appreciable bonus.

---

Wow... I'm obviously referring to morphing a birchlore on t3 to NO on turn 4 through a CB/chalice... Yes, you can do this with arbor or visionary but this provides more outs. The RiP is a representation of anytime there aren't lands to eat. A topdeck birchlore gives colored mana, can be a 2/2, generates mana immediately, and combos with glimpse. How is this the same as llanowar??? Please read carefully next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by igri_is_a_bk

Here's my opinion on these.
1. 19 land - based on the math we've seen here and lots of personal experience.
2. Our most explosive draw is still slower than other combos' most explosive draw, so why bother with it game one? I really don't think add'l Birchlores will win you more games against combo than tools like V. Shaman will against shit like Jitte, Chalice, E. Bridge, etc.
3. Minimum of nine and I say it gets better up to 11, but you'd be pushing 20 lands at that point.
4. Haven't tried him, but I can't imagine him in my deck before Teeg.
5. This part sucks because our bad MUs are on opposite ends of the legacy spectrum, but they are each heavily noncreature-spell based. Thorn and Thalia are still the best I can think to play that hits both combo and Miracles.



Not to anyone who has cut a Quirion, which I've said is a bad idea forever.

---

1. I run 18 lands but compensate for it by having 2 forests and 4 quirion rangers.
2. With 4x gsz/NO, I don't really care about chalice. DRS untaps beat bridge. I can see shaman being useful in a heavy jitte metagame but I haven't needed it. Our explosive draws still beat fast combo if on the draw so why not increase those percentages?
3. I run 8 but really want 9. However, I think that 2nd forest is a nice luxury to guarantee you have 4 mana on turn 3 against wasteland decks. I can see cutting the 4th quirion for fetch #9 too.
4. Terrible in the main deck. He's dedicated storm hate. You won't be able to resolve NO against a competent RUG player.
5. I like thorn because it's not susceptible to Karakas and removal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

Things come down to preference in slower decks, not faster ones. I.E. there is a 'most efficient' configuration, and once that's figured out, it is foolish to play anything else. It's the nature of the format, get used to it. So when you say things like the numbers in an elf deck come down to preference, you simply haven't tested the decklist enough to figure the configurations properly for your given matchups.

---

Using the grounds of your argument, Llanowar Elves is far more efficient as a mana producer than DRS, so DRS shouldn't be played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

@Koby
I may have missed it, but did your scenario listing include:
T1 Forest, mana Elf, T2 Quirion, Cradle (2 mana), twiddle Elf (4 mana) => NO? A similar scenario works with Birchlore IIRC, but does need an extra dude.

---

Yes, this works too. The only caveat (and that's a realy big caveat), is that you need it to be Llanowar Elves. With DRS you would need two fetchlands in the graveyard to pull this off. While it's not unrealistic (fetch turns 1 and 2), it does add more constraints to this type of opening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amppyou

Using the grounds of your argument, Llanowar Elves is far more efficient as a mana producer than DRS, so DRS shouldn't be played.

---

That is exactly I've been saying. If the goal is to have an early Natural Order or a big Glimpse chain early, Llanowar Elves (or its cousins) are more useful than DRS. DRS only shines when you need to start grinding life points. The same could be said for decks packing RIP against us (why they would do so is beyond me).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amppyou

Using the grounds of your argument, Llanowar Elves is far more efficient as a mana producer than DRS, so DRS shouldn't be played.

---

Learn to read before you make baseless comparisons, as my comment was with regards to rigorous testing to determine what cards deserve their slots and in what exact numbers. I.E. No vacuum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

Learn to read before you make baseless comparisons, as my comment was with regards to rigorous testing to determine what cards deserve their slots and in what exact numbers.

---

Rigorous testing from many different members on this thread have led to different conclusions. Some people still play 3 Natural Order (including the author of this primer), while the general consensus is that 4 natural orders leads to more efficient craterhoofing. The baseless comparison was an attempt to make a point, which you clearly missed. Go troll another thread, we have no need of your generalities.

The fact of the matter is that different card choices will provide different results given enough time to figure out exactly what those results entail. The differences you speak of resulting from testing is a focus on different matchups by different people for different metagames. However, I promise you, in regards to specific matchups/metagames there will be a 'best' configuration. And if you are using this forum as a basis for a 'standard' legacy metagame, there will always be a 'best' configuration, whether or not you guys are willing to do the testing necessary to come to a consensus.

Man we have done a large amount of testing. Why do you think the deck has changed? I mean we have lists, test what works, talk among ourselves and make changes to the deck list. Now while we do not totally agree we have a "Core" set of card. That's the deck your looking for. The changes from list to list is our flex slots in action.

We have our "Best" list but no meta will be the same. Here in Australia the meta is different to the states for example. Go back and do a touch of light reading, then come back and join us in discussions because right now I fear your not helping.

Sent from my mobile, forgive spelling and grammatical errors.

Lets look at the end of my first post in this little discussion, shall we?

Quote:

---

So when you say things like the numbers in an elf deck come down to preference, you simply haven't tested the decklist enough to figure the configurations properly for your given matchups.

---

You should have a variety of configurations, yes, but those configurations should be applicable to different matchups/metagames. I.E. a variety of decklists are needed for a variety of expected matchups in order to have 'the best' chance of winning. So when people have differences in card choice, it better be to strengthen matchups they expect to be moire prevalent.

I.E. There are never flex spots, you either know exactly what cards are needed for specific metagames/matchups and in what numbers, or you don't. Simple Truth. Then you can build a 'best deck list' vs maverick for instance, or miracles, or whatever, but, in that context, of that matchup, there will always be a superior configuration.