[Deck] Survival

[Tacosnape]

I know this post is a little old but I felt I must say just how horrible this nickname is. I assume you get basket from the fact that some baskets can be made of wicker? Please don't ever call him this again.

As nobody seems to be running much in the way of Doran currently, you could just call him "Tree." As in, "I resolve a Tree and blow up his Counterbalance, then swing with Tree and Goyf ftw." Swinging with a Tree amuses me. Takes me back to my MajorMUD days of running Half-Ogre Clerics and smashing with tree trunks.

...And since none of you know wtf I'm talking about, back on topic. I really want to tweak lists to where I can fit multiple of Wickerbough in the deck. He's so ridiculously good against so much of the format. I just probably don't have the slots. And because he's slow, I'd have to lower my curve elsewhere. I'm not comfortable having more than two 4-drops in this deck (Wickerbough and Hierarch), so I'd have to lower my curve elsewhere or increase my mana production.

To the more experienced Survival players, has anyone ever tried a 1-Bird, 3-4 Rofellos configuration? I like the fact that Rofellos can just churn out Witnesses, Wickerboughs, Goyfs, postboard grips, Survivals/Activations, and just that he's generally insanely overpowered if he stays out.

[nitewolf9]

Is it really worth it to only run 1 Bird? As strong as Rofellos is I think he is exponentially better with Survival active, and you really don't want to have multiples clogging your hand early. Birds lets you land turn 2 Survivals with Daze backup/activation mana up and is also insane with Cabal Therapy.

PS I think "The Wickerman" would be a good nickname for that guy, as anyone who has heard my ringtone can attest to (it is Nicholas Cage screaming that he is covered in bees...anything referencing this is a good thing). Plus you could get altered-art WB Elders with a guy in a bear suit about to punch a woman.

[Tacosnape]

Is it really worth it to only run 1 Bird? As strong as Rofellos is I think he is exponentially better with Survival active, and you really don't want to have multiples clogging your hand early. Birds lets you land turn 2 Survivals with Daze backup/activation mana up and is also insane with Cabal Therapy.

I think it depends on your question. If you mean "Is it worth it to run 1 instead of 0," my answer is yes, because you want to be able to search one up to grab a missing color if you're being kept off Black or White. And you'll still randomly get it in your opening hand from time to time.

If your question is "Is it even remotely feasible to run only 1," my answer is that I don't know and I haven't gotten around to testing it, hence why I asked if it had been tried. I don't argue for a second that Bird is ridiculous for turn two Survivals, is ridiculous with Therapy, etc, so on. The question I'm proposing is if you could make a feasible build that benefits from having stronger but slower mana acceleration. The one bird isn't set in stone, either. It could be 2, or whatever the case may be.

BTW, if Tree doesn't stick, I like "The Wickerman" also. Because it would allow me to say "Here comes the Wickerman!" when I drop it. Or possibly sing "I'm Your Wickerman," in my best Rob Zombie voice. You know, like, "I'm your Wickerman, that's what I am, I'm here to blow up, whatever I can, yeeeah, Counterbalance, Umezawa's Jitte, Pithing Needle, whatever's in my way, yeeeeah."

[beastman]

I don't understand how you can run only 1 birds. It is one of the most essential cards in the deck.

[Tacosnape]

So's Rofellos. And a consistent turn two Rofellos is a scary, scary thing for the opponent to deal with. Untapping with him out on turn three can often result in asshattery like Cabal Therapy, tap Rofellos, Witness Therapy, play Therapy again, sac Witness to Therapy, you don't have a hand anymore. Alternately, it lets you do fun little setups like Turn 1 Therapy, turn 2 Rofellos, turn three Wickerbough, flash Rofellos to Therapy, second Rofellos. Not to mention being able to tap him for Survival and roll out your chain.

I guess in theory there's not a whole lot of reason you'd have to limit to one Bird doing this, but in a hypothetical version built around Rofellos's curve, there's only so many slots, and more land is better.

[beastman]

Birds fits into the curve of the deck much, I repeat, much more smoothly. Rofellos is yet another two drop that doesn't even fix color issues. Against decks that run moon effects or lock pieces, I would much rather have a turn 1 birds than a turn 2 Rofellos. Birds almost single handedly won me at least 3 games at the GP, where I was able to turn 1 birds, turn 2 thoughtsieze away shenanigans and resolve survival, turn 3, establish complete control of the game.

[Tacosnape]

Birds fits into the curve of the deck much, I repeat, much more smoothly. Rofellos is yet another two drop that doesn't even fix color issues. Against decks that run moon effects or lock pieces, I would much rather have a turn 1 birds than a turn 2 Rofellos. Birds almost single handedly won me at least 3 games at the GP, where I was able to turn 1 birds, turn 2 thoughtsieze away shenanigans and resolve survival, turn 3, establish complete control of the game.

It's absolutely fascinating when people argue a point that nobody's counter-arguing. Birds are fantastic. Agreed.

That said, BGW Survival decks appeared for awhile in a more controlling shell without Birds. And did well. So it's not unfeasible to think that in probably the most broad archetype of deck in the format, a build without 4 Birds of Paradise could exist and thrive. Therefore I don't think it's any less feasible to wonder if Rofellos-centric builds have potential.

If Birds were Rofellos in your scenario, you'd Thoughtseize turn 1 or 3, drop Rofellos turn two, and drop Survival and do shenanigans on turn three. This, I admit, is slightly inferior and more vulnerable, but undisrupted? It provides you with the identical scenario on the third turn. Survival resolved, one Thoughtseize cast, and control of the game.

Example:

Scenario 1: With Birds.
Turn one: 1 mana generated, spent on Bird.
Turn two: 3 mana generated, spent on Seize, Survival.
Turn three: 4 mana generated, spent on Survival shenanigans. With Rofellos/Anger coming out, can generate an additional 3 mana.

Scenario 2: With Rofellos.
Turn one: 1 mana generated, spent on Thoughtseize
Turn two: 2 mana generated, Rofellos
Turn three: 6 mana generated, Survival, Survival shenanigans. With Quirion Ranger coming out, can generate an additional 3 mana.

So while you take a different path, the end result is somewhat similar.

[b4r0n]

One of the most important things about Survival is the deck's ability to function when it doesn't get a Survival of the Fittest. If you're running more than 1 Rofellos and less than 4 Birds, you're going to end up with more hands that are unplayable. Birds fixes mana, lets you get away with missing land drops, and is much more disposable for flashing back Therapy. Rofellos just doesn't seem to fill the same role.

[Elf_Ascetic]

Scenario 1: With Birds.
Turn one: 1 mana generated, spent on Bird.
Turn two: 3 mana generated, spent on Seize, Survival.
Turn three: 4 mana generated, spent on Survival shenanigans. With Rofellos/Anger coming out, can generate an additional 3 mana.

Scenario 2: With Rofellos.
Turn one: 1 mana generated, spent on Thoughtseize
Turn two: 2 mana generated, Rofellos
Turn three: 6 mana generated, Survival, Survival shenanigans. With Quirion Ranger coming out, can generate an additional 3 mana.

So while you take a different path, the end result is somewhat similar.

Suppose you rip a FoW from their hand with Seize. In scenario 2 you're giving your opponents 2 turns to find a counterspell again, something that's easily done with BS, Top and Ponder. Thereby, a Swords on Rofellos in Scenario 2 is much more painfull than a swords on Rofellos in Scenario 1 (suppose you get Anger/Rofellos). The end result when goldfishing is very similar, but Scenario 2 is more vulnerable then Scenario 1.

[Tacosnape]

One of the most important things about Survival is the deck's ability to function when it doesn't get a Survival of the Fittest. If you're running more than 1 Rofellos and less than 4 Birds, you're going to end up with more hands that are unplayable. Birds fixes mana, lets you get away with missing land drops, and is much more disposable for flashing back Therapy. Rofellos just doesn't seem to fill the same role.

Okay, so your argument is that "Because Rofellos is a better card, it's less disposable for a Therapy flashback?" Because that's ridiculous.

Either one's equally disposable for a Therapy flashback. Flashing it back means you don't have a mana producing creature on the board anymore and they lose whatever you Therapy out of their hand. If you have two of each creature? You're still going to end up with one on the board.

Similarly, I'd challenge your assessment that you get more unplayable hands without Birds and with Rofellos. I run 8 fetches, 4 Savannah, and 4 Bayou, and I don't need Taiga at all unless I get Survival/Anger going. Additionally, in this hypothetical deck, I'd be running one Bird, and one Quirion Ranger to protect myself from Wasteland on my color sources.

I challenge you get more unplayable hands from mana quantity. Two land and a Bird provides you three mana. Two land and a Rofellos provides you four. Additionally, a deck with the quad Rofellos would be running slightly more land (22, likely), improving your opening draw percentages even further.

Suppose you rip a FoW from their hand with Seize. In scenario 2 you're giving your opponents 2 turns to find a counterspell again, something that's easily done with BS, Top and Ponder. Thereby, a Swords on Rofellos in Scenario 2 is much more painfull than a swords on Rofellos in Scenario 1 (suppose you get Anger/Rofellos). The end result when goldfishing is very similar, but Scenario 2 is more vulnerable then Scenario 1.

I'm aware, as I actually made the exact same point two posts earlier, though I probably should have elaborated on what I was talking about:

This, I admit, is slightly inferior and more vulnerable, but undisrupted? It provides you with the identical scenario on the third turn.

However, it's also quite feasible to throw the Thoughtseize on the third turn (After a turn one Ranger, Bird, STP, Therapy, second Seize, Top, whatever), similarly improving your chances to resolve Survival.

[nitewolf9]

If you are going to go with the multiple Rofellos plan I think you should have something else to do with the potentially absurd amounts of extra mana you would be able to reliably generate, in the situations that you cannot get survival to stay around. Would this deck run something like Natural Order?

I guess running multiple witnesses would probably have a similar effect, but it still requires you to draw survival in the first place. Maybe it's just one of those "danger of cool things" feelings, but I do like that Natural Order lets you sac extra Rofellos' and is also pretty good with a bunch of witnesses.

[quicksilver]

Birds also can fix your colors, and provide valuable chump blockers when racing a flier.

[Tacosnape]

If you are going to go with the multiple Rofellos plan I think you should have something else to do with the potentially absurd amounts of extra mana you would be able to reliably generate, in the situations that you cannot get survival to stay around. Would this deck run something like Natural Order?

I guess running multiple witnesses would probably have a similar effect, but it still requires you to draw survival in the first place. Maybe it's just one of those "danger of cool things" feelings, but I do like that Natural Order lets you sac extra Rofellos' and is also pretty good with a bunch of witnesses.

I agree with you as far as having the mana sink. I don't know if Natural Order is it. Nat/Progenitus is nice, but Rofellos doesn't really do this any quicker than Birds does. Rofellos will just do it and be able to power through Daze easier. I'll try this out when I get some time though.

Masticore becomes a nicer option than usual, I suppose. As does Silvos (Turn two Rofellos, Turn three Silvos, or getting him out hasted on turn 4 with a Survival.) But Silvos is trash if your opponent can keep you off both Survival and Rofellos. Sort of ditto for Staff of Domination, and it's not a Survival target, but Rofellos + Staff + 5 lands = win.

I think I'd want to find a way to abuse the green that isn't awful without the Rofellos. I'm open to suggestions here. Wickerbough Elder, Kitchen Finks, Eternal Witness, and Survival itself all play right off the Rofellos, and he makes Genesis activations a lot easier. But something to do in a mana flood would be neat.

Birds also can fix your colors, and provide valuable chump blockers when racing a flier.

The chump blocker element is highly underrated, I agree. I've won more than my fair share of games because Bird and only Bird was prepared to chump a Tombstalker/Enforcer/equipped Sea Drake/whatever.

[MSC]

If you need a sink for green Mana, just play Chameleon Colossus.

He isn't bad, when you draw him without Roffelos und his Pro-Black may come in handy sometimes...

[b4r0n]

Okay, so your argument is that "Because Rofellos is a better card, it's less disposable for a Therapy flashback?" Because that's ridiculous.

No, my argument is that Rofellos fills a different role than Birds. Birds smooth colors, fit the curve better, and accelerate you a turn faster.

Either one's equally disposable for a Therapy flashback. Flashing it back means you don't have a mana producing creature on the board anymore and they lose whatever you Therapy out of their hand. If you have two of each creature? You're still going to end up with one on the board.

Yes, but Birds is a smaller mana investment than Rofellos. That's what I meant by "more disposable." Therapy is good if you have multiple Rofelloses, I suppose.

Similarly, I'd challenge your assessment that you get more unplayable hands without Birds and with Rofellos. I run 8 fetches, 4 Savannah, and 4 Bayou, and I don't need Taiga at all unless I get Survival/Anger going. Additionally, in this hypothetical deck, I'd be running one Bird, and one Quirion Ranger to protect myself from Wasteland on my color sources.

You're welcome to challenge my assessment, and I'd be interested to hear your testing results. I'm thinking about hands like:

Fetch
Forest
Swords
Goyf
Thoughtseize
Harmonic Sliver
Birds/Rofellos

With Birds, this hand is amazing. Turn 1 Forest -> Birds, turn 2 fetch Bayou -> Thoughtseize, Goyf. Then turn 3, you have access to either Swords for their dude or Harmonic for their CB or whatever.

With Rofellos, this hand is just alright. Turn 1 fetch Bayou -> Thoughtseize, turn 2 Rofellos? If they have a Waste turn 1, you're screwed. Even if they don't, you're still unable to get white mana to play the other two spells in your hand. So maybe you go turn 1 Forest, turn 2 fetch Savannah -> Rofellos? You don't get to use your Thoughtseize to disrupt your opponent, so you're wide open to whatever they plan on doing. For this hand, it might just be better to just go turn 1 Thoughtseize turn 2 Goyf and ignore Rofellos altogether. He seems pretty meh in this situation.

I challenge you get more unplayable hands from mana quantity. Two land and a Bird provides you three mana. Two land and a Rofellos provides you four. Additionally, a deck with the quad Rofellos would be running slightly more land (22, likely), improving your opening draw percentages even further.

See above. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, but I just don't think that cutting multiple Birds for multiple Rofelloses is a great idea. But maybe I'm wrong. Let me know how your testing goes.

[zulander]

Other than hand disruption, how do you deal with NOThresh?

[beastman]

Some people have started running fleshbag marauder. But, later in the game, it's surprisingly easy to just get down a bunch of goyfs and race them.

[Hawdes]

This is the list I'm playing right now and it works pretty good...

// Creatures
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Sakura-Tribe Elder
3 Kitchen Finks
2 Eternal Witness
1 Mystic Enforcer
1 Shriekmaw
1 Big Game Hunter
1 Wickerbough Elder
1 Anger
1 Genesis
1 Squee, Goblin Nabob
1 Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary
// Enchantments
4 Survival of the Fittest
// Instants
4 Swords to Plowshares
3 Krosan Grip
// Sorceries
4 Thoughtseize
3 Cabal Therapy
// Lands
4 Windswept Heath
3 Wooded Foothills
4 Bayou
3 Savannah
1 Taiga
5 Forest
1 Plains
1 Swamp
// SIDEBOARD
SB: 4 Angel's Grace
SB: 3 Engineered Plague
SB: 2 Extirpate
SB: 1 Fleshbag Marauder
SB: 1 Magus of the Moon
SB: 1 Yixlid Jailer
SB: 1 Faerie Macabre
SB: 1 Ingot Chewer
SB: 1 Gaddock Teeg

Comments are appriciated.
I'm running Angel's grace due to the fact that it's impossible to get my hands on Orim's chant. It works good against ANTS and similar combo decks.

[Zach Tartell]

Comments are appriciated.
I'm running Angel's grace due to the fact that it's impossible to get my hands on Orim's chant. It works good against ANTS and similar combo decks.

You realize that Tendrils of Agony doesn't do damage, right? So you'll live through the end of their turn, then die as a state based effect during your untap phase.

I'd run Gilded Light, or Gaddok Teeg, or Ethersworn Cannonist (if I were unable to get Orim's Chant). Or you could just not play any anti-combo cards, and run it glass-cannon like.

[beastman]

It doesn't seem like you run enough creatures. I would definetely cut the grips from the main in favr of a gaddock teeg, harmonic sliver, and 1 other creature. I also agree with senoir Two baskets about angels grace. Its basically useless against tendrils.