[DTW] Bant Survival

[spider900]

Hey folks,

today I tested Spell Pierce instead of Spell Snare and I liked it. My list looks like this now:

// Lands
3 [A] Tropical Island
4 [ON] Wooded Foothills
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
3 [A] Savannah
2 [P3] Forest (2)
1 [A] Plains (2)
1 [A] Island (2)

// Creatures
4 [CFX] Noble Hierarch
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf
3 [LRW] Spellstutter Sprite
2 [ALA] Rhox War Monk
2 [ARB] Qasali Pridemage
1 [MM] Squee, Goblin Nabob
1 [ALA] Rafiq of the Many
1 [JU] Wonder
1 [DIS] Trygon Predator
1 [FD] Eternal Witness

// Spells
4 [EX] Survival of the Fittest
4 [AL] Force of Will
3 [LRW] Ponder
4 [MM] Brainstorm
4 [A] Swords to Plowshares
3 [ZEN] Spell Pierce

I also tested Eternal Witness in the slot of Sower, because I never wanted to have Sower in a single game i played. I am quite happy with Witness.

I did some testing vs. Enchantress in the morning:

Game 1 I win, although he has 2 A. Enchantress out. He was screwed on 1 land with 2 U.Sprawls on it. 2nd Turn Survival, 4th turn attacking Predator owns him.
Game 2 he wins clearly by playing many Enchantress effects plus Mana boost. No Chance for me here.
Game 3 I have 3 Fows plus 1 Spell Pierce to counter all his Enchantress effects. I also had Predator plus a sided K.Grip in my hand, but they weren't necessary since my two 4/5 Goyfs set up a fast clock.

The deck is really nice and performs very well. I hope getting the time to take it to a tourney.

Edit: I am not quite happy with the Manabase. Basic Island und Plains suck. With Survival, I want every land to produce G. Maybe s.o. could help me?

[Windux]

Im talking about the protection that we play.
Spell Snare, Sprites and Forces are all reactive (Yeah, you can go aggro with Sprites..)
Cliques and Teegs are mostly in the Sideboard. Clique and Teeg are disruption and not protection and disruption can be proactive and reactive.
Protection is reactive all the time (for me).

And i don't say that you have to play NO at any cost.
If you win anyway, because you have an active survival it's all great.
It's just, that it's a powerhouse in our color and can easily be played in our deck.
If I have the choice between playing turn 2 Survival and survival for Goyfs or to play NO on my fetched Arbor, I definitly going to play the Survival.
But if I draw NO off the top and do have a creature i can sacrifice for it, I will do it, if my opponent doesn't play a bunch of counters.

I hope you can understand my point of view, even if my english is bad as hell :D

[Jak]

Im talking about the protection that we play.
Spell Snare, Sprites and Forces are all reactive (Yeah, you can go aggro with Sprites..)
Cliques and Teegs are mostly in the Sideboard. Clique and Teeg are disruption and not protection and disruption can be proactive and reactive.
Protection is reactive all the time (for me).

Protection and disruption are interchangeable most of the time. It depends on what you are trying to do. Are you trying to resolve Survival? Then playing Clique is protection. Are you trying to take the win that they have in hand away? Then Clique is disruption. Discard is not reactive but it can help protect your threats from a WoG. Basically, I think you aren't understanding what disruption, protection, and proactive and reactive means.

And i don't say that you have to play NO at any cost.
If you win anyway, because you have an active survival it's all great.
It's just, that it's a powerhouse in our color and can easily be played in our deck.

I know you aren't telling us all to play NO, but what I am asking you is why to play it at all? I personally feel like you are taking away from Survival which is the reason to run the deck. I feel NO is too slow against aggro and against more control oriented decks, we don't have enough disruption to make sure it goes through, and then it becomes card disadvantage.

Of course, it will pull you out of games you would have lost. An unblockable 10/10 that hardly dies will do that. However, does the few games that it will in for you outweigh the games that you lose? For example, you draw it after a Wrath effect, you draw it in place of disruption that could have stopped the opponents only out or you draw it in place of a creature that could have won you the game.

Playing it feels like you are trying to go all in for the win which goes against the decks nature. If you end up losing the battle over NO then you essentially lose.

If I have the choice between playing turn 2 Survival and survival for Goyfs or to play NO on my fetched Arbor, I definitly going to play the Survival.
But if I draw NO off the top and do have a creature i can sacrifice for it, I will do it, if my opponent doesn't play a bunch of counters.

That's the thing. It seems way to "narrow" (lack of a better word). Why not just focus on Survival, which as you said yourself, is better.

I hope you can understand my point of view, even if my english is bad as hell :D

It's fine :)

[Jak]

Oh and Spell Pierce may take the place of Spell Snare in my SB.

[jeanbathez]

Played this version yesterday in 4 rounds gettin 2nd with luck :

// NAME: survivalbant

// Lands
4 [R] Tropical Island
2 [R] Savannah
4 [ON] Windswept Heath
2 [ZEN] Forest (4)
1 [ZEN] Island (6)
1 [ZEN] Plains (1)
4 [ZEN] Misty Rainforest

// Creatures
1 [DIS] Trygon Predator
3 [ALA] Rhox War Monk
4 [FUT] Tarmogoyf
2 [ARB] Qasali Pridemage
4 [CFX] Noble Hierarch
1 [10E] Squee, Goblin Nabob
1 [JU] Wonder
1 [MOR] Vendilion Clique
1 [VI] Quirion Ranger
4 [LRW] Spellstutter Sprite
1 [ALA] Rafiq of the Many

// Spells
4 [CST] Swords to Plowshares
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [CST] Brainstorm
4 [EX] Survival of the Fittest
3 [M10] Ponder

// Sideboard
SB: 1 [ALA] Rhox War Monk
SB: 3 [TSP] Krosan Grip
SB: 2 [LRW] Gaddock Teeg
SB: 1 [PS] Meddling Mage
SB: 1 [JU] Genesis
SB: 1 [SHM] Faerie Macabre
SB: 4 [CFX] Path to Exile
SB: 2 [ZEN] Spell Pierce

1 Round : Eternal garden : 2:1, winning in extraturns, big thanks to rafiq
2 Round : Mono white clerics with scepter, swords : 2:0
3 Round : Ugw countertop 1:2, close games
4 Round : staxx : 2:0

I was suprised winning the matches against lands.dec and staxx, but i take it . With some luck i got second, geetin some good prices. I was also suprised how good rafiq was, in winning games !!!

[XiaN]

Played an tournament yesterday too and finished first with a slightly modified list i wanted to try out.

// Lands

4 Misty Rainforest
4 Windswept Heath
4 Tropical Island
2 Savannah
2 Tundra
1 Forest
1 Plains

// Creatures

4 Noble Hierarch
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Rhox War Monk
3 Vendilion Clique
2 Spellstutter Sprite
1 Qasali Pridemage
1 Ethernal Witness

1 Rafiq of the Many
1 Squee, Goblin Nabob
1 Wonder

1 Progenitus

// Stuff

4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Brainstorm

4 Force of Will
3 Daze

3 Survival of the Fittest
2 Natural Order

// Sideboard

4 Path to Exile
4 Mindbreak Trap
2 Ravenous Trap
2 Krosan Grip
1 Gaddock Teeg
1 Meddling Mage
1 Rhox War Monk

Lost my notes in a pub yesterday, but i still remember some games

Played 2 rounds against Landstills and won both 2-0. Clique is pretty MVP here.

Played 2 rounds against Thresh's and won both 2-1. Close games, but the luck was on my side this time.

Played against a Ichorid and ... got lucky. Set him on a fast clock with NO once and got lucky with the grave trap and a Gaddock Teeg the other match. This gave me the time i needed to win.

T8 against Zoo. Like i said numerous times before : I love this MU. This time luck ( and 4 war monks ) was on my side and i won 2-1.

T4 against Landstill again and again ... no real problem 2-0.

T2 against ANT. Oh yeah ... combo. Lost the first round close, but after sideboarding i opened with 2 storm traps, 2 force, 2 clique and 2 lands for the second round. He duressed me turn 2 and scoops, because i found the 3 land and was on the play. Yeah ok ... i take it. Round 3 i opend with 2 storm traps, 1 force, 1 mm, 1 teeg and two lands. MM on chant, followed by teeg and he scoops after duressing me

Quick note : the 4 times i played NO this tournament only once i searched up Progenitus ( 1 turn clock against ichorid ) and the other times i searched for rafiq ( because i had no SotF out ) which won me 2 games. One against the Zoo, because i could alpha strike my life total back to the safe zone and once against one of the Threshs.

[Jak]

Quick note : the 4 times i played NO this tournament only once i searched up Progenitus ( 1 turn clock against ichorid ) and the other times i searched for rafiq ( because i had no SotF out ) which won me 2 games. One against the Zoo, because i could alpha strike my life total back to the safe zone and once against one of the Threshs.

So why is NO even in there? Survival could have done the same thing. I can kind of understand the people playing 4 Survival and X NO, but cutting Survival for it is so wrong.

[losada]

I'm planning to include 1 Kitchen finks instead 1 RWM. Sometimes, in 2nd and 3rd game, decks like Naya include REB, and I can´t gain lifes with RWM...What do you think, guys?

[Muela]

I'm planning to include 1 Kitchen finks instead 1 RWM. Sometimes, in 2nd and 3rd game, decks like Naya include REB, and I can´t gain lifes with RWM...What do you think, guys?

Hi Losada, despite the fact of not having tested (in real life) this decktype I'm a survival player and I would you suggest you to test with spike feeder in case you had vials in your deck. I'm aware that with the new-old rules it is not such a good combat guy, however it's really a great move to fetch him and get it into play to avoid fire/ice and do some other tricks.

Apart from that, I usually prefer loxodon over kitchen unless I pack some cabal therapies, sacrify effects or their main task would be a two turns block (not life gaining). The not having the whole 4 lives at will thing can be awful. It is also harder to recur if you are playing with genesis.

My 2 cents

PS In case it was a mess and hard to understand just PM me and I can explain it in Spanish (o con una caña de por medio )

[XiaN]

Hey losada

The finks is def. worth a try, but i see one problem here. I never had problems with REB in the Naya or Zoo MU against my Monks.

But i think finks is more the "defensive" life gainer compared to RWM. Sure our enemy needs to trade 2 for 1 ( in burn spells ) in both cases, but with Rafiq and our Exalteds the RWM simply gains more life.

Let us know how the fink test goes.

Apart from that, I usually prefer loxodon over kitchen

In a normal survival sure, but RWM is simply better in Bant Survival. He has the same tougthness ( power is not really relevant in the Zoo/Burn MUs ), gains more life in the long term and is simply one mana cheaper.

So why is NO even in there? Survival could have done the same thing.

Because i would have lost these 3 games without it. And because i don't see a reason why i shouldn't play around with the list. The 2 NO have done extremly well so far.

And no, survival wouldn't help me there. Against Ichorid i would simply be dead by the time i assembled the same power as Progenitus out of Survival. Oh and i ripped some Bridges out of his grave too And against the other two dudes i had no cards in hand and ripped NO from the top. So i would have needed : Another creature in my hand, 7!!! mana up to play survival, tutor rafiq and play him!

I can kind of understand the people playing 4 Survival and X NO, but cutting Survival for it is so wrong.

Maybe yes, maybe not. I tried a "new" system of deckbuilding this tournament.

4 Copies of a card : I want to see this card every game and i'm extremly happy to draw multiple copies.
3 Copies of a card : I want to see this card every game, but don't want to see a second copy
2 Copies of a card : I'm not unhappy to draw this card, but its only good in some situations or require a very high amound of resources or outside factors to be good
1 Copy of a card : This card is only good in some very special situations and i don't want to draw this card from the top. But i'm fine to tutor it up

So ... i don't want to draw two Survival and it worked fine in the tournament. I think first place out of 50+ people proves that.

[Muela]

In a normal survival sure, but RWM is simply better in Bant Survival. He has the same tougthness ( power is not really relevant in the Zoo/Burn MUs ), gains more life in the long term and is simply one mana cheaper.

I agree 100% in the comp. RWM vs loxodon, but I was arguing the elephant VS finks...

[XiaN]

I know, but if Loxodon is better than Finks ( which i don't think he is ) and RWM is better then Loxodon than RWM > Finks, too

[losada]

Well, not only in the reb example kitchen finks are better. Against Canadian, a fire ice to your RWM, for example. Against rock, with pernicious. Maybe it's just the frustration about the game I lost against naya for this reason (the reb), but today, in a "shop tournament" (4 rounds, maybe 5) I'll try with kitchen finks.

@Muela, Loxodon has a cc 4, and my deck (with vials) works better with creatures with cc 2 or 3. In fact, when I test sower, the principal reason to discard it was her cost.

[Muela]

I know, but if Loxodon is better than Finks ( which i don't think he is ) and RWM is better then Loxodon than RWM > Finks, too

I agree about RWM being better than Loxodon in this deck :)

@Muela, Loxodon has a cc 4, and my deck (with vials) works better with creatures with cc 2 or 3. In fact, when I test sower, the principal reason to discard it was her cost.

I see, then I would suggest you to give it a try to spike feeder unless you desperately need it to persist.

[losada]

Finally, I couldnt play Kitchen Finks cause I had to lend some cards (including misty rainforest and fow) to a friend. The next weekend I'll test it.

[mhinsz]

I've also been considering replacing Rhox War Monk with Kitchen Finks for the above said reasons, and for it's inability to block Goblin Piledriver.

[XiaN]

But remember that the Finks does not pitch to Force of Will.

Against Canadian, a fire ice to your RWM

Which will do ... nothing. Its more a point against the Finks

I'm fine with the monk against Zoo/Burn/Slight. Mainly because they can not trade 1:1 with him, he can compete/race or stall an early goyf ( which is most likely 3/4 when he hits play ) and that he gains much more life with exalted and Rafiq, than the Finks would ever do.

But let us know how it goes. I like the fact, that the Finks have a much easier casting cost, but i still think it is too "defensive" as life gainer.

and for it's inability to block Goblin Piledriver.

This is a very good point. If your meta is floated with red men, he's better then RWM for sure.

[Waikiki]

war monk > finks because war monk is aggressive lifegainer. It can attack with wings (wonder) or rafiq and gain you so much life the burn is not going to do anything. Also it blocks mongoose all day. If your afraid of goblins run more spot removal sb(+jitte)

[Nidd]

Anyone got some thoughts on NO in this deck? Or would a CounterTop shell be better?

[XiaN]

Read the last pages. Both things have been discussed quite intensively.