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?
Wouldn't Snap work at least as well? -1 card, +3 mana(the mana you didn't spend on Repeal).Originally Posted by jrw1985
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.
"It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing swallowed up in death. And death and dying are the very life of the darkness."
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.
"It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing swallowed up in death. And death and dying are the very life of the darkness."
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.
Last edited by SupREME-10; 01-01-2012 at 04:52 PM.
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.
"It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing swallowed up in death. And death and dying are the very life of the darkness."
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.
"It is not to be thought that the life of darkness is sunk in misery and lost as if in sorrowing. There is no sorrowing. For sorrow is a thing swallowed up in death. And death and dying are the very life of the darkness."
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.
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.
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?
"There are some who call me...Tim"
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.
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
