[Deck] Elves Combo

[nudon]

To those of you who have switched to the Craterhoof list, how often do you search up Regal Force instead of Craterhoof when you have the option of grabbing either?

Sometimes I draw my Craterhoof and have a Natural Order in hand (but not enough to hardcast Craterhoof) and end up settling for Regal Force instead to draw more gas. I think I rarely want to search up Regal Force over the 'Hoof for the following reasons:

1) 2-3 Elves + 'Hoof = lethal damage: a 5/5 Ancestral Recall is nice, but a dead opponent is better
2) If you don't have enough Elves to deal lethal, drawing the extra cards with Regal Force might be stronger (since Regal Force's "impact" scales linearly with the number of creatures you have, but Craterhoof's scales quadratically). However, you usually need a few Elves in play anyway to be able to cheat either fatty in, which would represent over 20 damage. I can see Regal Force being more useful if your opponent somehow gained a ton of life in the course of the game, allowing you to set up a super large Craterhoof Behemoth with like 20 Elves in play, but that seems like a narrow situation.
3) Drawing a few cards can also be useful in a situation where you're unable to attack due to some lock pieces, allowing you to perhaps more aggressively draw fuel to feed your Deathrite Shamans or your postboard answers.
4) The extra mana cost to hardcast either card (or to fetch them out with GSZ) can occasionally be relevant, although that's not often the case.

I'm currently inclined to replace the Regal Force with a second 'Hoof.

I'll typically go for regal force (boarded out against combo) in very grindy games where I would only be able to attack with 0-1 elves post gsz/NO and thus can't [nearly] kill my opponent. Though I can see your frustration with regal force, I still think he deserves a spot.

[Zombie]

I go for value Regals relatively often. If I can kill though, I'll take it. But against fair decks, why hurry? If I don't have a kill, might as well draw a new hand while upping the pressure.

Unlike your list, I keep teeg in the sb and priest in the main so I don't have the second arbor. I don't think it's necessary since I'd bring it in against decks we should be able to beat anyways (along with NO and prog). Main deck teeg is something I might try in the future though with the amount of combo in my meta. Even then, I'd probably add the third abrupt decay before arbor.

I thought about your comment regarding cutting 1 heritage druid and 1 quirion ranger and I agree. However, I'd rather cut 1 forest and 1 NO (not very good with teeg) before shaving symbiotes. They are very good with cradles and allow you to swing for lethal with untaps.

Now that you mention it, I agree with the titania cut.

Fair enough on the Dryad. I heartily recommend maindeck Teeg - combo is a bad matchup, and it's one slot to up the threat count of the deck by 5, so they have to worry about NO, GSZ, Glimpse. Plus many ANT lists just can't kill Teeg game 1 so resolving him is an autowin. Too good to pass up if you ask me.

[catmint]

I already cut regal force in all combo matches (see above post) so I'd have to find another card to cut. I think Ruric is good only in the scenario where you can NO into him (doubt gsz for 6 is likely when we're flashing therapy back). Even then, teeg isn't too much worse as a NO target if you can't swing for lethal. The major drawback of Ruric is that he's a dead card in hand. Also, the sb is pretty compact as I used every single card at some point (later used abrupt decay against miracles in tourney).

I think playin with 2 NO targets vs. combo makes sense in case one is drawn you want to do better than Gaddock Teeg when casting NO. Cutting more irrelevant cards is surely not the problem. I don't like your boarding plan anyway where you cut mana acceleration (Heritage Druid, Qurion Ranger, Crop Rotation) over the 4th Visionary and wirewood symbiote. Fast mana is key to play hate & GSZ/NO for permanent hate wheras protection & grinding (wirewood & visionary) is 95% of the time not relevant and rather hurts the deck to do what it needs to do versus storm.

Concerning your other arguments against Ruric:

1) GSZ for x=6 is unlikely due to cabal therapy.
Yes, our ability to combo and to generate a ton of mana is hurt by us playing hate. GSZ for 6 is still easier than GSZ for 8 (behemoth) right?
Also cabal therapy weakens behemoth as NO target whereas with the simple precondition of 4 mana and 1 dude you get the best possible storm hate we have available. So what you say is in fact very much in favour of playing ruric.

2) Ruric beeing a dead card in hand.
For the unfortunate event of drawing him, we would have to rely on deathrite or maybe a birchlore to get red mana. But yes drawing him is as unfortunate as drawing behemoth. It might be even correct to play 2 Ruric as only NO targets. I am sure he is that good aka better than behemoth in the storm matchup 85% of the time.

I can't believe you guys don't pick up on this obvios improvement that ruric represents vs. storm, but I guess it is a symptom of people beeing used on playing with the current tech. I experienced it before when Grisel came out. People in sneak attack did not want to let go of Progenitus and people in Reanimator thought Griselis not better than Jin Gitaxias.

[Kayradis]

... but I guess it is a symptom of people beeing used on playing with the current tech. I experienced it before when Grisel came out. People in sneak attack did not want to let go of Progenitus and people in Reanimator thought Griselis not better than Jin Gitaxias.

I do agree with you on that point. I played this weekend in a 50+ tournament and the deck lacked answers against storm. I was also one of those reanimator players at the time that wasn't convinced in that big black 7/7 Flying lifelink dude. I was wrong. Combo elves already went thru a huge facelift this past year. Maybe the deck is ready for another major update? I will definitely playtest with that guy.

[nudon]

I think playin with 2 NO targets vs. combo makes sense in case one is drawn you want to do better than Gaddock Teeg when casting NO. Cutting more irrelevant cards is surely not the problem. I don't like your boarding plan anyway where you cut mana acceleration (Heritage Druid, Qurion Ranger, Crop Rotation) over the 4th Visionary and wirewood symbiote. Fast mana is key to play hate & GSZ/NO for permanent hate wheras protection & grinding (wirewood & visionary) is 95% of the time not relevant and rather hurts the deck to do what it needs to do versus storm.

Concerning your other arguments against Ruric:

1) GSZ for x=6 is unlikely due to cabal therapy.
Yes, our ability to combo and to generate a ton of mana is hurt by us playing hate. GSZ for 6 is still easier than GSZ for 8 (behemoth) right?
Also cabal therapy weakens behemoth as NO target whereas with the simple precondition of 4 mana and 1 dude you get the best possible storm hate we have available. So what you say is in fact very much in favour of playing ruric.

2) Ruric beeing a dead card in hand.
For the unfortunate event of drawing him, we would have to rely on deathrite or maybe a birchlore to get red mana. But yes drawing him is as unfortunate as drawing behemoth. It might be even correct to play 2 Ruric as only NO targets. I am sure he is that good aka better than behemoth in the storm matchup 85% of the time.

I can't believe you guys don't pick up on this obvios improvement that ruric represents vs. storm, but I guess it is a symptom of people beeing used on playing with the current tech. I experienced it before when Grisel came out. People in sneak attack did not want to let go of Progenitus and people in Reanimator thought Griselis not better than Jin Gitaxias.

Regarding mana acceleration, please read my previous response to Zombie so we refrain from backtracking. :) I said I would now cut 1 forest and a NO (previous assumption of not using ruric) instead while keeping rotation over priest. The 4th visionary was left in as a tutor target in case card draw was needed mid-combo.

As for ruric, I definitely would rather see him than the 4th symbiote so I think you're right. Leaving teeg or pridemage in the main would open up that final sb slot for him too (doubt I'd play 2 since the NO can hit teeg if we draw ruric). Besides, I wouldn't want to be one of those people just used to playing with the current tech. :P

Edit: Boarding out craterhoof instead of the 4th symbiote for ruric might be the correct play. Symbiote allows for generating 4 mana (NO into ruric/teeg) with cradle on turn 2:

T1: forest, tap forest for DRS/llanowar/fyndhorn/gsz->arbor
T2: tap forest + llanowar for symbiote + cmc1 drop, cradle for 3, return cmc1 drop to untap llanowar, tap llanowar for NO

[Kayradis]

As of taking the 4th symbiote out, I totally disagree. I saved myself so often with those little green insect by using them as Mazes of Ith or as a back up draw engine that, IMO, they are part of the core of the deck.

I'd rather cut a Quirion Ranger than cutting a Symbiote.

[nudon]

As of taking the 4th symbiote out, I totally disagree. I saved myself so often with those little green insect by using them as Mazes of Ith or as a back up draw engine that, IMO, they are part of the core of the deck.

I'd rather cut a Quirion Ranger than cutting a Symbiote.

Zombie, Catmint, and myself were all talking with regards to storm... There's nothing to block. Even then, I had said multiple times that symbiote is very good with cradle for generating extra mana on turn 2.

[Kayradis]

Im still not convinced. Sorry.

[nudon]

Im still not convinced. Sorry.

Don't know what to tell you then. My current thinking for the new sb plan against storm is below. Feel free to disagree:
Add: +4 cabal therapy, +1 NO, +1 teeg, +1 ruric thar (maybe it's safe to cut traps from the sb)
Cut: -3 visionary, -1 regal force, -1 craterhoof, -1 priest, -1 forest

Edit (in case people are wondering how to generate mana with symbiote):
T1: forest, tap forest for DRS/llanowar/fyndhorn/gsz->arbor
T2: tap forest + llanowar for symbiote + cmc1 drop, cradle for 3, return cmc1 drop to untap llanowar, tap llanowar for NO

[Kayradis]

Don't know what to tell you then. My current thinking for the new sb plan against storm is below. Feel free to disagree:
Add: +4 cabal therapy, +1 NO, +1 teeg, +1 ruric thar (maybe it's safe to cut traps from the sb)
Cut: -3 visionary, -1 regal force, -1 craterhoof, -1 priest, -1 forest

Cut : -1 Regal Force, -1 Craterhoof, -1 Quirion, -1 Fyndhorn, -1 Llanowar, -1 Priest, -1 Deathrite
Add : +4 Cabal Therapy, +1 NO, +1 Ruric, +1 Thorn of Amethys


What about that?

[nudon]

Cut : -1 Regal Force, -1 Craterhoof, -1 Quirion, -1 Fyndhorn, -1 Llanowar, -1 Priest, -1 Deathrite
Add : +4 Cabal Therapy, +1 NO, +1 Ruric, +1 Thorn of Amethys


What about that?

Cutting 3+ mana dorks? No teeg? I'd hate to repeat what many have already said but visionary is too slow against storm.

[Zombie]

Cut : -1 Regal Force, -1 Craterhoof, -1 Quirion, -1 Fyndhorn, -1 Llanowar, -1 Priest, -1 Deathrite
Add : +4 Cabal Therapy, +1 NO, +1 Ruric, +1 Thorn of Amethys


What about that?

That is atrociously horrible. You're cutting a ton of speed while preserving a durdly draw/Maze engine that's kickass in fair games but just doesn't cut it against combo at all. Against combo, the plays need to be crushing and fast, and often need mana. You're cutting a ton of fast mana and a second NO target. If you don't have Teeg main, that boarding plan is even worse.

[catmint]

True... I forgot that symbiote is able to generate mana turn 2 if there is a cradle altough quirion can do it without needing another 1 drop elf.

Leaving 1 Visionary as tutor target is "kind of meh". In case I already have a teeg out (which would be the primary target for GSZ x=2) then I would probably save the GSZ to set up more mana and/or wait until i can cast it for x=6 for the win.

I think in the current behemoth/deathrite version boarding out 2-3 Glimpse versus storm is correct. Comboing with glimpse is more unlikely if you bring in hate and in general the combo is weaker compared to the "old" builds with 4 summoners pact. Glimpse combo is a turn 3 play if you setup turn 1 & 2 and in some very rare cases a turn 2 play. Vs. storm we are busy casting cabal therapy & GSZ for teeg in the early turns. Glimpse will then just sit in the hand and MAYBE only be relevant if you are already winning. Wining "by glimpse" aka racing will be very very rare.

I've never played a build with crop rotation main, but I really like the package with bojuka bog to screw a desperate/greedy/inexperienced storm player with G open. Also rotation is the most potent form of mana generation (aka sacing cradle for cradle)

So the plan is to sum up
1) Disrupt: Cast discard, get teeg online, (screw with bog) (40% cabal in starting hand, 40% teeg turn 2)
2) Play dudes and generate mana (maybe hit for a bit)
3) Kill with behemoth or Ruric (40% ruric turn 3)

The % look very solid right. Sure stuff will be discarded, but have to hope for the best with redundancies...

Glimpse can randomly win or be a discard target for bad storm players distracting from NO or GSZ, but If I have a hands that include a lot of spells like GSZ, NO, cabal therapy and crop rotation I just want duuudes.

Dryad arbor seems also kind of stupid. If I have a GSZ I need it to get teeg right.

According to that the boarding plan can be something like this (without having any specific list or SB in mind - just to get the idea across):

- 4 Elvish Visionary
- 2-3 Glimpse of Nature
- 0-1 wirewood symbiote
- 1 Regal Force
- 1 dryad arbor
+4 Cabal Therapy
+1-2 Gaddock Teeg (2nd for the extra % or if it is discarded).
+1 Bojuka Bog
+1-2 Crop Rotation
+1 Ruric
(+1 NO)

[nudon]

True... I forgot that symbiote is able to generate mana turn 2 if there is a cradle altough quirion can do it without needing another 1 drop elf.

Leaving 1 Visionary as tutor target is "kind of meh". In case I already have a teeg out (which would be the primary target for GSZ x=2) then I would probably save the GSZ to set up more mana and/or wait until i can cast it for x=6 for the win.

I think in the current behemoth/deathrite version boarding out 2-3 Glimpse versus storm is correct. Comboing with glimpse is more unlikely if you bring in hate and in general the combo is weaker compared to the "old" builds with 4 summoners pact. Glimpse combo is a turn 3 play if you setup turn 1 & 2 and in some very rare cases a turn 2 play. Vs. storm we are busy casting cabal therapy & GSZ for teeg in the early turns. Glimpse will then just sit in the hand and MAYBE only be relevant if you are already winning. Wining "by glimpse" aka racing will be very very rare.

I've never played a build with crop rotation main, but I really like the package with bojuka bog to screw a desperate/greedy/inexperienced storm player with G open. Also rotation is the most potent form of mana generation (aka sacing cradle for cradle)

So the plan is to sum up
1) Disrupt: Cast discard, get teeg online, (screw with bog) (40% cabal in starting hand, 40% teeg turn 2)
2) Play dudes and generate mana (maybe hit for a bit)
3) Kill with behemoth or Ruric (40% ruric turn 3)

The % look very solid right. Sure stuff will be discarded, but have to hope for the best with redundancies...

Glimpse can randomly win or be a discard target for bad storm players distracting from NO or GSZ, but If I have a hands that include a lot of spells like GSZ, NO, cabal therapy and crop rotation I just want duuudes.

Dryad arbor seems also kind of stupid. If I have a GSZ I need it to get teeg right.

According to that the boarding plan can be something like this (without having any specific list or SB in mind - just to get the idea across):

- 4 Elvish Visionary
- 2-3 Glimpse of Nature
- 0-1 wirewood symbiote
- 1 Regal Force
- 1 dryad arbor
+4 Cabal Therapy
+1-2 Gaddock Teeg (2nd for the extra % or if it is discarded).
+1 Bojuka Bog
+1-2 Crop Rotation
+1 Ruric
(+1 NO)

I said symbiote should be used in conjunction with ranger to generate mana, not that it is better at it. Leaving visionary as a tutor target fills the void regal force leaves in that it can be searched mid combo (assuming you kept therapy in opener) to give a little extra gas. You can't gsz for 6 with teeg out.

I disagree with boarding glimpses out. I would board out 3 visionaries, 1 regal force, 1 priest of titania, 1 forest (doubt this matters because we have ranger), and [maybe] craterhoof. With all of our 1 drop mana generation intact, the potential for long glimpse chains into ruric thar AND teeg is still there to effectively shut them out of the game. Lethal damage is nice but this also gets the job done. Worse case scenario, we brick off a few lands and possibly draw more therapies.

I play with 2 crop rotations main so I know it's power when boarding in bog and karakas (highlighted in my reanimator matchup). However, I don't know if boarding a bojuka bog in against storm is correct since its scope seems a bit narrow.

Dryad arbor absolutely needs to stay in my opinion. Sometimes you'll have double gsz or 1 gsz + 1 NO with no mana dorks in the opener. It can also be fetched and sac'ed to therapy.

Crop rotation seems like a waste of a spot on the sb. I'd rather play them main.

[Kayradis]

Alright.
After testing a couple of matches yesterday and trying different SB plan, I have to agree with you guys.

You win.

[catmint]

....
I disagree with boarding glimpses out. I would board out 3 visionaries, 1 regal force, 1 priest of titania, 1 forest (doubt this matters because we have ranger), and [maybe] craterhoof. With all of our 1 drop mana generation intact, the potential for long glimpse chains into ruric thar AND teeg is still there to effectively shut them out of the game. Lethal damage is nice but this also gets the job done. Worse case scenario, we brick off a few lands and possibly draw more therapies.
...
I play with 2 crop rotations main so I know it's power when boarding in bog and karakas (highlighted in my reanimator matchup). However, I don't know if boarding a bojuka bog in against storm is correct since its scope seems a bit narrow.
...
Dryad arbor absolutely needs to stay in my opinion. Sometimes you'll have double gsz or 1 gsz + 1 NO with no mana dorks in the opener. It can also be fetched and sac'ed to therapy.

Concerning glimpse: Is there a flaw in my logic? It does not do anything for the primary game-plan in turn 1-3 and once the primary gameplan is implemented it is not that relevant. Obviously not a horrible card but compared to cabal therapy, GSZ, NO and crop rotation surely the weakest spell.
...
Past in Flames and cabal ritual are good arguments for bojuka bog.
...
Yes, if I have 2 GSZ in hand and no other form to get to 3 mana turn 2 I want to GSZ for Arbor (and still look stupid if my 2nd GSZ is discarded...). Sounds pretty rare/narrow to GSZ for arbor. Cashing in a land for therapy flashback or just using a random 1 drop does not make that much of a difference to me and should not be major consideration. On the other hand arbor is a "mulligan" and a dead draw.

To me it sounds right to go: -1 arbor +1 bojuka bog

[nudon]

Concerning glimpse: Is there a flaw in my logic? It does not do anything for the primary game-plan in turn 1-3 and once the primary gameplan is implemented it is not that relevant. Obviously not a horrible card but compared to cabal therapy, GSZ, NO and crop rotation surely the weakest spell.
...
Past in Flames and cabal ritual are good arguments for bojuka bog.
...
Yes, if I have 2 GSZ in hand and no other form to get to 3 mana turn 2 I want to GSZ for Arbor (and still look stupid if my 2nd GSZ is discarded...). Sounds pretty rare/narrow to GSZ for arbor. Cashing in a land for therapy flashback or just using a random 1 drop does not make that much of a difference to me and should not be major consideration. On the other hand arbor is a "mulligan" and a dead draw.

To me it sounds right to go: -1 arbor +1 bojuka bog

I think we can both agree that there are two preferred t1 plays against storm: cabal therapy (preferred) or llanowar to set up gsz for teeg (NO for ruric now possible too) next turn. Let's play out both scenarios:

In the case of t1 therapy, we'll want to play a cmc1 creature t2 and flashback therapy. Left with 1 mana, we can play additional therapies or a mana elf to set up t3 gsz for teeg if that line of play is available. If those plays aren't available, we can still attempt to go off next turn with glimpse. In the case of t2 teeg/ruric thar, we're assured to have 3+ mana on turn 3. Once again, glimpse combo on turn 3 seems reasonable with 2 cmc1 creatures in hand. The bigger question is: what is so important that we have to cut glimpse? We're already shaving 3-4 visionaries, 1 regal force, 1 priest of titania, 0-1 forests, 0-1 craterhoof. As far as I see, we'll be bringing in 4 therapies, 1 teeg, 1 ruric thar, 0-1 NO, 0-2 mindbreak trap. However, I have serious concerns about boarding in mindbreak trap in addition to the ruric thar package for fear of diluting our deck.

Originally I felt our opponents will go for ad nauseam most of the time. However, I now agree it's worth the extra spot since it can win us a free game. In addition to past in flames and cabal ritual (sorry forgot about threshold), it hits ill-gotten gains too.

Without a t1 mana elf and playing around their discard, we'll most likely be dead by turn 3 anyways. Remember that ranger and wirewood symbiote can both untap arbor to generate 4 mana on turn 2 to play NO-> ruric as well. Bojuka bog is also a dead draw but the reward outweighs the risk.

I think: +1 bog, -1 forest

I think we agree on most cases, just some personal preferences that's all. :)

[Absolutflipz]

Concerning glimpse: Is there a flaw in my logic? It does not do anything for the primary game-plan in turn 1-3 and once the primary gameplan is implemented it is not that relevant. Obviously not a horrible card but compared to cabal therapy, GSZ, NO and crop rotation surely the weakest spell.
...
Past in Flames and cabal ritual are good arguments for bojuka bog.
...
Yes, if I have 2 GSZ in hand and no other form to get to 3 mana turn 2 I want to GSZ for Arbor (and still look stupid if my 2nd GSZ is discarded...). Sounds pretty rare/narrow to GSZ for arbor. Cashing in a land for therapy flashback or just using a random 1 drop does not make that much of a difference to me and should not be major consideration. On the other hand arbor is a "mulligan" and a dead draw.

To me it sounds right to go: -1 arbor +1 bojuka bog

I don't see how taking out Glimpse can help in beating a faster combo deck (that also plays disruption and ponder/brainstorm/preordain).

Also, I'm not sure why people are so enamored with Cabal Therapy as opposed to Thoughtseize. If you miss with Therapy and have to flash it back in order to hit something, you're getting nowhere. Creatures are central to the game plan and as far as you get ahead with discarding, you're an equal amount behind because you've had to get rid of a guy. I wouldn't play the first Cabal Therapy until after the 4th Thoughtseize.

[Darklingske]

Also, I'm not sure why people are so enamored with Cabal Therapy as opposed to Thoughtseize. If you miss with Therapy and have to flash it back in order to hit something, you're getting nowhere. Creatures are central to the game plan and as far as you get ahead with discarding, you're an equal amount behind because you've had to get rid of a guy. I wouldn't play the first Cabal Therapy until after the 4th Thoughtseize.

I understand your reasoning about Cabal Therapy, but imaging this situation:
You are on the play G2 against TES. You have a discard spell and target your opponent. You see his hand is: LED, LED, Tutor, Swamp, Ponder, Petal, Tutor. No matter what you choose with Thoughtseize, you lose next turn. If it was a Therapy (and assuming you named correct - in this case LED) you are in great shape.
The greatest fun to me with Therapy opposed to Thoughtseize is exactly the skilllevel involved in Therapy. It takes years to be proficient with Therapy, but the rewards are much greater then playing a TS.

[HoneyT]

I understand your reasoning about Cabal Therapy, but imaging this situation:
You are on the play G2 against TES. You have a discard spell and target your opponent. You see his hand is: LED, LED, Tutor, Swamp, Ponder, Petal, Tutor. No matter what you choose with Thoughtseize, you lose next turn. If it was a Therapy (and assuming you named correct - in this case LED) you are in great shape.
The greatest fun to me with Therapy opposed to Thoughtseize is exactly the skilllevel involved in Therapy. It takes years to be proficient with Therapy, but the rewards are much greater then playing a TS.

Actually you don't lose if you take the Petal there. That's the correct take. They need to draw another mana source. Note that I'm not advocating Thoughtseize over Therapy, just pointing out that in that example you don't lose next turn if you take Petal. Personally I run a 2/2 split. Elves is my pet deck though I primarily play Nic Fit (as such, I'm a big fan of Therapy). Sometimes you just need to be gauranteed to hit and sometimes you need to be able to rape their hand.