[Primer] Elves!

[Echelon]

I agree. However though, with all due respect (and I do not say this to be offensive), isn't outright dismissing an idea a form of theorycrafting as well..?

[Dice_Box]

The problem I have with this whole thing is that it is not taking real world issues in. One land hands you have to throw back. Had them. 4 land hands that have been a snap keep? Had them too. Secondly it does not show what the land in question is. When you have to feed DRS this matters. Lastly, numbers are arabtiory once you start playing. "No plan survives first contact with the enemy." In short, reality will always get the last say.

On the topic of 12 or 14 lands (Not the numbers, the actual topic) I have not had an issue on my 14 land build for a long time. But I do remember when the deck was mono green I would run it with 15 lands, 2 of them Cradle. So the build can matter. Your choices can matter. But I feel 14 lands is just the right amount to get the ball rolling just fine.

Sent from my mobile, forgive spelling and grammatical errors.

[Julian23]

@Echelon: Good point, actually. Made me think about why I for example liked the idea of trying out Planeswalkers (although not cc=6 ones) but disliked your idea of the Elvish Pioneer.

Truth is, I didn't like your reasoning for it as it didn't address the opportunity cost part enough to convince me. However, whenever you want to change the core of the deck (as opposed to silver bullets or the sb), Elves is one of the decks that has the most issues with exactly that. There's an overabundance of good potential core-cards for the deck but only a very limited amount of space. Going down to 12 lands was like the final nail in the coffin for me as it hurts the consistency of deck a lot, which is a very bad thing for a deck that still has a lot of mid-to-lategame potential.

The Planeswalker idea however was of strategical concern and I feel that's what most of the work on this deck has been done over the last months and where there's still the most room for improvement.

[chinEsE girl]

I guess that's true. I wasn't trying to outright dismiss your idea, I was just trying to give some examples of in game events that make 12 lands worse than, say, the standard 14 most people use right now. Honestly, if the 12 land thing works in real game settings, that would be sweet since we'd have found a way to make the deck better. Better yet, go ahead and play some events with a 12 land build and see how it works out. If you start winning a ton you can come back here and tell me "I told you so "

[Shagstaman]

a ton of things seem sound in theory but never in practice...

you can't really argue with results--the results show the recent 19-20 land versions of the deck are winning A LOT more than previous 14~ land versions and versions with wonkey weird card choices. I think we have like 72 or so of the 75 of the perfect elves deck pretty much locked in at this point. Anything different from that will decrease your odds of doing well at major events. Don't get me wrong, I love to brew new cool things but if the goal is winning and beating a defined metagame, results are what matter.

(as a disclaimer, that can all change with a metagame shift or new set dropping some hotness on us ie: DRS)

[Zombie]

a ton of things seem sound in theory but never in practice...

you can't really argue with results--the results show the recent 19-20 land versions of the deck are winning A LOT more than previous 14~ land versions and versions with wonkey weird card choices. I think we have like 72 or so of the 75 of the perfect elves deck pretty much locked in at this point. Anything different from that will decrease your odds of doing well at major events. Don't get me wrong, I love to brew new cool things but if the goal is winning and beating a defined metagame, results are what matter.

(as a disclaimer, that can all change with a metagame shift or new set dropping some hotness on us ie: DRS)

There isn't a single optimal decklist for a deck as slow (lulz) as this. Metagames differ, and different cards are optimal in different metas. See my Ruric in the main, for example, which is stellar idea in Finland but a bad one in the US.

[Shagstaman]

thatd be an example of the 73rd or 74th card =)

the main wiggle room is in the tutor targets main (shaman, thar, scooze) and the sb storm hate slots (trap, thorn, more discard)...the rest is pretty much locked as far as the "best current" build. For example something nutty like going 2 quirion ranger no llanowars and 4 birchlore for the "combo luls" is neat and all, but would cost more games than it'd win.

[Lemnear]

thatd be an example of the 73rd or 74th card =)

the main wiggle room is in the tutor targets main (shaman, thar, scooze) and the sb storm hate slots (trap, thorn, more discard)...the rest is pretty much locked as far as the "best current" build. For example something nutty like going 2 quirion ranger no llanowars and 4 birchlore for the "combo luls" is neat and all, but would cost more games than it'd win.

Who plays 4 Birchlore, 2 Quirion?

[yaWgnorW]

Who plays 4 Birchlore, 2 Quirion?

Well, as for 2 Quirion, NO ONE should be running less than 4 lol...but as for the full Birchlore package, I'd have to say those who are set on Glimpse combo being their primary win con. I think when combo elves was first popularized its primary focus was the Glimpse combo, thus running less Quirions and more Birchlore. That was years ago, however.

[Lemnear]

Well, as for 2 Quirion, NO ONE should be running less than 4 lol...but as for the full Birchlore package, I'd have to say those who are set on Glimpse combo being their primary win con. I think when combo elves was first popularized its primary focus was the Glimpse combo, thus running less Quirions and more Birchlore. That was years ago, however.

Birchlore is amazing for dumping your Hand turn 2, turn 2 Glimpse Combos, Turn 2 NO if paired with Cradle and to create non-green mana for sideboard cards and machine-gunning with your DRS.

Llanowar and friends have their advantage if paired with Quirion or for being a more relyble manaboost

[yaWgnorW]

Birchlore is amazing for dumping your Hand turn 2, turn 2 Glimpse Combos, Turn 2 NO if paired with Cradle and to create non-green mana for sideboard cards and machine-gunning with your DRS.

Llanowar and friends have their advantage if paired with Quirion or for being a more relyble manaboost

Yes of course, no doubt about any of that. I was once in heavy favor of running 3 Birchlore versus the additional 2 normal mana dorks just for hand dumping / early NO or glimpse. Of course that can bite us vs counter magic but the more important thing here is the access to cast spells for the board. Over time I just began to favor the 1 Birchlore with extra mana dorks for the consistency.

[Kayradis]

I ran a 3/3 Split of Quirion/Birchlore.

To bring back my poutine references, It's the perfect mix of cheese and fries!

[Echelon]

Honestly, if the 12 land thing works in real game settings, that would be sweet since we'd have found a way to make the deck better. Better yet, go ahead and play some events with a 12 land build and see how it works out. If you start winning a ton you can come back here and tell me "I told you so "

I have been running a 12 land build containing one Fierce Empath over the fourth Elvish Visionary for some time now, and have been having quite a bit of succes with that build at the local store. However, I fully understand the remark . I've been planning to go to a larger event as soon as the opportunity arises, so I'll let you know how that turns out . I reckon the 5% more mulligans is more then made up for by the quality of the hands in the other 81%. I think a manabase of 2 Forest, 3 duals & 7 fetch would be fine. Considering the amount of fetch and Wastelands played by our opponents, I'd think DRS has enough food to go on even though our deck puts it on a diet.

@Julian: Admittedly, my reasoning for the Pioneer was lacking quite a bit. It was more of a silly idea rather then a well thought of plan. Planeswalkers though - I can see it gives the deck quite a bit of resilience against MU's like Miracles and for the long run in general, but wouldn't it start to slow the deck down too much? Even though certain planeswalkers might make you tokens to feed to Natural Order, you're still not able to tutor out the planeswalker at will, making it a lucky draw at best.

[BJeagle]

Yeah, since last night I wanted to post an overview of what can help vs the splash damage that other decks pack to combat TNN.

It's mostly centered around four cards: Engineered Explosives, Toxic Deluge, Golgari Charm and Supreme Verdict. Let's look at these in detail:


Note that Engineered Explosives will be featured in decks that can generate three different mana easy, aka Junk, Jund, Bant and of course: Esper Stoneblade. Funnily enough Toxic Deluge go in Junk, Jund and Esper, Golgari Charm fits in Junk, Junk and Esper (the Deathblade variant), Supreme Verdict can be used by Bant, Esper and Miracles.

This makes our matches vs Esper Deathblade and U/W Miracles more difficult especially. And you can sort of expect three of four of these in every control deck.


So. What's bad about these cards?



Well. Supreme can't be countered, but it ain't no Wrath: you can regenerate your whole team in response and you'll be fine.
Cards that give you regeneration: Ezuri, Renegade Leader and Golgari Charm (ironicly enough also good vs TNN). Chris Anderson has been packing Ezuri since months maindeck, so it's not without precedent.

Golgari Charm is bad vs x/2+x's. Like Deathrite Shaman, Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Viridian Shaman, Scavenging Ooze and Craterhoof Behemoth.
Of course you could pack any lord vs it, since well, turns out Elvish Archdruid is a 2/2 himself, so they cannot Charm him to death!

EE is bad vs CC<>1's. Like Elvish Visionary, Ezuri, Renegade Leader, Viridian Shaman, Scavenging Ooze, Craterhoof Behemoth and Elvish Ardruid.

Toxic Deluge, well, is a mistake. Obviously meant for Commander, just like TNN. Actually, Commander has given us Legacyplayers many problems, from that make rediculous card advantage in the right deck (Shardless BUG) to less availibility of cards and thus driving up the prices.

But okay. Toxic Deluge. Well. Whatcha gonna do? Be glad you're running 4 Deathrite Shamans and a Scavenging Ooze in the sideboard, I guess.

Could Simic Charm be the solution? One card with multiple use...

[Julian23]

...of which none really helps us. Hexproof doesn't do anything against any of the abovementioned cards.

For reference: Simic Charm

[lordofthepit]

What? Wait? You're losing me here.....
14 lands....
Okay. You got numbers. But as my old math teacher used to say : I can't say you're right without seeing your equation.

Let N_L be the number of lands (assuming non-Dryad Arbor, non-Cradle lands in your deck).
Let N_D be the size of your deck (usually 60).
The probability of getting X lands in your opening 7 can be calculated by the following:

Number of combinations of choosing exactly X lands = C(N_L, X)
Number of combinations of choosing exactly 7 - X nonlands = C(N_D - N_L, 7 - X)
Number of combinations of choosing any 7 card hand = C(N_D, 7)

Multiply the first two terms together and then divide by the third.

For a sixty-card deck with 14 "real lands", probability of getting no lands is C(14, 0) * C(46, 7) / C(60, 7) = 0.1386
For a sixty-card deck with 14 "real lands", probability of getting exactly one land is C(14, 1) * C(46, 6) / C(60, 7) = 0.3395
For a sixty-card deck with 14 "real lands", probability of getting exactly two lands is C(14, 2) * C(46, 5) / C(60, 7) = 0.3230

In any case, here are the actual probabilities (rounded to three decimal places) for 14- and 12-land 60-card decks, respectively:

14 lands
13.859% probability of 0 lands
33.955% probability of 1 lands
32.298% probability of 2 lands
15.380% probability of 3 lands
3.934% probability of 4 lands
0.537% probability of 5 lands
0.036% probability of 6 lands
0.001% probability of 7 lands

12 lands
19.065% probability of 0 lands
38.129% probability of 1 lands
29.262% probability of 2 lands
11.084% probability of 3 lands
2.217% probability of 4 lands
0.231% probability of 5 lands
0.011% probability of 6 lands
0.000% probability of 7 lands

FWIW, I personally run 13 lands (plus 4 Cradle and 2 Arbor), and none of this math was used in justifying my choice.

[Lemnear]

Let N_L be the number of lands (assuming non-Dryad Arbor, non-Cradle lands in your deck).
Let N_D be the size of your deck (usually 60).
The probability of getting X lands in your opening 7 can be calculated by the following:

Number of combinations of choosing exactly X lands = C(N_L, X)
Number of combinations of choosing exactly 7 - X nonlands = C(N_D - N_L, 7 - X)
Number of combinations of choosing any 7 card hand = C(N_D, 7)

Multiply the first two terms together and then divide by the second.

For a sixty card deck with 14 "real lands", probability of getting no lands is C(14, 0) * C(46, 7) / C(60, 7) = 0.1386
For a sixty card deck with 14 "real lands", probability of getting exactly one land is C(14, 1) * C(46, 6) / C(60, 7) = 0.3395
For a sixty card deck with 14 "real lands", probability of getting exactly one land is C(14, 2) * C(46, 5) / C(60, 7) = 0.3230

Said it before: Presenting this numbers is misleading (if you miss the message behind the word "exactly") as they a) might make the impression that 2 lands in Hand is inferior to having 1, b) give people the idea that lists with 12 lands have a higher probability to draw a land in their starting grip, which is plain nonsense in both cases

[Echelon]

Said it before: Presenting this numbers is misleading (if you miss the message behind the word "exactly") as they a) might make the impression that 2 lands in Hand is inferior to having 1, b) give people the idea that lists with 12 lands have a higher probability to draw a land in their starting grip, which is plain nonsense in both cases

No, that's just misinterpreting the numbers. Having a higher chance to have an opening hand only containing one land rather then two, says just that and nothing more. It does not state that having just one land in your opening hand is by definition better then having two (or just the other way around), it just states that one simply will happen more often then the other when using that exact number of non-Cradle/Arbor-lands . Anyone can draw his/her own conclusions from the numbers, based on their own preferences and needs, or decide they're not interested in the information at all .

Playing 12 lands rather then 14 lowers the odds of you having one or more lands in your opening hand, which is logical simply because you play less non-Cradle/Arbor-lands. It also decreases the chance of you having exactly 2 or 3 non-Cradle/Arbor-lands in your opening hand, but increases the chance that you will have only one non-Cradle/Arbor-land in your opening hand which is simply due to the fact that it's less likely to have 2, 3 or more non-Cradle/Arbor-lands in your opening hand when playing 12 lands rather then 12.. That is all

[Shagstaman]

Who plays 4 Birchlore, 2 Quirion?

EXACTLY. lol.

[elijah]

Has anybody tried a Phyrexian Revoker vs. Pithing Needle in the sideboard? Revoker is a turn slower and is vulnerable to removal (in a worse case scenario), but combos with both Cradle and Glimpse, two of the big facilitators of the deck, as well as with Craterhoof.