I haven't found it to be a bad matchup, pure grapeshot is slower than ETW so you can normally kill them before they kill you. If they get lucky with like double grapeshot then sure, they can win, but usually you're winning the race.
It's a shame the daily events disappear off the replay schedule so quickly or else I'd refer to a game i played vs grixis storm with gutshot as its main wincon (it did run 3 ETW main board, but only 1 bushwhacker in the side). I beat it 2-1, including after mulling to 4 on the play (forest, rancor, pit skulk, vines). Both wins were T4 kills for exactly lethal, both times coming after he'd had to pre-emptively go off with non-hasty ETW because he was facing potential lethal damage.
I ended up going 4-0 in that event, after bombing out 0-2 the previous week (misclick buff my opponent's blocker FTL - then went on tilt lol). I've made a few changes to the deck, including once again using 4x ledgewalker insead of wandering wolf as a concession to all the UR post floating around as well as random black decks. wolf is better vs faeries, but I feel the post-board game there is favourable anyway. I had wins vs UR post (2-1, losing one game to a misplay by forgetting to use quirion to leave a mana open, which meant I couldn't hunger my ledgewalker when he killed one of my guys), MBC (2-0, miracle! His was a little non-standard, with heavy discard and less removal. Discard is pretty useless vs a deck which empties its hand as fast as this does), grixis storm (2-1) and delver faeries (2-0).
Also re the discussion above about shinen's channel ability, i had an interesting board state vs MBC where I had it in hand (only card), 5 mana open and my board of silhana and safehold elite vs his phyrexian rager and Liliana's Specter. He was on one life so using it was theoretically lethal. But I knew i had a huge amount of inevitability with the board state (he needed 3 removal spells including a verdict, to touch the ledgewalker while i only needed a rancor, archer or (possibly) any other creature). The thing was that if I used the channel, suddenly i possibly lose to any instant speed removal after i declare attackers. So I cast it instead of channeling, which I think was correct - it turns on any sorcery speed removal that he has, but I still have my board state and inevitability.
I've made a few changes to the deck, including once again using 4x ledgewalker instead of wandering wolf as a concession to all the UR post floating around as well as random black decks.
I am still quite new to the pauper format in general and green stompy in particular but in these games I played vs goblins and other decks featuring removal heavy setup ledgewalker was really a star. usually easy to put 3 +1/+1 counters on it with hunger and then there is a quick and almost unstoppable clock. I love that guy Wolf seems better vs WW however.
Also I had faced a couple times some kind of WUR deck which was featuring CoP:green after SB which was disastrous. I decided to put 2 sabotages back to SB after that and had never met it since then, still would probably keep it there just in case, it is really annoying to just straight out loose to single card with no ways to work around it.
wolf is much better against delver faeries too, ledgewalker is basically dead in that match. affinity has answers to ledgewalker, especially if they run kark-clan shaman or whatever that card is. But yeah, ledgewalker is better against anything but a faerie-heavy field.
Oh, I should also say that it's actually not such a bad thing to have some cards which are average vs faeries in the main deck, given how powerful the sideboard options are against them. When you want to be bringing in anywhere from 4-8+ cards, it's nice to have things to take out. And that's in contrast to UR post where there are basically no good SB options so you want to run as much good stuff maindeck as you can.
anybody have thoughts on plummet as a sideboard option in place of something like scattershot archer. I feel like it could be a better option against delver to knock off their stitched drakes or spire golems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--> Modern <-- RBUSplinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBU UUUMono U TronUUU GRGGR TronGRG GWURKnight FallGWUR
the thing that i don't like about both of those is that they are pretty defensive cards. the advantage of plummet is that if its not countered the board is a bit clearer to swing in for direct damage. hidden spider seems good to me but its still something that can be played around. Ezuri's Archers can also be played around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--> Modern <-- RBUSplinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBU UUUMono U TronUUU GRGGR TronGRG GWURKnight FallGWUR
If you want an option to kill spire golem, use gleeful sabotage - it's a much less narrow card and as an added bonus it's essentially uncounterable, because they have to counter both halves of the conspire. And hardly any decks run stiched drake nowdays, so it's not a card you want to sideboard for, not to mention that quite a few delver vs stompy games will end with zero creatures in the graveyard so drake is an unreliable threat for them at best.
First of all, Scattershot Archer is not a good SB option IMO anyway. Sure it can kill several Squadron Hawks or Faeries, but it doesn't do anything more. Those cards are really not a problem for you, it's Spire Golem that is. It was good in the age of old Mono Blue Fae, but now we have better choices, such as Hidden Spider or my favourite Ezuri's Archers
Sorry, but I very much disagree with this. Scattershot archers are awesome, and they kill much more than faeries (although if that's all they did they'd still be worth their slot, because it massively reduces faerie delver's options - less chump blockers, less ping attackers, less ninja targets, less chance to buyback spellstutter with ninja or bounce, less ability to counter with spellstutter period, plus it turns on hunger which is often difficult to activate in the matchup). The thing about them, and it's something I'm only just starting to really appreciate, is that they get MUCH better in multiples. It's why i've moved up to 4 now. When you run 4 archers, 4 quirion dryad and 4 hornet sting (+ possible viridian longbow) that gives you a huge number of ways to kill a flipped delver, ie one archer + any of 11 other cards. You deal with spire golem the same way you deal with any other 4 toughness creature (razor golem, affinity creatures) - either pump up a pit skulk and ignore it, or use a pump/rancor-ed dude to trade.
Hidden spider is good, and I certainly waver between them and scattershot, the thing is though, again, that they are much better in multiples (so you can draw one early when it counts) which means it's pretty much an "either or" with scattershot. And it's much weaker to bounce than scattershot, and still doesn't take out spire golem without a pump, so scattershot wins out, generally, imo. Scattershot also retains a lot of value as the game goes on longer which spider obviously doesn't and it also has some application vs a flipped delver. Can definitely see the argument either way though, 3/5 is a beast of a body.
And finally on the ezuri archers, I just can't see it. Where scattershot is a huge source of card advantage, particularly once you get multiples or other ways to ping/untap, the ezuri archers are NEVER better than a 1 for 1 (even if you can convince them to attack into it, you have to pump to stay alive, assuming your pump isn't countered). Sure, in the best case scenario you get to stall out a swarm of 1/1 faeries for a few turns (if they don't have piracy charm, in which case you trade it with a 1/1), but you don't win games against delver by letting them sit there and draw more counterspells.
On a completely different topic, I've noticed that as far as I can tell I'm literally the only person playing with 16 forests in the deck at the moment. If you're playing the deck I HIGHLY recommend that you consider going down to 16 land. This is a deck which is very comfortable winning games off 1-2 lands, and also one where drawing a 3rd or especially 4th land can easily be the difference between winning and losing (and no, I'm not exaggerating). It's also a deck that well due to its low cmc and consistency, so having to mull a 0 land hand, or unkeepable 1 land hand, isn't an autoloss or anything. Here's the odds of drawing 1, 2, 3 or 4 lands in your opening hand:
So a 16 land hand gives you 2% extra chance of definitely having to mulligan and a 2% chance of possibly having to mulligan. But most 3 land hands are worse than 2 land hands (even if you'd rarely mulligan them) and 17 land has a 7% higher chance of having 3 lands. And many 4 land hands are mulligans anyway, so that's an extra 2% of hands mulliganed with 17. And then you factor in the fact that 16 land hands always have a (slightly) smaller chance of topdecking a land, which isn't nothing. Anyway, after 100s of games, I feel very comfortable running 16 lands and I'd definitely recommend that more people try it out. Don't be too afraid of the mulligan, this deck is so consistent that it mulligans really well!
i most certainly agree with you on the archers. But ya i was running 16 lands, but several games in a row i had to mull to 4 (and once 3) to find a land so i bumped up the count to 17 but it now looks like i might want to go back. the last match i played i got up to like 5 land by turn 7 which really screwed me. Also against the delver matchup since you seem to have more experience than anyone here with this deck how do you sideboard for games 2 and 3? Thats something im finding tricky considering that the typical sb has tons to side in on the match up but i have no idea what to take out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--> Modern <-- RBUSplinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBU UUUMono U TronUUU GRGGR TronGRG GWURKnight FallGWUR
Re sideboarding, i've got some general notes in the OP because it really depends on the list you're running. Some cards which in general aren't great vs delver are ledgewalker, young wolf and hunger but ymmv.
About archers and so on - I often encounter a situation, when an opponent has flipped Delver and Spire Golem, while I have like Quirion Ranger and Nettle Sentinel with no boost spells, because that's how it goes with Stompy - you tend to run out of cards quickly
And that's the beauty of the deck :). Do you play your early pumps when you know are hitting into the red zone (and have landfall active) and they dont have counterspell mana available, or save them up to break through a stabilised board? Do you pump your pit skulk so it can just bypass blockers or do you pump your nettle to trade with the golem when it gets blocked? Do you pump your shinen when it attacks to clear their board, or let it die and pump up the rest of your team? These are the tough questions that you've got to analyse game by game. Obviously if you get into a situation where your opponent is still alive and has established a wall of blockers that you can't get past because your hand is empty and theirs is full of counterspell, you lose. The trick is either killing them before they get there, or saving your cards to break through and bait counterspells for when they try to get a board presence.
4 last dailies were 3-1, 3-1, 2-2 and 2-2.
What I had noticed is that my match up experience is very different compared to mentioned in original post primer, often almost to opposite.
Lets start with storm, which is my worst offender while primer says it is "good". I have never yet won a match vs storm. They basicaly go off at turn 3 and my deck consistently kills at turn 4, which is 1 turn to late. I either die to 20+ grapeshots (most often) or find myself looking at 60+ goblins (only met this once). Fog is marginaly useful SB vs warrens variant (ony does something if you have pit-skulk and/or silhana ready to finish opponent on next swing, which happened not to be a case for me. Vs grapeshot varian, which I had met more often it is dead card. Sandstorm not really any different compared to fog there as there are to many goblins anyway and in the end net effect of one extra turn is the same. Game overall seems really uninteractive as I just have to hope for either a godly hand on the play to kill on turn 3 or for storm player geting bad draws and stumbling.
Then UR 8-post. I would not call it "easy", I have won some matches there quite easily and have lost about as much in long struggles. If I managed to get silhana with hunger tokens it was always good, otherwise between the lifegain from lands, multiple burn and massive card advantage I was often halted just 1-2 points away from a kill. After last few games I had replaced sabotages for more hexproof (Slippery Bogle) in SB for that MU. Ok match up, probably favourable for stompy, but I am not sure it is "good".
I have 3-1 results vs infect (better than my UR post or storm results), loosing one match where opponent had perfect hands for explosive turn 2-3 kills, but generaly I had found that it is not that bad if you can live through first 2-3 turns and get a solid board position. Fog (not spore frog - surprise factor is paramount) is very good game 2-3.
I have won 3 times of 3 matches I had vs WW. It was not easy and I liked that MU a lot as it feels very intense and tactical. I would just mention that I disagree about Silhana being bad there. She still can cut her way through their fliers with pumps (usually hunger on her makes her real scary for WW) and evasion is important as WW can stop all other creatures this way or another. Also game 2 archers from SB clear the sky for her really well.
I had never lost vs fairies as well - post SB archers do silly things to them really - but it feels like that could go other way easily.
Mono-black only met once and won, though barely. Never met affinity.
I understand that my experience with the deck is still very limited, yet can you please advise me a bit on storm (especially grapeshot variant) and UR post? These are mentioned as best MUs, but somehow these are not feeling that good for me...
Is there any SB trick we can find to work around grapeshot? May be some cheap lifegain or something? I can see how I can race the warrens variant if I draw good hand with some evasion and 1-2 fog/sandstorm, but vs grapeshot it feels like I need to be on the play AND pull a turn 3 kill to win vs their typical hand... Which just not happens.
First of all, re UR post. I maintain that it's a good matchup if you play it smart. A huge number of cards in the deck punish or neutralise their removal. young wolf and safehold elite force them to 2-for-1, ledgewalker is immune, hunger makes their removal actively work against them, vines counters anything, gather courage/groundswell on a 2 toughness creature stops anything but flame slash. I find it very easy to keep creatures on the table and kill them before they stabilise, provided I keep a decent hand and play smart (which usually involves leaving one mana up on their turn to do something and playing pumps fairly defensively). In fact, I went 3-1 in another daily a couple of days ago and beat a UR post very comfortably in that, 2-0. I did some playtesting vs another guy's tournament quality UR post a couple of weeks ago and he gave up after three 2-0 matches in a row.
You're right on storm though, I wrote that based on limited experience. My tourney record vs storm isn't bad (3-1, with the loss coming 2-1 and both games where he won I had lethal the next turn, but didn't have the fog/sandstorm to save me), but you usually rely on having a sideboard card in hand or them stumbling in some way. I'd say it should be considered an even matchup. There's not much you can do against pure grapeshot, except that the grapeshot decks are normally a turn slower than ETW so you have a better chance of killing them. Lifegain options are Nourish and healing leaves but they're rarely going to save you.
And I'm a bit reluctant to say that the deck has a good matchup against the best deck in the format (delver), but my experiences match yours - I find it to be really favourable especially post board. I'm currently 6-1 vs delver in tourneys, with the loss coming due to a bad misplay, and quite a few of the wins have been 2-0. I could just be meeting bad players though, idk.
Anyway thanks for the feedback, op has been updated.
You are probably right about UR post. It does feel that it should go into our favor.
Remembering last (and most annoying) loss vs it a maindeck Serrated Arrows was involved for much pain (it makes safehold elite looks pale and is generally 2-for-1 or even 3-for-1 even though it is fair slow. Also I had always won when I managed to play full power hunger on silhana. Being 4/4 shroud she can end game quickly. I guess I was just not very lucky not getting this combination last few games to connect. While unbuffed she is vulnerable for Seismic Shudder by the way, which UR post also runs, but that can be worked around with defensive buffing.
Thanks for link to Nourish, I may think a bit about it, but it probably would not change much in the long run. I guess I will have to accept storm MU being a gamble and bringing some unavoidable game losses. probably better to polish game vs other more predictable MUs where at least game outcome depends on what you do and not solely on opponents ability to pull combo at turn 3
you know what's interesting? Take a look at the meta line graph in JustSin's latest article. It's obviously not really possible to separate correlation from causation here, but there is an almost perfect relationship between the IzzetPost and green stompy. When there's more UR post, there's more stompy (and these aren't small fluctuations, stompy is swinging from 10% to 3% of winning decks in the period reported). Interestingly there's also a pretty strong inverse relationship between stompy and delver, but I suspect that that's more do to do with the UR post/delver interraction (post generally stomps delver).
Just looking at that graph, I really feel like post decks are the biggest determinants of the meta. More post = more stompy and storm, less post = more delver and WW.
Improved my results vs UR post but met a streak of affinity decks suddenly and lost all games to these. Guess it is down to my low experience vs them as they are supposed to be good MU, but it looks like it is very dependant on good draw. Especially rancor it seems, my only win was after t1 creature - t2 double rancor. I had some good fights when I had one rancor too, but all games where I had not drawn one were really bad. Desperately need more practise...
I gave it the good rating on the basis of about 5 test games I did a while ago where I had no problem winning outside of thoughtcast. Their creatures are big but completely vanilla. You can profitably trade with a pump in most circumstances and hunger is a beating. the only cards they have which interract well is galv blast (only 4 cards and many options to deal with itand Krark-clan shaman which many lists don't even run and is likely to he significant card disadvantage for them. Their combo kill is also going to be too slow, check out the comments in the paupers cage affinity ep - he sides it out vs stompy. Finally, shinen and silhana are good trumps for us.
Bottom line, save your pumps to kill blockers and grind them out.
I've never actually met it in a daily though. Gleeful sabotage is a backbreaking sideboard option if you find yourself needing help.
You give up the "undying" effect not to mention multiple ways to continue it with Hunger.. But you gain flying and lifelink (helps against delvers and burn strategies).
Usually a first turn skirge means at least 3 to 6 life swing depending on the pump spells in hand. I guess I'm just not sure why Safehold is so highly regarded.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want people who redraft to admit this:
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
You know what? That might be the card which pushes the grapeshot storm game over the edge. One or two pumped hits and you're way out of shot range.
It is MUCH worse vs ur post though and takes away the decks only answer to guardian of guildpact. 1/1 instead of 2/2 is also a real drawback. Dies to more spells, harder to save with a pump and harder to trade it with a golem or 4/4. Still worth testing with the amount of storm atm. I might actually see it as a sideboard swap for sandstorm which is a very narrow card.
good to some different card choices :). I'm going to say why I personally don't run most of those cards, but feel free to experiment and work out what works for you ofc.
Land grant - I ran it when I first played this deck, and was actually running it when I first wrote the primer as my list was based off a guy who ran 12/4 who was frequently cashing in the dailies. But I ended up dropping it as I got deeper into the deck because I realised just how much the deck is about information, and the hand reveal on land grant is completely at odds with that strategy. When I found myself missing my second land drop because i didn't want to reveal what pump spells I did or didn't have, I knew it was time to drop it!
You seem extremely worried about post, which I'm guessing is the reason for the inclusion of slippery bogle and ranger's guile. imo you shouldn't be, it's a very winnable matchup without ANY sideboard changes or specific tech cards. both of those cards are completely unnecessary and at odds with the rest of your game plan. The slippery's aren't very aggressive, and are horrible in combat and die to any creature, not to mention seismic shudder. Most lists only run two 1-toughness creatures (quirion for utility, and silhana who has evasion) for good reason, the more 2 toughness guys you have the better. Sea gate oracle, half of the creatures in WW, archaeomancer, ravenous rats - you do not want to have to trade 1 for 1 with these dudes, nor do you want to waste a pump. Also what are you taking out for the ranger's guile? Gather courage/groundswell will save you from half the spells that ranger's guile will, and are more agressive if you are swinging for lethal. VoV is enough true "hexproof" (and has utility against infect), guile is just overkill and dilutes the main deck.
I'd go 4/2 on the fog/sandstorm split, fog will save you in a lot more matchups (infect, goblins, wee dragonauts, the mirror) while sandstorm is extremely narrow.
Crushing vines is interesting in theory, but play some matches and see how often games end before you even think about getting to 3 mana. If it cost 2 I could see it, but 3 is too much imo esp with 16 lands.
Agree with the grapeshot, i've said in a few other threads that it feels like storm has recently started relying on pure grapeshot kills more, and while those used to be slower (T4+), I'm seeing them on turn 3 more and more which is a real problem. We can frequently kill on turn 4, but will only rarely kill on turn 3. I'm actually trying out vault skirge in the board as an answer. Unfortunatley due to the phyrexian cost, it only does anything if you can get it out turn 1 and hopefully get in 2 pumped hits before they go off, but if you can then I think it's pretty much gg.
Agree with the grapeshot, i've said in a few other threads that it feels like storm has recently started relying on pure grapeshot kills more, and while those used to be slower (T4+), I'm seeing them on turn 3 more and more which is a real problem. We can frequently kill on turn 4, but will only rarely kill on turn 3. I'm actually trying out vault skirge in the board as an answer. Unfortunatley due to the phyrexian cost, it only does anything if you can get it out turn 1 and hopefully get in 2 pumped hits before they go off, but if you can then I think it's pretty much gg.
Still better than not having any action on turn 1 because of all the 2 cost guys the list runs. If grapeshot can go off it will regardless. But getting double pump on turn 2 (ideal, since you're likely going to make them try to get something going turn 3 regardless..) if you plop a guy on turn 2, you gotta wait to turn 3 to attack, and by then you're already in storm range one way or the other.
In my experience (Ive had a couple 3-1 dailies with the list as well as a couple 2-2s and a 1-3), storm is a strong deck but mono green can come out of no where and if the storm player has to mull or keep a non action hand you're way better off. Sometimes storm just wins, thats the power of the deck, hard to slow regardless.
Guardian of Guildpact why is this guy a problem for your decks? Skirge flies over him. Yeah he can block most of your ground pounders all day but he doesn't block Ledgewalkers or Skirge? He also costs 4, by then I hope to be closing the game out.
For the record, my list looks a lot like Xancha's except no Safehold sub Skirge, and 4 groundwell and 3 hunger.
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
Still better than not having any action on turn 1 because of all the 2 cost guys the list runs. If grapeshot can go off it will regardless. But getting double pump on turn 2 (ideal, since you're likely going to make them try to get something going turn 3 regardless..) if you plop a guy on turn 2, you gotta wait to turn 3 to attack, and by then you're already in storm range one way or the other.
In my experience (Ive had a couple 3-1 dailies with the list as well as a couple 2-2s and a 1-3), storm is a strong deck but mono green can come out of no where and if the storm player has to mull or keep a non action hand you're way better off. Sometimes storm just wins, thats the power of the deck, hard to slow regardless.
Guardian of Guildpact why is this guy a problem for your decks? Skirge flies over him. Yeah he can block most of your ground pounders all day but he doesn't block Ledgewalkers or Skirge? He also costs 4, by then I hope to be closing the game out.
For the record, my list looks a lot like Xancha's except no Safehold sub Skirge, and 4 groundwell and 3 hunger.
I think you're missing my point, I was saying that skirge ONLY good on turn one not that it's not good on turn one. The magical chrismas land is you play it turn one, rancor/groundswell it turn 2 and win. In reality you're just as likely to draw it turn 3 when they're threatening to go off, and playing it just reduces the storm count they need whereas any other creature would have given you more chance of doing lethal if they don't go off.
And fliers and ledgewalker are USELESS against WW. They play about a bajillion fliers, can pump them with bonesplitter and protect them with bodygards/prismatic strands (and that's just pre-board, post board they get standard bearer). Also you don't want to be playing one toughness guys against WW if you can help it, turning javelineers off is huge. Guardian is a genuinely big problem for this deck (safehold elite is the only answer), but many WW lists, the war falcon builds, don't even run it atm so it's not something I'd particularly build for.
I think you're missing my point, I was saying that skirge ONLY good on turn one not that it's not good on turn one. The magical chrismas land is you play it turn one, rancor/groundswell it turn 2 and win. In reality you're just as likely to draw it turn 3 when they're threatening to go off, and playing it just reduces the storm count they need whereas any other creature would have given you more chance of doing lethal if they don't go off.
And fliers and ledgewalker are USELESS against WW. They play about a bajillion fliers, can pump them with bonesplitter and protect them with bodygards/prismatic strands (and that's just pre-board, post board they get standard bearer). Also you don't want to be playing one toughness guys against WW if you can help it, turning javelineers off is huge. Guardian is a genuinely big problem for this deck (safehold elite is the only answer), but many WW lists, the war falcon builds, don't even run it atm so it's not something I'd particularly build for.
I've never had a problem overwhelming WW with any amount of creatures and quick pumping. you have so many pump spells their creatures are much slower. getting any guy + Rancor means a lot of their protection wanes off. I just don't understand the why a multicolored Grizzly Bear helps at all. You're still dead to storm on turn 3-5 regardless if it was Safehold Elite or skirge anyways. I run 3x Skirge, I don't mind seeing it later on as well. Anytime I get evasion and lifelink for 1 I'll do it. If the storm player is good, they'll make sure they have enough to kill you, and I can see subbing them out first in that matchup, you don't necessarily want to take any more extra damage particularly early w/o pump, but odds are, your deck is going to have the pump especially against WW. They don't have that many fog effects.
Also, if you're playing against WW. they still have to tap way more mana then you to play. You should be laying the beat down on them long before they are able to equip a 2 cost bird with a bonesplitter/fog effect backup.
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
Vault Skirge just for the Storm MU seems so weak to me...
1. Storm is not the most played deck and Skirse is not so awesome against most decks.
2. It does NOT win against Storm. Most lists only play GS or maybe 1-2 EtW, thats true, but TPPS (not UR) can reach Storm of 15 with 2 Grapeshots quite easily on turns 3-4 depending on the number of land drops they got.
3. To even gain any life you have to at least pump with vines, effectively taking you to 22 HP. Thats not a big difference.
4. You first of all NEED Skirge + 2 Pumps or Vines to even get to 22hp, how high are the odds for that?
Seems way too conditional to cut out a 2/2 that has PErsist and has insane synergie with Hunger.
On the other hand I only play Stompy since 2 days after buying a few cards I still missed, so I'm not too experienced. But for me Storm seems like a race. Sandstorms not good, I'd rather try Nourish
In a deck that is roughly a third pump spells I would say that it is more likely than you think. You only need 1 +4 pump spell (groundwell or vines) which I play 8 with a rancor or courage your life hits 21, the only time you can really whince at it if you are holding 3x hunger as your pump spell, but persist guy you still have to not only wait an additional turn (which I would maximize 1 drops over 2 drops any day) but you have no evasion, without a rancor or pump you can't kill this mythical guardian of the guildpact and the only way you can maximize that is if you have a hunger which is far less likely then having ANY pump AFTER you play a skirge.
I can see that synergy with it versus WW I just don't understand how you are not on the winning last points of life by the time they get 4 mana to plop a trump dude against you. Any had that has a skirge, 2 pump spells, 2 lands, you should be dealing 8-9 damage on turn 2. you've played the deck you know that that kind of a draw happens. I would rather the deck maximize the 1 drop rather than wait for a conditional 2 drop that isn't good unless your opponent plays a 4 cost guy.. now.. Slipery Bogle Is a card that I can see adding in a sideboard to deal with this. He comes down a turn sooner (what I value) and he can't die to spot removal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want people who redraft to admit this:
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
I have been playing Stompy for awhile MTGO in Pauper DEs and have a long history with the deck. After looking at some of the postings regarding deck choices, here are my opinions:
1) Vault Skirge has no place in the deck, especially in the current meta. In creature matchups such as WW, MUC, Goblins they have removal and blockers. In control matchups the lifegain becomes irrelevant. The lifegain benefits against storm decks are going to be corner cases at best when they try to grapeshot you for exact. Skirge is going to be a lightning rod for any removal and you cannot protect it if you run it out on T1. Looking at the other possible T1 plays and you would definitely want Quirion Ranger, Nettle Sentinel or Young Wolf over Vault Skirge in every matchup possible.
2) Slippery Boggle is a 1/1 do nothing. The idea behind stompy is getting creatures with a favorable power to cost ratio or some type of super evasion ability (i.e. Silhana Ledgewalker)
3) Land Grant is almost unplayable especially in the current meta. You're just asking yourself to get mana screwed and with Delver around getting it Dazed is just awful.
4) People keep playing 4x Hunger of the Howlpack and I think this is too many. It is awesome but in multiples you wish it was something else. The right number really is 3x I think. You should only need 1 a game to win and casting it multiple times is really just a win more. Given that you only run 17 lands leaving multiple lands open just to cast hunger off morbid is fairly unrealistic. Openers with multiple Hunger are not really ideal and you would wish its another pump spell or a creature.
5) The debate should be Safehold Elite vs. Wild Mongrel. This really comes down to a meta choice. If the meta is currently leaning more towards removal heavy decks (UR Post, MBC, Goblins) you play Safehold Elite. Wild Mongrel is better in a meta with more MUC, WW, Storm, Stompy, Infect.
6) For the SB crushing vines is too expensive. 3 mana when you are going to have games where you need to operate on 1-2 lands is not realistic. It kills delver but if delver can't counter a 3 mana spell, they are not doing something right. The SB should include some number of Hornet Sting and Viridian Longbows which are good for several matchups.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's the weakest match-up I think. Some sort of technology is necessary.
I ended up going 4-0 in that event, after bombing out 0-2 the previous week (misclick buff my opponent's blocker FTL - then went on tilt lol). I've made a few changes to the deck, including once again using 4x ledgewalker insead of wandering wolf as a concession to all the UR post floating around as well as random black decks. wolf is better vs faeries, but I feel the post-board game there is favourable anyway. I had wins vs UR post (2-1, losing one game to a misplay by forgetting to use quirion to leave a mana open, which meant I couldn't hunger my ledgewalker when he killed one of my guys), MBC (2-0, miracle! His was a little non-standard, with heavy discard and less removal. Discard is pretty useless vs a deck which empties its hand as fast as this does), grixis storm (2-1) and delver faeries (2-0).
Also re the discussion above about shinen's channel ability, i had an interesting board state vs MBC where I had it in hand (only card), 5 mana open and my board of silhana and safehold elite vs his phyrexian rager and Liliana's Specter. He was on one life so using it was theoretically lethal. But I knew i had a huge amount of inevitability with the board state (he needed 3 removal spells including a verdict, to touch the ledgewalker while i only needed a rancor, archer or (possibly) any other creature). The thing was that if I used the channel, suddenly i possibly lose to any instant speed removal after i declare attackers. So I cast it instead of channeling, which I think was correct - it turns on any sorcery speed removal that he has, but I still have my board state and inevitability.
I am still quite new to the pauper format in general and green stompy in particular but in these games I played vs goblins and other decks featuring removal heavy setup ledgewalker was really a star. usually easy to put 3 +1/+1 counters on it with hunger and then there is a quick and almost unstoppable clock. I love that guy Wolf seems better vs WW however.
Also I had faced a couple times some kind of WUR deck which was featuring CoP:green after SB which was disastrous. I decided to put 2 sabotages back to SB after that and had never met it since then, still would probably keep it there just in case, it is really annoying to just straight out loose to single card with no ways to work around it.
Oh, I should also say that it's actually not such a bad thing to have some cards which are average vs faeries in the main deck, given how powerful the sideboard options are against them. When you want to be bringing in anywhere from 4-8+ cards, it's nice to have things to take out. And that's in contrast to UR post where there are basically no good SB options so you want to run as much good stuff maindeck as you can.
RBU
Splinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBUUUUMono U TronUUU
GRGGR TronGRG
GWURKnight FallGWUR
Legacy
GWBDark MaverickGWB
--> EDH <--
BWUErtai, the CorruptedBWU
RBU
Splinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBUUUUMono U TronUUU
GRGGR TronGRG
GWURKnight FallGWUR
Legacy
GWBDark MaverickGWB
--> EDH <--
BWUErtai, the CorruptedBWU
Sorry, but I very much disagree with this. Scattershot archers are awesome, and they kill much more than faeries (although if that's all they did they'd still be worth their slot, because it massively reduces faerie delver's options - less chump blockers, less ping attackers, less ninja targets, less chance to buyback spellstutter with ninja or bounce, less ability to counter with spellstutter period, plus it turns on hunger which is often difficult to activate in the matchup). The thing about them, and it's something I'm only just starting to really appreciate, is that they get MUCH better in multiples. It's why i've moved up to 4 now. When you run 4 archers, 4 quirion dryad and 4 hornet sting (+ possible viridian longbow) that gives you a huge number of ways to kill a flipped delver, ie one archer + any of 11 other cards. You deal with spire golem the same way you deal with any other 4 toughness creature (razor golem, affinity creatures) - either pump up a pit skulk and ignore it, or use a pump/rancor-ed dude to trade.
Hidden spider is good, and I certainly waver between them and scattershot, the thing is though, again, that they are much better in multiples (so you can draw one early when it counts) which means it's pretty much an "either or" with scattershot. And it's much weaker to bounce than scattershot, and still doesn't take out spire golem without a pump, so scattershot wins out, generally, imo. Scattershot also retains a lot of value as the game goes on longer which spider obviously doesn't and it also has some application vs a flipped delver. Can definitely see the argument either way though, 3/5 is a beast of a body.
And finally on the ezuri archers, I just can't see it. Where scattershot is a huge source of card advantage, particularly once you get multiples or other ways to ping/untap, the ezuri archers are NEVER better than a 1 for 1 (even if you can convince them to attack into it, you have to pump to stay alive, assuming your pump isn't countered). Sure, in the best case scenario you get to stall out a swarm of 1/1 faeries for a few turns (if they don't have piracy charm, in which case you trade it with a 1/1), but you don't win games against delver by letting them sit there and draw more counterspells.
On a completely different topic, I've noticed that as far as I can tell I'm literally the only person playing with 16 forests in the deck at the moment. If you're playing the deck I HIGHLY recommend that you consider going down to 16 land. This is a deck which is very comfortable winning games off 1-2 lands, and also one where drawing a 3rd or especially 4th land can easily be the difference between winning and losing (and no, I'm not exaggerating). It's also a deck that well due to its low cmc and consistency, so having to mull a 0 land hand, or unkeepable 1 land hand, isn't an autoloss or anything. Here's the odds of drawing 1, 2, 3 or 4 lands in your opening hand:
17 lands - 92%, 63%, 32%, 10%
16 lands - 90%, 61%, 25%, 8%
So a 16 land hand gives you 2% extra chance of definitely having to mulligan and a 2% chance of possibly having to mulligan. But most 3 land hands are worse than 2 land hands (even if you'd rarely mulligan them) and 17 land has a 7% higher chance of having 3 lands. And many 4 land hands are mulligans anyway, so that's an extra 2% of hands mulliganed with 17. And then you factor in the fact that 16 land hands always have a (slightly) smaller chance of topdecking a land, which isn't nothing. Anyway, after 100s of games, I feel very comfortable running 16 lands and I'd definitely recommend that more people try it out. Don't be too afraid of the mulligan, this deck is so consistent that it mulligans really well!
RBU
Splinter Twin (RIP)/DelverRBUUUUMono U TronUUU
GRGGR TronGRG
GWURKnight FallGWUR
Legacy
GWBDark MaverickGWB
--> EDH <--
BWUErtai, the CorruptedBWU
And that's the beauty of the deck :). Do you play your early pumps when you know are hitting into the red zone (and have landfall active) and they dont have counterspell mana available, or save them up to break through a stabilised board? Do you pump your pit skulk so it can just bypass blockers or do you pump your nettle to trade with the golem when it gets blocked? Do you pump your shinen when it attacks to clear their board, or let it die and pump up the rest of your team? These are the tough questions that you've got to analyse game by game. Obviously if you get into a situation where your opponent is still alive and has established a wall of blockers that you can't get past because your hand is empty and theirs is full of counterspell, you lose. The trick is either killing them before they get there, or saving your cards to break through and bait counterspells for when they try to get a board presence.
16 Forest
Creatures (25)
4 Nettle Sentinel
4 Quirion Ranger
4 Skarrgan Pit-Skulk
4 Silhana Ledgewalker
4 Young Wolf
3 Safehold Elite
2 Shinen of Life's Roar
4 Gather Courage
4 Hunger of the Howlpack
4 Rancor
4 Vines of Vastwood
3 Groundswell
2 Gleeful Sabotage
4 Hornet Sting
4 Scattershot Archer
3 Fog
2 Sandstorm
4 last dailies were 3-1, 3-1, 2-2 and 2-2.
What I had noticed is that my match up experience is very different compared to mentioned in original post primer, often almost to opposite.
Lets start with storm, which is my worst offender while primer says it is "good". I have never yet won a match vs storm. They basicaly go off at turn 3 and my deck consistently kills at turn 4, which is 1 turn to late. I either die to 20+ grapeshots (most often) or find myself looking at 60+ goblins (only met this once). Fog is marginaly useful SB vs warrens variant (ony does something if you have pit-skulk and/or silhana ready to finish opponent on next swing, which happened not to be a case for me. Vs grapeshot varian, which I had met more often it is dead card. Sandstorm not really any different compared to fog there as there are to many goblins anyway and in the end net effect of one extra turn is the same. Game overall seems really uninteractive as I just have to hope for either a godly hand on the play to kill on turn 3 or for storm player geting bad draws and stumbling.
Then UR 8-post. I would not call it "easy", I have won some matches there quite easily and have lost about as much in long struggles. If I managed to get silhana with hunger tokens it was always good, otherwise between the lifegain from lands, multiple burn and massive card advantage I was often halted just 1-2 points away from a kill. After last few games I had replaced sabotages for more hexproof (Slippery Bogle) in SB for that MU. Ok match up, probably favourable for stompy, but I am not sure it is "good".
I have 3-1 results vs infect (better than my UR post or storm results), loosing one match where opponent had perfect hands for explosive turn 2-3 kills, but generaly I had found that it is not that bad if you can live through first 2-3 turns and get a solid board position. Fog (not spore frog - surprise factor is paramount) is very good game 2-3.
I have won 3 times of 3 matches I had vs WW. It was not easy and I liked that MU a lot as it feels very intense and tactical. I would just mention that I disagree about Silhana being bad there. She still can cut her way through their fliers with pumps (usually hunger on her makes her real scary for WW) and evasion is important as WW can stop all other creatures this way or another. Also game 2 archers from SB clear the sky for her really well.
I had never lost vs fairies as well - post SB archers do silly things to them really - but it feels like that could go other way easily.
Mono-black only met once and won, though barely. Never met affinity.
I understand that my experience with the deck is still very limited, yet can you please advise me a bit on storm (especially grapeshot variant) and UR post? These are mentioned as best MUs, but somehow these are not feeling that good for me...
Is there any SB trick we can find to work around grapeshot? May be some cheap lifegain or something? I can see how I can race the warrens variant if I draw good hand with some evasion and 1-2 fog/sandstorm, but vs grapeshot it feels like I need to be on the play AND pull a turn 3 kill to win vs their typical hand... Which just not happens.
You're right on storm though, I wrote that based on limited experience. My tourney record vs storm isn't bad (3-1, with the loss coming 2-1 and both games where he won I had lethal the next turn, but didn't have the fog/sandstorm to save me), but you usually rely on having a sideboard card in hand or them stumbling in some way. I'd say it should be considered an even matchup. There's not much you can do against pure grapeshot, except that the grapeshot decks are normally a turn slower than ETW so you have a better chance of killing them. Lifegain options are Nourish and healing leaves but they're rarely going to save you.
And I'm a bit reluctant to say that the deck has a good matchup against the best deck in the format (delver), but my experiences match yours - I find it to be really favourable especially post board. I'm currently 6-1 vs delver in tourneys, with the loss coming due to a bad misplay, and quite a few of the wins have been 2-0. I could just be meeting bad players though, idk.
Anyway thanks for the feedback, op has been updated.
Remembering last (and most annoying) loss vs it a maindeck Serrated Arrows was involved for much pain (it makes safehold elite looks pale and is generally 2-for-1 or even 3-for-1 even though it is fair slow. Also I had always won when I managed to play full power hunger on silhana. Being 4/4 shroud she can end game quickly. I guess I was just not very lucky not getting this combination last few games to connect. While unbuffed she is vulnerable for Seismic Shudder by the way, which UR post also runs, but that can be worked around with defensive buffing.
Thanks for link to Nourish, I may think a bit about it, but it probably would not change much in the long run. I guess I will have to accept storm MU being a gamble and bringing some unavoidable game losses. probably better to polish game vs other more predictable MUs where at least game outcome depends on what you do and not solely on opponents ability to pull combo at turn 3
Just looking at that graph, I really feel like post decks are the biggest determinants of the meta. More post = more stompy and storm, less post = more delver and WW.
Bottom line, save your pumps to kill blockers and grind them out.
I've never actually met it in a daily though. Gleeful sabotage is a backbreaking sideboard option if you find yourself needing help.
You give up the "undying" effect not to mention multiple ways to continue it with Hunger.. But you gain flying and lifelink (helps against delvers and burn strategies).
Usually a first turn skirge means at least 3 to 6 life swing depending on the pump spells in hand. I guess I'm just not sure why Safehold is so highly regarded.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
It is MUCH worse vs ur post though and takes away the decks only answer to guardian of guildpact. 1/1 instead of 2/2 is also a real drawback. Dies to more spells, harder to save with a pump and harder to trade it with a golem or 4/4. Still worth testing with the amount of storm atm. I might actually see it as a sideboard swap for sandstorm which is a very narrow card.
Land grant - I ran it when I first played this deck, and was actually running it when I first wrote the primer as my list was based off a guy who ran 12/4 who was frequently cashing in the dailies. But I ended up dropping it as I got deeper into the deck because I realised just how much the deck is about information, and the hand reveal on land grant is completely at odds with that strategy. When I found myself missing my second land drop because i didn't want to reveal what pump spells I did or didn't have, I knew it was time to drop it!
You seem extremely worried about post, which I'm guessing is the reason for the inclusion of slippery bogle and ranger's guile. imo you shouldn't be, it's a very winnable matchup without ANY sideboard changes or specific tech cards. both of those cards are completely unnecessary and at odds with the rest of your game plan. The slippery's aren't very aggressive, and are horrible in combat and die to any creature, not to mention seismic shudder. Most lists only run two 1-toughness creatures (quirion for utility, and silhana who has evasion) for good reason, the more 2 toughness guys you have the better. Sea gate oracle, half of the creatures in WW, archaeomancer, ravenous rats - you do not want to have to trade 1 for 1 with these dudes, nor do you want to waste a pump. Also what are you taking out for the ranger's guile? Gather courage/groundswell will save you from half the spells that ranger's guile will, and are more agressive if you are swinging for lethal. VoV is enough true "hexproof" (and has utility against infect), guile is just overkill and dilutes the main deck.
I'd go 4/2 on the fog/sandstorm split, fog will save you in a lot more matchups (infect, goblins, wee dragonauts, the mirror) while sandstorm is extremely narrow.
Crushing vines is interesting in theory, but play some matches and see how often games end before you even think about getting to 3 mana. If it cost 2 I could see it, but 3 is too much imo esp with 16 lands.
Gl with the deck!
Still better than not having any action on turn 1 because of all the 2 cost guys the list runs. If grapeshot can go off it will regardless. But getting double pump on turn 2 (ideal, since you're likely going to make them try to get something going turn 3 regardless..) if you plop a guy on turn 2, you gotta wait to turn 3 to attack, and by then you're already in storm range one way or the other.
In my experience (Ive had a couple 3-1 dailies with the list as well as a couple 2-2s and a 1-3), storm is a strong deck but mono green can come out of no where and if the storm player has to mull or keep a non action hand you're way better off. Sometimes storm just wins, thats the power of the deck, hard to slow regardless.
Guardian of Guildpact why is this guy a problem for your decks? Skirge flies over him. Yeah he can block most of your ground pounders all day but he doesn't block Ledgewalkers or Skirge? He also costs 4, by then I hope to be closing the game out.
For the record, my list looks a lot like Xancha's except no Safehold sub Skirge, and 4 groundwell and 3 hunger.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
I think you're missing my point, I was saying that skirge ONLY good on turn one not that it's not good on turn one. The magical chrismas land is you play it turn one, rancor/groundswell it turn 2 and win. In reality you're just as likely to draw it turn 3 when they're threatening to go off, and playing it just reduces the storm count they need whereas any other creature would have given you more chance of doing lethal if they don't go off.
And fliers and ledgewalker are USELESS against WW. They play about a bajillion fliers, can pump them with bonesplitter and protect them with bodygards/prismatic strands (and that's just pre-board, post board they get standard bearer). Also you don't want to be playing one toughness guys against WW if you can help it, turning javelineers off is huge. Guardian is a genuinely big problem for this deck (safehold elite is the only answer), but many WW lists, the war falcon builds, don't even run it atm so it's not something I'd particularly build for.
I've never had a problem overwhelming WW with any amount of creatures and quick pumping. you have so many pump spells their creatures are much slower. getting any guy + Rancor means a lot of their protection wanes off. I just don't understand the why a multicolored Grizzly Bear helps at all. You're still dead to storm on turn 3-5 regardless if it was Safehold Elite or skirge anyways. I run 3x Skirge, I don't mind seeing it later on as well. Anytime I get evasion and lifelink for 1 I'll do it. If the storm player is good, they'll make sure they have enough to kill you, and I can see subbing them out first in that matchup, you don't necessarily want to take any more extra damage particularly early w/o pump, but odds are, your deck is going to have the pump especially against WW. They don't have that many fog effects.
Also, if you're playing against WW. they still have to tap way more mana then you to play. You should be laying the beat down on them long before they are able to equip a 2 cost bird with a bonesplitter/fog effect backup.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
In a deck that is roughly a third pump spells I would say that it is more likely than you think. You only need 1 +4 pump spell (groundwell or vines) which I play 8 with a rancor or courage your life hits 21, the only time you can really whince at it if you are holding 3x hunger as your pump spell, but persist guy you still have to not only wait an additional turn (which I would maximize 1 drops over 2 drops any day) but you have no evasion, without a rancor or pump you can't kill this mythical guardian of the guildpact and the only way you can maximize that is if you have a hunger which is far less likely then having ANY pump AFTER you play a skirge.
I can see that synergy with it versus WW I just don't understand how you are not on the winning last points of life by the time they get 4 mana to plop a trump dude against you. Any had that has a skirge, 2 pump spells, 2 lands, you should be dealing 8-9 damage on turn 2. you've played the deck you know that that kind of a draw happens. I would rather the deck maximize the 1 drop rather than wait for a conditional 2 drop that isn't good unless your opponent plays a 4 cost guy.. now.. Slipery Bogle Is a card that I can see adding in a sideboard to deal with this. He comes down a turn sooner (what I value) and he can't die to spot removal.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
1) Vault Skirge has no place in the deck, especially in the current meta. In creature matchups such as WW, MUC, Goblins they have removal and blockers. In control matchups the lifegain becomes irrelevant. The lifegain benefits against storm decks are going to be corner cases at best when they try to grapeshot you for exact. Skirge is going to be a lightning rod for any removal and you cannot protect it if you run it out on T1. Looking at the other possible T1 plays and you would definitely want Quirion Ranger, Nettle Sentinel or Young Wolf over Vault Skirge in every matchup possible.
2) Slippery Boggle is a 1/1 do nothing. The idea behind stompy is getting creatures with a favorable power to cost ratio or some type of super evasion ability (i.e. Silhana Ledgewalker)
3) Land Grant is almost unplayable especially in the current meta. You're just asking yourself to get mana screwed and with Delver around getting it Dazed is just awful.
4) People keep playing 4x Hunger of the Howlpack and I think this is too many. It is awesome but in multiples you wish it was something else. The right number really is 3x I think. You should only need 1 a game to win and casting it multiple times is really just a win more. Given that you only run 17 lands leaving multiple lands open just to cast hunger off morbid is fairly unrealistic. Openers with multiple Hunger are not really ideal and you would wish its another pump spell or a creature.
5) The debate should be Safehold Elite vs. Wild Mongrel. This really comes down to a meta choice. If the meta is currently leaning more towards removal heavy decks (UR Post, MBC, Goblins) you play Safehold Elite. Wild Mongrel is better in a meta with more MUC, WW, Storm, Stompy, Infect.
6) For the SB crushing vines is too expensive. 3 mana when you are going to have games where you need to operate on 1-2 lands is not realistic. It kills delver but if delver can't counter a 3 mana spell, they are not doing something right. The SB should include some number of Hornet Sting and Viridian Longbows which are good for several matchups.