Deathmark has been great for me. I have a heavy bg meta.
Death's shadow is actually pretty interesting. Our creature slots are pretty full as is though and this seems like it would just be a dumb beater. Might be great though.
Speaking of creatures, I have been been loving maindeck lavamancer. The thing is a friggin beast. I don't feel bad pinging tokens, helps killing creatures without two for oneing myself. He just oozes ca if he is left alone, and while we have a tasigur, delver or snapcaster out, he can sneak by. He is hard on the gy though so I am currently running 4 scours which is fine because I love em.
Some cards I am interested in that haven't been mentioned much in grixis:
I have been playing grixis since I started magic way back when. The thing I always miss in this deck is just draw. I really wish there was something like mulldrifter from the shards grixis deck. I used to love the dang thing, but any draw will do! but alas here we are. Looking to things like thirst for knowledge, compulsive research, cerebral vortex, notion thief, perilous research ... If we just had some draw it would do wonders. I was thinking even about think twice just as something to draw cards, that let us hold up mana for counters it does synergies with thought scour... But is pretty bad. Cerebral vortex is interesting for a lot of matchups that aren't burn.
My sideboard is pretty similar to y'all's...
Some sideboard things:
- I keep moving further away from blood moon. I love the card, but so many times I will find myself bottlenecked on colors making serum visions into another blue spell impossible to cast. Sometimes it just wins games, against bloom Titan or sometimes a greedy junk player.
-Darkblast is a card that just poops on affinity.
-Engineered explosives is amazing against infect too. Keep that in mind, though our matchup with them is strong, they can land an apostle's blessing and go to town on us.
-Counterflux is something I always have one of. It is just so good sometimes.
-swerve is a new one that I am still in love with. It is a lightning helix against burn, a better counter against boggles (if you have a creature out), it is stellar against Jund/junk. Swerving a thoughtsieze is even better than the time I used their abrupt decay on their own goyf. It does a lot against other matchups too.
Okay, noted on electrolyze, but still find cheaper interaction is better. But probe does sound worse in this matchup too, so prolly changing the sideboard plan to probes for the artifact hate
I play 1 deathmark in the board, it's amazing, but you don't really need too many of it. AND FINALLY SOMEONE WHO DISCOVERED THE INSANITY THAT IS LAVAMANCER.
I know the T2 aberration wins games, but they often have a bolt/path for him, and even in games with a turn 2 flip, it'll often boil down to top deck wars and the remaining delvers become liabilities. I agree, it is a very difficult boarding decision, but against control/twin/junk/jund, all your other cards are so good that I would believe that delvers are the best cut. I'm still looking for opinions, what else would you cut against these decks? I think post board we have a higher chance winning by dragging the game than by trying to go under and running out of gas as they answer our threats one by one.
EDIT: Most of the cards we bring in for these matchups are not instants/sorceries, which decreases the chance of a delver flip anyway. And it's not like we can alter our sideboard much to counter this - most of the options that help us win these matchups are permanent based card advantage(Keranos, Sieges, Jace, etc.)
Blood moon is definitely good, but we have much better sideboard options with black on the table, and all of those options can be as good as blood moon too. It's more of a personal preference, i guess.
I think what a lot of people don't really get is that you need to plan a sideboard based on what you want are willing to take out. No point playing 5 pieces of affinity hate when you don't have 5 bad cards to take out; that's just wasting the sideboard. Generally in a lot of matchups i think Remands, Delvers, Electrolyzes would be the first few cards to take out.
For reference, I do the following against Affinity:
-1 Remand (I only mainboard 1, the card has felt increasingly subpar for me and I haven't missed more copies. Against certain matchups I don't want to be setting them back)
-2 Deprive
+2 Shatterstorm
+1 Spellskite
These are in addition to my 1 mained Forked Bolt, 2 Electrolyze, and 4 Bolts. I keep the cantrips (even Probe) in this matchup because you want to find your Shatterstorms and your interaction as soon as possible vs Affinity.
I don't know who mentioned boarding Delver out, but its never something I would consider doing. We are already somewhat threat light (that's why we included black to include Tasigur) so I could never actually justify cutting a creature post board.
For reference, I do the following against Affinity:
-1 Remand (I only mainboard 1, the card has felt increasingly subpar for me and I haven't missed more copies. Against certain matchups I don't want to be setting them back)
-2 Deprive
+2 Shatterstorm
+1 Spellskite
These are in addition to my 1 mained Forked Bolt, 2 Electrolyze, and 4 Bolts. I keep the cantrips (even Probe) in this matchup because you want to find your Shatterstorms and your interaction as soon as possible vs Affinity.
I don't know who mentioned boarding Delver out, but its never something I would consider doing. We are already somewhat threat light (that's why we included black to include Tasigur) so I could never actually justify cutting a creature post board.
This is exactly my issue with boarding out delvers, though I think frankie's logic is sound.
Also, real quick, probe is a bad card against decks where we can't get any information from it most of the time. It is sorcery speed 1 mana or 2 life: replace this with something else. If the something else that you are looking for is artifact hate, well, if you swapped your probe for artifact hate, you'd already jave it in hand. Countermagic is usually considered bad against them but when people say that they are often refering to cards that either aren't TRULY cm like remand, or too slow like cryptic. Actual counterspell measures up fine against topdecked platings or etched champs.
Back to sideboarding out delvers: while it will just eat a removal spell a majority of the time, the fact is they are still spending a card and postboard I think we are better equipped to fight topdeck wars than most decks, even junk. Also boarding out delvers, like LordAce said, makes us incredibly threat light. This is why I've taken to siding in cards like gurmag angler, and I've wondered why that hasn't caught on. Then I figured its because people just dont have the issue because they arent boarding out their delvers (which is it? I noticed many people dont have any "threats" in their board other than Keranos or Jace or maybe thundermaw, and always as 1 ofs. The rest of the cards are always reactive, I'd like to hear most of your sideboarding plans or at least the theory behind your designs). I just feel that despite having pretty much all of my bases covered with my sideboard, it feels clunky and inelegant, there are matchups like twin where I feel tempted to bring in more cards than I really should:
The deathmark was a murderous cut before I added the 2nd to my main. I feel like it really should be a 3rd cut though. Deathmark is a great way to kill goyf and rhino but I think our board cards should be just like our maindeck cards: as versitile as possible. Obviously, the board is where you can store hate for specific stuff, I just think modern has too many different axes of attack that cards should be as broad as possible. There are decks where you want more creature removal for dudes that arent green or white...
Im looking to design a board with less permanent based answers to keep delver flips to a maximum and with less crossover so temptation to overboard in certain maatchups is nullified. Ive actually been less and less impressed by rak charm. Its seen from a mile away and no halfway decent twin player plays into it, there are few decks where exiling the grave is ever relevant (though I have had to use it against esper gifts) and theres better artifact hate, especially at 2 mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When people call for a ban on treasure cruise: "But I don't WANNA draw 3 cards!"
Why do people play 1 or even 2 shatterstorm in sb?
I mean the affinity matchup isn't that bad I only have 2 rakdos charm and Engineered explosives in SB for affinity and that's beacuse they can become useful for other matchups too.
Devoting your SB to an already good matchup isn't something you want I think, better find the space for that fourth dragon's claw.
Also am I the only one playing leak instead of deprive md?
We seem to be arriving at a concensus that deprive is just better for us. Its live at every point of the game, is simply better against big mana decks and the drawback never punishes us, it can in fact be a boon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When people call for a ban on treasure cruise: "But I don't WANNA draw 3 cards!"
I was running 3 and have moved up to 4. I still play 2 remand.
The anglers come in when I have to board out delvers, so long grindy matchups where the graveyard just naturally fills itself. Its to maintain threat density. It also doges slaughter pact and abrupt decay. Theyve also been good against burn because they have to 2 for 1 themselves to kill it. Also dodges eidolon pain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When people call for a ban on treasure cruise: "But I don't WANNA draw 3 cards!"
No snares. 4 hard counters eliminates the need for them. Snares are good against a lot of things but you need to have it when they play it (obv). So I just maxed out on a hard counter that hits everything and was able to fit more removal in place of snare.
Edit: snare is a fine card and I dont fault anyone for using it. The fact that I cut it is another reason I want to redesign my sideboard (or find more room for dispels at least). I just want less countermagic overall and more powerful ones where I do have it.
The thirsts are experimental. I may go back to 1. Theyre great against twin and junk but thats all Ive tested against so far with them. If they prove too detrimental in faster matchups like burn (lol) infect and affinity I might bring in a 3rd cut or 1st snare.
Edit: I used to play darkblast maindeck which was really good against some decks and useless against others. I know a lot of people are talking about a maindeck lavaman which is good, but I think I want the 4th snap before any other creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When people call for a ban on treasure cruise: "But I don't WANNA draw 3 cards!"
What are people running to combat the burn matchup?
I run 4 dragon's claw but usually I concede and go smoke or do something else.
While this sounds hilarious, I basically agree. For the few wins I can squeak out, I'd rather just take an hour nap instead between rounds. The lack of white with bring grixis hurts the matchup.
2 Spellskite
2 Dragon's Claw
2 Engineered Explosives
2 Rakdos Charm
1 Flashfreeze
1 Dispel
1 Jace, Architect of Thought
1 Keranos, God of Storms
1 Deathmark
1 Monastery Siege
1 Rending Volley
I REALLY REALLY want to fit in an izzet staticaster and a tombstalker in there, but after hearing your arguments, perhaps i should just cut the claws for them and just concede the burn matchup. The fact that burn is so popular is actually hurting us too.
idrareb - I see you have anglers and keranos in the board, aren't you probably better off siding out delvers for these late game threats? For me i side out delvers for keranos, jace, and siege, all of which do a better job of helping me win in the long game. If i decide to throw in those tombstalkers, then it's another reason to take another delver out. Of course, if you aren't bringing in any threats, siding out delvers may be a problem. But most sideboards have a couple of big threats like keranos/batterskull, and i could see taking out 2 delvers for them.
I think the focus is on maintaining the threat density, so if you board in more threats, it's probably better to take those delvers out.
Also, i see you finally went down to 18 lands - how's it going?
What are people running to combat the burn matchup?
I run 4 dragon's claw but usually I concede and go smoke or do something else.
This is the best distillation of my argument against claw. Its so ineffectual and just clutters sideboard space. Better to bring in siege, hope you have it in time and that they dont draw too many creatures. Burn suuuuucks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When people call for a ban on treasure cruise: "But I don't WANNA draw 3 cards!"
@frankie thats exactly what I do I just feel that landing a turn 1 delver would be better. Sure it dies to removal but they have to have it and use it. If it dies to a turn 2 decay then they took a turn off to do that. If it gets 6 to 9 damage in then we can eventually close the game with snap/bolt. Bolt being another card I hate siding out but usually feel priced into.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When people call for a ban on treasure cruise: "But I don't WANNA draw 3 cards!"
Why do people play 1 or even 2 shatterstorm in sb?
I mean the affinity matchup isn't that bad I only have 2 rakdos charm and Engineered explosives in SB for affinity and that's beacuse they can become useful for other matchups too.
Devoting your SB to an already good matchup isn't something you want I think, better find the space for that fourth dragon's claw.
Also am I the only one playing leak instead of deprive md?
Yes, it is a good matchup, but its so popular that it's just assurance that you won't lose to it and that's why they're there. While Modern is a diverse format, you will almost assuredly play vs Affinity once or twice in 9 rounds.
My counter suite is 2 Deprive, 2 Leak, 2 Snare, 1 Remand. So I'm actually playing Leaks in addition to Deprive. I don't know if its correct, but it has been pretty good so far.
Also, I might just give up on the Burn matchup and take Dragon's Claw out of my sideboard and hope not to play vs any. It really is just that bad, but my friend is building Burn so I will have someone to test against regarding that match-up.
I've been thinking about an alternate build of Grixis Delver lately that really wants to run Mishra's Bauble except, well, it doesn't flip Delver. I plan on posting about this build soon, but for now I want to explain how Bauble affects Delver flips because it's not obvious.
First the obvious: Bauble is an artifact. Artifacts don't flip Delver. This is bad. But Bauble subtley helps delver flip in a couple of ways:
1) Use with a fetchland to scry: crack Bauble on your opponent's turn and look at the top card of your library. If it's not a spell, shuffle it away.
2) Use to manipulate which of the top two cards Delver sees: crack Bauble on your opponent's turn and look at the top card of your library. If it's a spell, stack the Bauble's trigger first during your upkeep so Delver's trigger resolves first and sees the spell. Otherwise stack the Bauble's trigger second so Delver's trigger sees the second card.
1) and 2) are equivalent in terms of how likely they are to flip Delver, but 1) gives you the option of shuffling away the card that wouldn't flip Delver instead of drawing it.
So Bauble is a bad Serum Visions a lot of the time, but unlike Serum Visions, Mishra's Bauble is free. This has a couple of important implications:
1) When Delver doesn't flip because it reveals a Bauble, it has 2 shots to flip next turn.
2) Anytime you have a Bauble in hand the turn you play Delver, it has 2 shots to flip on its first try.
Let's focus on 1) first. Bauble obviously decreases the chance of Delver flipping on its first try, but it could theoretically increase its chance of flipping on the second try. Suppose the deck has 14 creatures, 18 lands, and either 28 spells or 24 spells and 4 Baubles. I'm going to approximate the probability of Delver flipping by pretending the deck is always the full 60 cards. The probability that Delver flips on its first try in the 28 spell list is:
P(flip on first try|NB) = 28/60 = 0.467.
I'm writing NB for "No Bauble" and B for "4 Baubles." The probability that Delver flips in either its first try or its second try is
P(flip on first or second try|NB) = 1 - P(doesn't flip on first or second try|NB) = 1 - (32/60)^2 = 0.716.
Now suppose we play the 4 Bauble list. The probability that Delver flips on its first try is
P(flip on first try|B) = 24/60 = 0.4.
The probability that Delver flips on its first or second try is a little more complicated:
P(flip on first or second try|B) = P(flip on first try|B) + P(creature or land on first try|B)*P(flip on second try|B) + P(reveal Bauble on first try|B)*[P(flip on second or third try|B)
= 24/60 + 32/60*24/60 + 4/60*[1 - P(doesn't flip on second or third try|B)] = 0.4 + 0.213 + 0.067*[1 - (36/60)^2] = 0.656
So with 28 spells, Delver flips in the first try 47% of the time and in either the first or second try 72% of the time, but with 24 spells and 4 Baubles the numbers are 40% and 66%. What about if we just had 24 spells and no Baubles? Then the numbers would be 40% and 64%. So Bauble makes Delver ever so slightly more likely to flip in one of the first two turns than any random non-spell, but not by much.
But what about 2) - some percentage of the time you'll have Bauble and Delver in your hand at the same time, and when you do how much more likely is Delver to flip? Well if you play a Delver on your turn and crack a Bauble on your opponent's turn, the probability of flipping Delver in that first try is
P(flip in first try after Bauble crack|B) = 1 - P(top two cards are non-spells|B) = 1 - (36/60)^2 = 0.64
A full 64% of the time Delver will flip on its first try with the aid of a Bauble! But we know when Bauble isn't in our hand, Delver will only flip 40% of the time on its first try. In order to balance these out, lets look at the number of opening hands that contain Delver which also contain a Bauble. I computed this one using a simulation because I'm lazy so I can't show my work, but
P(Bauble in opening 7|Delver in opening 7) = 0.36.
So 36% of turn 1 Delvers will have Bauble backup - note that multiple Bauble don't improve Delver's chance of flipping on the first try compared to only one Bauble. If we take into account our uncertainty about whether Bauble is in the opener, the probability of a turn 1 Delver flipping on its first try is
P(turn 1 Delver flips on 1st try|on the play, B) = P(flip on first try|B)*P(no Bauble in opening 7|Delver in opening 7) + P(flip in first 2 cards|B)*P(Bauble in opening 7|Delver in opening 7)
= 0.4*0.64 + (1-0.6^2)*0.36 = 0.486
So about 48.6% of turn 1 Delvers on the play will flip on turn 2 when we play 4 Baubles and 24 spells, while we saw earlier that 46.7% of turn 1 Delvers will flip on turn 2 when we play 28 spells whether or not we are on the play or draw. I emphasize the play or draw here because the numbers on the draw will be slightly different with Bauble in the deck - about 39% of opening 8s that contain Delver also contain Bauble, so the probability of a turn 1 Delver flipping is
P(turn 1 Delver flips in 1st try|on the draw, B) = 0.4*0.61 + (1-0.6^2)*0.39 = 0.494.
Assuming that we're on the play or draw 50% of the time, that gives the probability of a turn 1 Delver flipping as
P(turn 1 Delver flips on first try|B) = 0.5*0.486 + 0.5*0.494 = 0.49.
So with Bauble in the deck, 48.6% of Delvers flip on the draw, 49.4% on the play, and 49% overall, compared to 46.7% with no Baubles. But that's just the probability of flipping on turn 1. What about the probability of flipping on turn 1 or 2? With no Baubles, we already know this probability is 0.716. With Bauble in the deck computing these probabilities gets complicated, so I won't show my work. I will show the answers though:
P(turn 1 Delver flips in one of first two turns|on the play, B) = 0.706
P(turn 1 Delver flips in one of first two turns|on the draw, B) = 0.710
P(turn 1 Delver flips in one of first two turns|B) = 0.5*0.706 + 0.5*0.71 = 0.708.
So this is the tradeoff - putting 4 Baubles in your deck makes your turn 1 Delvers flip on turn 2 a higher percentage of the time, but at the cost of flipping on turn 3 a smaller percentage of the time; so much smaller, in fact, that the total probability of flipping on turn 1 or turn 2 decreases by a very small amount by adding Baubles. So the effect is pretty close to a wash - if you need more cantrips and would prefer not to spend mana or life on them, Bauble seems like a decent option.
This is incomplete though, and not just because I haven't looked at what happens on the 3rd and 4th and 5th and ... tries or because I didn't take into account what Serum Visions does to all of this. When you draw Delver later in the game, you are far less likely to have a Bauble lying around in order to increase Delver's chance of flipping in the first try. You can save your Baubles until you have a Delver in order to mitigate this somewhat, but not always, and this is ultimately what makes Bauble worse than, say, Opt at flipping Delver.
That said, I don't think it takes much of an incentive to want Bauble. It's already cute with fetchlands, and Thought Scour lets you use Bauble to manipulate either your draw step or your opponent's. Here are some reasons you might want Bauble over a generic cantrip in any Delver list:
I can already think of two Delver shells where I'd want some number of Baubles - RUG w/ Goyf, Hooting Mandrills and no Young Pyromancer, and Grixis all in on Delve with no Pyromancer. I could also imagine something like Reid Duke's RUG control list from awhile back running Bauble - it contains both Goyf and Thirst for Knowledge.
Leyline isn't as good as it appears against burn because of all the creatures. Plus, once DTK becomes legal, they'll have Atarka's Command. Leyline x4 is a lot more defensible in a combo-esque deck that wants to board it in against Thoughtseize as well, but if burn in the only target, I'd honestly rather have Dragon's Claw because you can actually cast it if drawn late.
I'm not a fan of Leyline. It demands a perfect world where we open Leyline, removal/burn for their creatures, and threats of our own to close the game out with. Now even this utopian scenario is problematic because if they can't point the Burn at us, where is the Burn going to go now? Our creatures.
A notable thing about this list is the full 8 big Delve fatties and 4 Stubborn Denial. Casting a 4/5 or 5/5 on turn 2 with Stubborn Denial backup is just brutal. I want to try a Grixis Delver shell that uses this package for a couple of reasons - 1) Gurmag Angler is bigger than everything this side of lucky Goyfs and Wurmcoil Engine 2) 1 mana Negate is just incredible rate, and a force spike/negate hybrid isn't so bad in the early turns with Delver anyway and 3) Chapin admitted his list had trouble against aggro, and lightning bolt + Delver both help a bit (race + cheap removal with no downside).
The problem is that the 12 standard cantrips aren't quite enough, though it's very very close. The deck really wants more Probes in order to cast those fatties on turn 2 with Denial backup. Enter Mishra's Bauble - it doesn't hurt Delver all that much (much less than a generic non-spell) and it helps power out those turn 2 fatties. Here's version I have in mind currently:
This list is actually a lot closer to some of the lists in the RUG thread with 4 Goyf, 4 Hooting Mandrills, 3 Stubborn Denial than it is these Grixis lists (and also 1-3 Disrupting Shoal, but I'm less excited about that). Young Pyromancer vs. another fatty gives the deck an interesting decision. What I like most about this side of the trade-off for Grixis is how Abrupt Decay proof it is for a Delver list - Delver is a target, but they lose mana in the exchange. Snapcaster is a target, but they're down a card in the exchange. The big fatties? Better hope you drew a Pulse or Cut. The deck is also fantastic at interacting for 1 mana - 1 Terminate, 2 Snapcaster, 1 Mana Leak, and 1 Deprive are the only 2+ mana spells. Dismember hurts, but this deck really wants to interact with 1 mana on turn 2 with a fatty in play. This is part of the reasoning for 2 Spell Snare, but also Remand is very good against us. The Leak + Deprive package gives us insurance against too many Rhinos - even though we can kill them, we can't gain life - and things like Wurmcoil Engine. Otherwise, this deck really just wants to interact at 1 mana.
There's not much else to say about the MD - it's a different from the Young Pyro + 3-5 fatties shell most people are talking about here and it might be better or might be worse, I'm not sure. But I want to try it. The SB is mildly interesting - the Swamp comes in when we take out Probe or bring in Blood Moon. The mountain is MD since when we need to fetch red for a bolt, often it's to kill a creature in an aggressive matchup, and the painlessness is more important, but against decks we want blood moon against it's an easy swap for the Swamp if we don't want to go up to 19 land (sometimes we might even without cutting the probes). The plan against burn is the same as the old UR Cruise-Delver plan - lots of cheap interaction backed by threats. So the counters come in to supplement the Stubborn Denials, but 2 Dragon's Claw are in there because I still expect it to be rough without something like Cruise to keep our grip full of countermagic. Geth's Verdict is for Bogles but also comes in vs. a lot of random stuff with relatively few big creatures or as generic removal, and Rakdos Charm is a swiss army knife. I think most of the rest is self explanatory.
This list is completely untested, so I can't say I'm 100% behind any of the numbers - there's an argument to be made for shaving a Tasigur and/or a Denial, finding room for a Forked Bolt and/or another generic 2 mana counterspell, and for giving up on Dismember. And the SB is a lot of speculation. However, I'm pretty excited about this list and wanted to see what the hive mind thought since I know I won't be able to properly test it anytime soon.
I expect that this list will be better vs. Burn than the Grixis lists already being discussed here because of the greater amount of cheap interaction, but worse than some of the RUG lists with Mandills and Denial (and Shoal) because of no access to Feed the Clan. On the other hand, I expect this list to be better than those RUG lists against Jund / Abzan because Gurmag Angler is much better than Hooting Mandrils there while Goyf and Tasigur are basically a wash. I'm not sure what to make of the difference between my Grixis list and YP Grixis lists in the Jund Abzan matchup without actually getting any testing in though.
This does a lot of things Ive wanted to do but havent been able to pull the trigger on or test because of school and work: maindeck anglers, stubborn denial, bauble. Bauble caught my eye when looking at chapins list and a friend told me I should just play that but I didnt want to give up red. The caveat though is my primary motivation for wanting red is young pyro... i'll have to try something similar to this though.
I'd like to work the cantrips in a way we can afford 2 thirst for knowledge and the full 4 baubles. I say only because Ive been playing thirst in my list with no md artifacts and the card has been great even if it doesnt net CA. With bauble giving us the opportunity to generate CA from thirst without snapcasting it seems really good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When people call for a ban on treasure cruise: "But I don't WANNA draw 3 cards!"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Deathmark has been great for me. I have a heavy bg meta.
Death's shadow is actually pretty interesting. Our creature slots are pretty full as is though and this seems like it would just be a dumb beater. Might be great though.
Speaking of creatures, I have been been loving maindeck lavamancer. The thing is a friggin beast. I don't feel bad pinging tokens, helps killing creatures without two for oneing myself. He just oozes ca if he is left alone, and while we have a tasigur, delver or snapcaster out, he can sneak by. He is hard on the gy though so I am currently running 4 scours which is fine because I love em.
Some cards I am interested in that haven't been mentioned much in grixis:
I have been playing grixis since I started magic way back when. The thing I always miss in this deck is just draw. I really wish there was something like mulldrifter from the shards grixis deck. I used to love the dang thing, but any draw will do! but alas here we are. Looking to things like thirst for knowledge, compulsive research, cerebral vortex, notion thief, perilous research ... If we just had some draw it would do wonders. I was thinking even about think twice just as something to draw cards, that let us hold up mana for counters it does synergies with thought scour... But is pretty bad. Cerebral vortex is interesting for a lot of matchups that aren't burn.
My sideboard is pretty similar to y'all's...
Some sideboard things:
- I keep moving further away from blood moon. I love the card, but so many times I will find myself bottlenecked on colors making serum visions into another blue spell impossible to cast. Sometimes it just wins games, against bloom Titan or sometimes a greedy junk player.
-Darkblast is a card that just poops on affinity.
-Engineered explosives is amazing against infect too. Keep that in mind, though our matchup with them is strong, they can land an apostle's blessing and go to town on us.
-Counterflux is something I always have one of. It is just so good sometimes.
-swerve is a new one that I am still in love with. It is a lightning helix against burn, a better counter against boggles (if you have a creature out), it is stellar against Jund/junk. Swerving a thoughtsieze is even better than the time I used their abrupt decay on their own goyf. It does a lot against other matchups too.
I play 1 deathmark in the board, it's amazing, but you don't really need too many of it. AND FINALLY SOMEONE WHO DISCOVERED THE INSANITY THAT IS LAVAMANCER.
I know the T2 aberration wins games, but they often have a bolt/path for him, and even in games with a turn 2 flip, it'll often boil down to top deck wars and the remaining delvers become liabilities. I agree, it is a very difficult boarding decision, but against control/twin/junk/jund, all your other cards are so good that I would believe that delvers are the best cut. I'm still looking for opinions, what else would you cut against these decks? I think post board we have a higher chance winning by dragging the game than by trying to go under and running out of gas as they answer our threats one by one.
EDIT: Most of the cards we bring in for these matchups are not instants/sorceries, which decreases the chance of a delver flip anyway. And it's not like we can alter our sideboard much to counter this - most of the options that help us win these matchups are permanent based card advantage(Keranos, Sieges, Jace, etc.)
Blood moon is definitely good, but we have much better sideboard options with black on the table, and all of those options can be as good as blood moon too. It's more of a personal preference, i guess.
I think what a lot of people don't really get is that you need to plan a sideboard based on what you want are willing to take out. No point playing 5 pieces of affinity hate when you don't have 5 bad cards to take out; that's just wasting the sideboard. Generally in a lot of matchups i think Remands, Delvers, Electrolyzes would be the first few cards to take out.
-1 Remand (I only mainboard 1, the card has felt increasingly subpar for me and I haven't missed more copies. Against certain matchups I don't want to be setting them back)
-2 Deprive
+2 Shatterstorm
+1 Spellskite
These are in addition to my 1 mained Forked Bolt, 2 Electrolyze, and 4 Bolts. I keep the cantrips (even Probe) in this matchup because you want to find your Shatterstorms and your interaction as soon as possible vs Affinity.
I don't know who mentioned boarding Delver out, but its never something I would consider doing. We are already somewhat threat light (that's why we included black to include Tasigur) so I could never actually justify cutting a creature post board.
Modern UMerfolkU
Legacy UMerfolkU
Standard XWhatever's GoodX
This is exactly my issue with boarding out delvers, though I think frankie's logic is sound.
Also, real quick, probe is a bad card against decks where we can't get any information from it most of the time. It is sorcery speed 1 mana or 2 life: replace this with something else. If the something else that you are looking for is artifact hate, well, if you swapped your probe for artifact hate, you'd already jave it in hand. Countermagic is usually considered bad against them but when people say that they are often refering to cards that either aren't TRULY cm like remand, or too slow like cryptic. Actual counterspell measures up fine against topdecked platings or etched champs.
Back to sideboarding out delvers: while it will just eat a removal spell a majority of the time, the fact is they are still spending a card and postboard I think we are better equipped to fight topdeck wars than most decks, even junk. Also boarding out delvers, like LordAce said, makes us incredibly threat light. This is why I've taken to siding in cards like gurmag angler, and I've wondered why that hasn't caught on. Then I figured its because people just dont have the issue because they arent boarding out their delvers (which is it? I noticed many people dont have any "threats" in their board other than Keranos or Jace or maybe thundermaw, and always as 1 ofs. The rest of the cards are always reactive, I'd like to hear most of your sideboarding plans or at least the theory behind your designs). I just feel that despite having pretty much all of my bases covered with my sideboard, it feels clunky and inelegant, there are matchups like twin where I feel tempted to bring in more cards than I really should:
2 engineered explosives
2 gurmag angler
2 monastery siege
2 spellskite
1 dispel
1 negate
1 combust
1 deathmark
1 keranos, god of storms
The deathmark was a murderous cut before I added the 2nd to my main. I feel like it really should be a 3rd cut though. Deathmark is a great way to kill goyf and rhino but I think our board cards should be just like our maindeck cards: as versitile as possible. Obviously, the board is where you can store hate for specific stuff, I just think modern has too many different axes of attack that cards should be as broad as possible. There are decks where you want more creature removal for dudes that arent green or white...
Im looking to design a board with less permanent based answers to keep delver flips to a maximum and with less crossover so temptation to overboard in certain maatchups is nullified. Ive actually been less and less impressed by rak charm. Its seen from a mile away and no halfway decent twin player plays into it, there are few decks where exiling the grave is ever relevant (though I have had to use it against esper gifts) and theres better artifact hate, especially at 2 mana.
We seem to be arriving at a concensus that deprive is just better for us. Its live at every point of the game, is simply better against big mana decks and the drawback never punishes us, it can in fact be a boon.
The anglers come in when I have to board out delvers, so long grindy matchups where the graveyard just naturally fills itself. Its to maintain threat density. It also doges slaughter pact and abrupt decay. Theyve also been good against burn because they have to 2 for 1 themselves to kill it. Also dodges eidolon pain.
Edit: snare is a fine card and I dont fault anyone for using it. The fact that I cut it is another reason I want to redesign my sideboard (or find more room for dispels at least). I just want less countermagic overall and more powerful ones where I do have it.
4 delver
4 pyro
3 tasigur
3 snapcaster
4 serum visions
4 git probe
3 thought scour
2 thirst for knowledge
4 lightning bolt
2 electrolyze
4 deprive
2 remand
2 murderous cut
1 terminate
The thirsts are experimental. I may go back to 1. Theyre great against twin and junk but thats all Ive tested against so far with them. If they prove too detrimental in faster matchups like burn (lol) infect and affinity I might bring in a 3rd cut or 1st snare.
Edit: I used to play darkblast maindeck which was really good against some decks and useless against others. I know a lot of people are talking about a maindeck lavaman which is good, but I think I want the 4th snap before any other creature.
While this sounds hilarious, I basically agree. For the few wins I can squeak out, I'd rather just take an hour nap instead between rounds. The lack of white with bring grixis hurts the matchup.
Grand Arbiter
Omnath
Skittles
2 Spellskite
2 Dragon's Claw
2 Engineered Explosives
2 Rakdos Charm
1 Flashfreeze
1 Dispel
1 Jace, Architect of Thought
1 Keranos, God of Storms
1 Deathmark
1 Monastery Siege
1 Rending Volley
I REALLY REALLY want to fit in an izzet staticaster and a tombstalker in there, but after hearing your arguments, perhaps i should just cut the claws for them and just concede the burn matchup. The fact that burn is so popular is actually hurting us too.
idrareb - I see you have anglers and keranos in the board, aren't you probably better off siding out delvers for these late game threats? For me i side out delvers for keranos, jace, and siege, all of which do a better job of helping me win in the long game. If i decide to throw in those tombstalkers, then it's another reason to take another delver out. Of course, if you aren't bringing in any threats, siding out delvers may be a problem. But most sideboards have a couple of big threats like keranos/batterskull, and i could see taking out 2 delvers for them.
I think the focus is on maintaining the threat density, so if you board in more threats, it's probably better to take those delvers out.
Also, i see you finally went down to 18 lands - how's it going?
This is the best distillation of my argument against claw. Its so ineffectual and just clutters sideboard space. Better to bring in siege, hope you have it in time and that they dont draw too many creatures. Burn suuuuucks.
Yes, it is a good matchup, but its so popular that it's just assurance that you won't lose to it and that's why they're there. While Modern is a diverse format, you will almost assuredly play vs Affinity once or twice in 9 rounds.
My counter suite is 2 Deprive, 2 Leak, 2 Snare, 1 Remand. So I'm actually playing Leaks in addition to Deprive. I don't know if its correct, but it has been pretty good so far.
Modern UMerfolkU
Legacy UMerfolkU
Standard XWhatever's GoodX
Modern UMerfolkU
Legacy UMerfolkU
Standard XWhatever's GoodX
First the obvious: Bauble is an artifact. Artifacts don't flip Delver. This is bad. But Bauble subtley helps delver flip in a couple of ways:
1) Use with a fetchland to scry: crack Bauble on your opponent's turn and look at the top card of your library. If it's not a spell, shuffle it away.
2) Use to manipulate which of the top two cards Delver sees: crack Bauble on your opponent's turn and look at the top card of your library. If it's a spell, stack the Bauble's trigger first during your upkeep so Delver's trigger resolves first and sees the spell. Otherwise stack the Bauble's trigger second so Delver's trigger sees the second card.
1) and 2) are equivalent in terms of how likely they are to flip Delver, but 1) gives you the option of shuffling away the card that wouldn't flip Delver instead of drawing it.
So Bauble is a bad Serum Visions a lot of the time, but unlike Serum Visions, Mishra's Bauble is free. This has a couple of important implications:
1) When Delver doesn't flip because it reveals a Bauble, it has 2 shots to flip next turn.
2) Anytime you have a Bauble in hand the turn you play Delver, it has 2 shots to flip on its first try.
Let's focus on 1) first. Bauble obviously decreases the chance of Delver flipping on its first try, but it could theoretically increase its chance of flipping on the second try. Suppose the deck has 14 creatures, 18 lands, and either 28 spells or 24 spells and 4 Baubles. I'm going to approximate the probability of Delver flipping by pretending the deck is always the full 60 cards. The probability that Delver flips on its first try in the 28 spell list is:
P(flip on first try|NB) = 28/60 = 0.467.
I'm writing NB for "No Bauble" and B for "4 Baubles." The probability that Delver flips in either its first try or its second try is
P(flip on first or second try|NB) = 1 - P(doesn't flip on first or second try|NB) = 1 - (32/60)^2 = 0.716.
Now suppose we play the 4 Bauble list. The probability that Delver flips on its first try is
P(flip on first try|B) = 24/60 = 0.4.
The probability that Delver flips on its first or second try is a little more complicated:
P(flip on first or second try|B) = P(flip on first try|B) + P(creature or land on first try|B)*P(flip on second try|B) + P(reveal Bauble on first try|B)*[P(flip on second or third try|B)
= 24/60 + 32/60*24/60 + 4/60*[1 - P(doesn't flip on second or third try|B)] = 0.4 + 0.213 + 0.067*[1 - (36/60)^2] = 0.656
So with 28 spells, Delver flips in the first try 47% of the time and in either the first or second try 72% of the time, but with 24 spells and 4 Baubles the numbers are 40% and 66%. What about if we just had 24 spells and no Baubles? Then the numbers would be 40% and 64%. So Bauble makes Delver ever so slightly more likely to flip in one of the first two turns than any random non-spell, but not by much.
But what about 2) - some percentage of the time you'll have Bauble and Delver in your hand at the same time, and when you do how much more likely is Delver to flip? Well if you play a Delver on your turn and crack a Bauble on your opponent's turn, the probability of flipping Delver in that first try is
P(flip in first try after Bauble crack|B) = 1 - P(top two cards are non-spells|B) = 1 - (36/60)^2 = 0.64
A full 64% of the time Delver will flip on its first try with the aid of a Bauble! But we know when Bauble isn't in our hand, Delver will only flip 40% of the time on its first try. In order to balance these out, lets look at the number of opening hands that contain Delver which also contain a Bauble. I computed this one using a simulation because I'm lazy so I can't show my work, but
P(Bauble in opening 7|Delver in opening 7) = 0.36.
So 36% of turn 1 Delvers will have Bauble backup - note that multiple Bauble don't improve Delver's chance of flipping on the first try compared to only one Bauble. If we take into account our uncertainty about whether Bauble is in the opener, the probability of a turn 1 Delver flipping on its first try is
P(turn 1 Delver flips on 1st try|on the play, B) = P(flip on first try|B)*P(no Bauble in opening 7|Delver in opening 7) + P(flip in first 2 cards|B)*P(Bauble in opening 7|Delver in opening 7)
= 0.4*0.64 + (1-0.6^2)*0.36 = 0.486
So about 48.6% of turn 1 Delvers on the play will flip on turn 2 when we play 4 Baubles and 24 spells, while we saw earlier that 46.7% of turn 1 Delvers will flip on turn 2 when we play 28 spells whether or not we are on the play or draw. I emphasize the play or draw here because the numbers on the draw will be slightly different with Bauble in the deck - about 39% of opening 8s that contain Delver also contain Bauble, so the probability of a turn 1 Delver flipping is
P(turn 1 Delver flips in 1st try|on the draw, B) = 0.4*0.61 + (1-0.6^2)*0.39 = 0.494.
Assuming that we're on the play or draw 50% of the time, that gives the probability of a turn 1 Delver flipping as
P(turn 1 Delver flips on first try|B) = 0.5*0.486 + 0.5*0.494 = 0.49.
So with Bauble in the deck, 48.6% of Delvers flip on the draw, 49.4% on the play, and 49% overall, compared to 46.7% with no Baubles. But that's just the probability of flipping on turn 1. What about the probability of flipping on turn 1 or 2? With no Baubles, we already know this probability is 0.716. With Bauble in the deck computing these probabilities gets complicated, so I won't show my work. I will show the answers though:
P(turn 1 Delver flips in one of first two turns|on the play, B) = 0.706
P(turn 1 Delver flips in one of first two turns|on the draw, B) = 0.710
P(turn 1 Delver flips in one of first two turns|B) = 0.5*0.706 + 0.5*0.71 = 0.708.
So this is the tradeoff - putting 4 Baubles in your deck makes your turn 1 Delvers flip on turn 2 a higher percentage of the time, but at the cost of flipping on turn 3 a smaller percentage of the time; so much smaller, in fact, that the total probability of flipping on turn 1 or turn 2 decreases by a very small amount by adding Baubles. So the effect is pretty close to a wash - if you need more cantrips and would prefer not to spend mana or life on them, Bauble seems like a decent option.
This is incomplete though, and not just because I haven't looked at what happens on the 3rd and 4th and 5th and ... tries or because I didn't take into account what Serum Visions does to all of this. When you draw Delver later in the game, you are far less likely to have a Bauble lying around in order to increase Delver's chance of flipping in the first try. You can save your Baubles until you have a Delver in order to mitigate this somewhat, but not always, and this is ultimately what makes Bauble worse than, say, Opt at flipping Delver.
That said, I don't think it takes much of an incentive to want Bauble. It's already cute with fetchlands, and Thought Scour lets you use Bauble to manipulate either your draw step or your opponent's. Here are some reasons you might want Bauble over a generic cantrip in any Delver list:
Tarmogoyf
If you're Delving very hard.
Thirst for Knowledge
Monastery Swiftspear & Monastery Mentor (But not Young Pyromancer).
I can already think of two Delver shells where I'd want some number of Baubles - RUG w/ Goyf, Hooting Mandrills and no Young Pyromancer, and Grixis all in on Delve with no Pyromancer. I could also imagine something like Reid Duke's RUG control list from awhile back running Bauble - it contains both Goyf and Thirst for Knowledge.
Modern UMerfolkU
Legacy UMerfolkU
Standard XWhatever's GoodX
A notable thing about this list is the full 8 big Delve fatties and 4 Stubborn Denial. Casting a 4/5 or 5/5 on turn 2 with Stubborn Denial backup is just brutal. I want to try a Grixis Delver shell that uses this package for a couple of reasons - 1) Gurmag Angler is bigger than everything this side of lucky Goyfs and Wurmcoil Engine 2) 1 mana Negate is just incredible rate, and a force spike/negate hybrid isn't so bad in the early turns with Delver anyway and 3) Chapin admitted his list had trouble against aggro, and lightning bolt + Delver both help a bit (race + cheap removal with no downside).
The problem is that the 12 standard cantrips aren't quite enough, though it's very very close. The deck really wants more Probes in order to cast those fatties on turn 2 with Denial backup. Enter Mishra's Bauble - it doesn't hurt Delver all that much (much less than a generic non-spell) and it helps power out those turn 2 fatties. Here's version I have in mind currently:
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Steam Vents
2 Watery Grave
1 Mountain
2 Island
2 Darkslick Shores
1 Sulfur Falls
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Gurmag Angler
4 Tasigur, the Golden Fang
2 Snapcaster Mage
4 Serum Visions
4 Thought Scour
2 Mishra's Bauble
4 Lightning Bolt
1 Dismember
1 Terminate
4 Stubborn Denial
2 Spell Snare
1 Mana Leak
1 Deprive
1 Swamp
2 Blood Moon
1 Slaughter Games
2 Electrolyze
1 Engineered Explosives
2 Geth's Verdict
2 Rakdos Charm
1 Dispel
1 Deprive
2 Dragon's Claw
This list is actually a lot closer to some of the lists in the RUG thread with 4 Goyf, 4 Hooting Mandrills, 3 Stubborn Denial than it is these Grixis lists (and also 1-3 Disrupting Shoal, but I'm less excited about that). Young Pyromancer vs. another fatty gives the deck an interesting decision. What I like most about this side of the trade-off for Grixis is how Abrupt Decay proof it is for a Delver list - Delver is a target, but they lose mana in the exchange. Snapcaster is a target, but they're down a card in the exchange. The big fatties? Better hope you drew a Pulse or Cut. The deck is also fantastic at interacting for 1 mana - 1 Terminate, 2 Snapcaster, 1 Mana Leak, and 1 Deprive are the only 2+ mana spells. Dismember hurts, but this deck really wants to interact with 1 mana on turn 2 with a fatty in play. This is part of the reasoning for 2 Spell Snare, but also Remand is very good against us. The Leak + Deprive package gives us insurance against too many Rhinos - even though we can kill them, we can't gain life - and things like Wurmcoil Engine. Otherwise, this deck really just wants to interact at 1 mana.
There's not much else to say about the MD - it's a different from the Young Pyro + 3-5 fatties shell most people are talking about here and it might be better or might be worse, I'm not sure. But I want to try it. The SB is mildly interesting - the Swamp comes in when we take out Probe or bring in Blood Moon. The mountain is MD since when we need to fetch red for a bolt, often it's to kill a creature in an aggressive matchup, and the painlessness is more important, but against decks we want blood moon against it's an easy swap for the Swamp if we don't want to go up to 19 land (sometimes we might even without cutting the probes). The plan against burn is the same as the old UR Cruise-Delver plan - lots of cheap interaction backed by threats. So the counters come in to supplement the Stubborn Denials, but 2 Dragon's Claw are in there because I still expect it to be rough without something like Cruise to keep our grip full of countermagic. Geth's Verdict is for Bogles but also comes in vs. a lot of random stuff with relatively few big creatures or as generic removal, and Rakdos Charm is a swiss army knife. I think most of the rest is self explanatory.
This list is completely untested, so I can't say I'm 100% behind any of the numbers - there's an argument to be made for shaving a Tasigur and/or a Denial, finding room for a Forked Bolt and/or another generic 2 mana counterspell, and for giving up on Dismember. And the SB is a lot of speculation. However, I'm pretty excited about this list and wanted to see what the hive mind thought since I know I won't be able to properly test it anytime soon.
I expect that this list will be better vs. Burn than the Grixis lists already being discussed here because of the greater amount of cheap interaction, but worse than some of the RUG lists with Mandills and Denial (and Shoal) because of no access to Feed the Clan. On the other hand, I expect this list to be better than those RUG lists against Jund / Abzan because Gurmag Angler is much better than Hooting Mandrils there while Goyf and Tasigur are basically a wash. I'm not sure what to make of the difference between my Grixis list and YP Grixis lists in the Jund Abzan matchup without actually getting any testing in though.
This does a lot of things Ive wanted to do but havent been able to pull the trigger on or test because of school and work: maindeck anglers, stubborn denial, bauble. Bauble caught my eye when looking at chapins list and a friend told me I should just play that but I didnt want to give up red. The caveat though is my primary motivation for wanting red is young pyro... i'll have to try something similar to this though.
I'd like to work the cantrips in a way we can afford 2 thirst for knowledge and the full 4 baubles. I say only because Ive been playing thirst in my list with no md artifacts and the card has been great even if it doesnt net CA. With bauble giving us the opportunity to generate CA from thirst without snapcasting it seems really good.