I played a bunch of matches vs WR burn and mono R superaggro. My thoughts:
WR burn: Bow of Nylea is extremely good vs WR burn. Sadly in game 1 I found it very difficult to win the match, IMO is almost an auto loss. But game two with discard, cheap counters and bow...is a different story. Also the sphinxes with their hexproof went a long way in these games.
Also in some of the matches something I did not understand happened, if any one could explain it would be appreciated. I play Nissa and animate a citadel. Next turn he plains Chained to the Rocks. I thought the land would be removed, but... oh surprise... he got control of it as a land !! What is the rule for this ? I thought it was weird.
Mono red: I lost miserably to it G1 also. He would kill me so fast that it was not even fun, specially if he went burning-tree and creature in t2. G2... well it depends on the Hornest Nest. What do you guys think of Golgari charm ? 2 in the 75 ?
Also in some of the matches something I did not understand happened, if any one could explain it would be appreciated. I play Nissa and animate a citadel. Next turn he plains Chained to the Rocks. I thought the land would be removed, but... oh surprise... he got control of it as a land !! What is the rule for this ? I thought it was weird.
That is now how that works. The creature, in this case a land, is exiled. No control is gained of it; the creature is simply exiled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
That is a mis-play on your opponent's part. He should let the stack unwind before playing the second pump spell. I don't see how golgari charm is worthwhile enough to bring in against RDW -- how is it better than the spot removal we already have?
I just finished reading the article (or @least the BUG part), and I have to say i'm not a fan of his. The Scavenging Ooze has no place in the deck -- as-well-as POLUKRANOS, WORLD EATER -- no place whatsoever. The Underworld Connections and Courser of Kruphix were originally in the deck however, over time (and a BUTT load of testing) they were found wanting -- but I digress.
I really feel this deck has A LOT of potential, hell, I pretty much dominated this past 'Game Day' with it lol!
Scavenging Ooze is a good clean up card against aggro when you are running things like Drown in Sorrow. There really are a number of issues with the cards you listed, but you have not really covered the reasons why these cards are bad.. but alas, read on as I have something interesting to point out.
Caryatid isn't really optional, in my opinion. It sets up all kinds of shenanigans and helps you to not die on turn 4.
Reid Duke's list is interesting. I don't know about Bile Blight sometimes, though. Folks do seem to like it. It seems fine against Pack Rat & his inevitable friends but in most matchups Pharika's Cure is better.
I'm a fan of 2 Perilous Vault in the sideboard, but it would probably come back out for any game 3's because it's not great on the draw and folks will just play around it. Taking it out will leverage that fact.
Ashiok isn't good enough yet.
Aetherling is far more essential than Garruk. As stated, some decks just die to a resolved one. That's not true with Garruk. And sadly, Garruk doesn't do a whole lot more than Vraska in our shell. Of course someone might debate that statement on the basis of details but it's my assessment nevertheless.
I agree, Sylvan Caryatid is not really something I would advocate cutting. Speeding you up into spouts, protecting you when you do not have spouts, and finally fixing your mana - are all reasons why this card is a must. It does a lot of work, and with adequate library manipulation you can help alleviate the top deck aspect you get with the card.
People generally will not play around Vault until they actually see it. The card cost 9 mana to just slam and pop in a single turn. They have time to account for it when making counter moves. Siding it out is not something I would advocate.
Garruk does a lot more than Vraska, in that he can actually pull you back from behind much, much better. He is pretty integral, and I would argue more integral than AEtherling. Garruk has more valid applications across various matches, where AEtherling does not. Overall, I would cut ling before I cut the predator.
Anyways, I took some time to read Duke's article and there was something very interesting he pointed out about his lists that I think is somewhat ironic, and yet very insightful - even if he has not made the connection himself.
Without Elvish Mystic, though, the deck wasn't explosive enough, and the draws without Sylvan Caryatid were often poor. Planeswalkers are at their best when you're even or ahead on the board, but if you didn't have a great start, then a deck so saturated with planeswalkers had a hard time clawing back into the game.
While this was in context with Jund Planeswalkers, it does a good job of translating why things like Courser of Kruphix are not good in BUG. I find it interesting that he considers these two card to be the best cards in the format, yet can make a statement like this about a set up that is much more supportive of Courser of Kruphix than BUG.
Courser of Kruphix is an amazing card, and we see how much work it can put in for GRx Monsters decks. The thing about these decks, is that their threats are compacted within a very tight curve, which allows you to follow Courser up with powerful threats that continue to pressure an opponent in such a way that there is no profit to killing Courser. Cards like Xenagos, the Reveler, Polukranos, World Eater or the threat of Ghor-Clan Rampager are enough to force an opponent to just ignore your Courser. It does the same thing when it starts threatening to drop Stormbreath Dragon or Nissa, Worldwaker or any of the previously mention threats. Things are so condensed in these Jund decks that killing the Courser can get you killed out of nowhere.
BUG does not have this threat density so tightly compacted within it's curve to actually put an opponent into a position where killing Courser is simply unfavorable. Instead, it is much more profitable and this in fact leads to those situations where you find yourself behind and your walkers cannot bail you out and this is why I have cut the card and why others are beginning to cut the card as well.
This phenomenon is not just my experience, and it is not just the experience that others in this thread are noticing - it is a phenomenon even Reid Duke has experienced, acknowledged or not.
To me, that is the most interesting takeaway from his article and is akin to that moment in testing where you realize that instead of trying to go big and over the control deck with Mistcutter Hydra and taking the match at a 50/50, you can go under with Mistcutter Hydra and go 60/40 or even 75/25. It is a shame he is blinded by his bias towards the cards to the point where he very may well not subjectively assess this takeaway that he has concluded in one way or another.
That is an interesting gleaning from Reid Duke's article. Threat density is lower in BUG and Courser is thereby less ignorable and will often eat removal. True, true, and true.
One thing that I have found in my own testing, however, is that this very fact is leverage. What I mean is this:
a) BUG control/walkers not a common deck;
b) Folks are used to the fact that killing Courser is usually unfavorable, vis-à-vis G/x Monsters decks.
Mine usually stick. No one knows what to do against me because they don't know what's coming. Polukranos? Desecration Demon? They play it safe and hold their removal and I thereby gain cards and life while they're waiting. I think this may be partly why I am successful with them and like them and have chosen to continue with them.
As I said, your reasoning is still solid and your observation of Reid Duke's article is intriguing. However, I continue to be successful with Courser so do the Jund walker decks. Particularly when a growing percentage of the field is R/x aggro. Why doesn't Jund drop Courser? Surely by now it would have become obvious that it's subpar. Right...? Not being facetious—just saying.
Anyway, I think we're both going to find things that support our reasonings. Not a lot can be done about that.
What's the difference between "going over" with Mistcutter and "going under" with it? Playing it at 3 vs. playing it at 5? Just curious.
I just finished reading the article (or @least the BUG part), and I have to say i'm not a fan of his. The Scavenging Ooze has no place in the deck -- as-well-as POLUKRANOS, WORLD EATER -- no place whatsoever. The Underworld Connections and Courser of Kruphix were originally in the deck however, over time (and a BUTT load of testing) they were found wanting -- but I digress.
I really feel this deck has A LOT of potential, hell, I pretty much dominated this past 'Game Day' with it lol!
Scavenging Ooze is a good clean up card against aggro when you are running things like Drown in Sorrow. There really are a number of issues with the cards you listed, but you have not really covered the reasons why these cards are bad.. but alas, read on as I have something interesting to point out.
Caryatid isn't really optional, in my opinion. It sets up all kinds of shenanigans and helps you to not die on turn 4.
Reid Duke's list is interesting. I don't know about Bile Blight sometimes, though. Folks do seem to like it. It seems fine against Pack Rat & his inevitable friends but in most matchups Pharika's Cure is better.
I'm a fan of 2 Perilous Vault in the sideboard, but it would probably come back out for any game 3's because it's not great on the draw and folks will just play around it. Taking it out will leverage that fact.
Ashiok isn't good enough yet.
Aetherling is far more essential than Garruk. As stated, some decks just die to a resolved one. That's not true with Garruk. And sadly, Garruk doesn't do a whole lot more than Vraska in our shell. Of course someone might debate that statement on the basis of details but it's my assessment nevertheless.
I agree, Sylvan Caryatid is not really something I would advocate cutting. Speeding you up into spouts, protecting you when you do not have spouts, and finally fixing your mana - are all reasons why this card is a must. It does a lot of work, and with adequate library manipulation you can help alleviate the top deck aspect you get with the card.
People generally will not play around Vault until they actually see it. The card cost 9 mana to just slam and pop in a single turn. They have time to account for it when making counter moves. Siding it out is not something I would advocate.
Garruk does a lot more than Vraska, in that he can actually pull you back from behind much, much better. He is pretty integral, and I would argue more integral than AEtherling. Garruk has more valid applications across various matches, where AEtherling does not. Overall, I would cut ling before I cut the predator.
Anyways, I took some time to read Duke's article and there was something very interesting he pointed out about his lists that I think is somewhat ironic, and yet very insightful - even if he has not made the connection himself.
Without Elvish Mystic, though, the deck wasn't explosive enough, and the draws without Sylvan Caryatid were often poor. Planeswalkers are at their best when you're even or ahead on the board, but if you didn't have a great start, then a deck so saturated with planeswalkers had a hard time clawing back into the game.
While this was in context with Jund Planeswalkers, it does a good job of translating why things like Courser of Kruphix are not good in BUG. I find it interesting that he considers these two card to be the best cards in the format, yet can make a statement like this about a set up that is much more supportive of Courser of Kruphix than BUG.
Courser of Kruphix is an amazing card, and we see how much work it can put in for GRx Monsters decks. The thing about these decks, is that their threats are compacted within a very tight curve, which allows you to follow Courser up with powerful threats that continue to pressure an opponent in such a way that there is no profit to killing Courser. Cards like Xenagos, the Reveler, Polukranos, World Eater or the threat of Ghor-Clan Rampager are enough to force an opponent to just ignore your Courser. It does the same thing when it starts threatening to drop Stormbreath Dragon or Nissa, Worldwaker or any of the previously mention threats. Things are so condensed in these Jund decks that killing the Courser can get you killed out of nowhere.
BUG does not have this threat density so tightly compacted within it's curve to actually put an opponent into a position where killing Courser is simply unfavorable. Instead, it is much more profitable and this in fact leads to those situations where you find yourself behind and your walkers cannot bail you out and this is why I have cut the card and why others are beginning to cut the card as well.
This phenomenon is not just my experience, and it is not just the experience that others in this thread are noticing - it is a phenomenon even Reid Duke has experienced, acknowledged or not.
To me, that is the most interesting takeaway from his article and is akin to that moment in testing where you realize that instead of trying to go big and over the control deck with Mistcutter Hydra and taking the match at a 50/50, you can go under with Mistcutter Hydra and go 60/40 or even 75/25. It is a shame he is blinded by his bias towards the cards to the point where he very may well not subjectively assess this takeaway that he has concluded in one way or another.
That is an interesting gleaning from Reid Duke's article. Threat density is lower in BUG and Courser is thereby less ignorable and will often eat removal. True, true, and true.
One thing that I have found in my own testing, however, is that this very fact is leverage. What I mean is this:
a) BUG control/walkers not a common deck;
b) Folks are used to the fact that killing Courser is usually unfavorable, vis-à-vis G/x Monsters decks.
Mine usually stick. No one knows what to do against me because they don't know what's coming. Polukranos? Desecration Demon? They play it safe and hold their removal and I thereby gain cards and life while they're waiting. I think this may be partly why I am successful with them and like them and have chosen to continue with them.
As I said, your reasoning is still solid and your observation of Reid Duke's article is intriguing. However, I continue to be successful with Courser so do the Jund walker decks. Particularly when a growing percentage of the field is R/x aggro. Why doesn't Jund drop Courser? Surely by now it would have become obvious that it's subpar. Right...? Not being facetious—just saying.
Anyway, I think we're both going to find things that support our reasonings. Not a lot can be done about that.
What's the difference between "going over" with Mistcutter and "going under" with it? Playing it at 3 vs. playing it at 5? Just curious.
I mean, I guess if your opponent does not know what cards are in the BUG card pool, they could assume Courser is not worth killing, but the lack of R is a pretty dead give away that you are not going to be rolling out fast and hard hitting creatures/walkers or slip a game away on the back of a Ghor-Clan Rampager.
Also, Jund is a Monsters deck and their threats are compacted pretty well on the curve.
The difference between playing Mistcutter Hydra on turn 3 as opposed to turn 6, is that you are getting more cumulative damage in in which your opponent spending 4 mana to deal with it, either taps them out enough to let you resolve a bigger threat, or you are able to play the catch up game and win any counter wars over a threat. You are bottle necking their mana on future plays, because at some point, they have to tap 4+ mana to deal with the Hydra or they die. Playing Hydra later in the game, means less damage and a harder time capitalizing on the removal of the Hydra. Winning the late game against UW Control decks, is not easy - Revelations will bury you often times and by going under a Verdict, you are able to command the pace of the game much better than if you were to try and go over.
I am rather new so take my words with a grain of salt. I started with a courser-less list. It did really well vs. control, but not too good vs. RDW and burn. Those games were almost impossible g1 and g2/3 was balanced. So.. bad for me overall. My problem is that I mostly play 2-man or 8-man queues in MTGO and I see a lot of aggro decks and, occasionally, control.
So I went for a list with Caryatid, Courser AND sphinx (as the BUG THS block list) plus assorted removal and PW's. I run no counters MD but run 6 counters + more discard in sb for the control matchup (sphinx is king/queen there) . All in all, the matchup vs aggro and fast decks has improved a lot. The courser is not only a good blocker but gains me life and CA in general. True it can be killed, but that is time in my favor until I can hit the Aethersprout, vault, etc. So depending of the meta I say go for courser =)
A question: have people considered Gaze of Granite ? Seems like a nice reset button which can be played 'early' (T4-5 ...same as aethersprout I guess) vs some decks, or even in the ate game as a (virtually) one sided sweeper vs. aggro. Any thoughts on this ?
I mean, I guess if your opponent does not know what cards are in the BUG card pool, they could assume Courser is not worth killing, but the lack of R is a pretty dead give away that you are not going to be rolling out fast and hard hitting creatures/walkers or slip a game away on the back of a Ghor-Clan Rampager.
Also, Jund is a Monsters deck and their threats are compacted pretty well on the curve.
This Jund deck, which is what I'm referring to and keep seeing, is not a Monsters deck:
As you can see, this deck, if subjected to your reasoning for excluding Courser from BUG, would not run it either. Yet here were have a Top 8 appearance—at a Pro Tour, no less—with four copies main board. For me, that's solid evidence.
The difference between playing Mistcutter Hydra on turn 3 as opposed to turn 6, is that you are getting more cumulative damage in in which your opponent spending 4 mana to deal with it, either taps them out enough to let you resolve a bigger threat, or you are able to play the catch up game and win any counter wars over a threat. You are bottle necking their mana on future plays, because at some point, they have to tap 4+ mana to deal with the Hydra or they die. Playing Hydra later in the game, means less damage and a harder time capitalizing on the removal of the Hydra. Winning the late game against UW Control decks, is not easy - Revelations will bury you often times and by going under a Verdict, you are able to command the pace of the game much better than if you were to try and go over.
Agreed. The game we play against control is all about leverage and tempo. If we're not forcing them to expend cards, we're not doing it right. I really like the following as a baseline against U/x control in the sideboard:
Mine usually stick. No one knows what to do against me because they don't know what's coming. Polukranos? Desecration Demon? They play it safe and hold their removal and I thereby gain cards and life while they're waiting. I think this may be partly why I am successful with them and like them and have chosen to continue with them.
This theory might work for a little while... but then there will be a time it won't.
I think this is probably why I was a big advocate for Courser, then suddenly one day found it to be lacking simply because people knew to kill it.
Perhaps they understood my deck better, knew that I wasn't following Courser up with Polukranos and/or Desecration Demon or other bigger threats and I was more of a Control Deck, Walkers; and Courser really does a lot to smooth my draws out and so they absolutely made sure they killed it the first chance they get.
It has become less and less effective to rely on; so I have since cut it.
So I think you're right, but what happens if/when they understand your deck and know there's no other bombs coming other than walkers?
Mine usually stick. No one knows what to do against me because they don't know what's coming. Polukranos? Desecration Demon? They play it safe and hold their removal and I thereby gain cards and life while they're waiting. I think this may be partly why I am successful with them and like them and have chosen to continue with them.
This theory might work for a little while... but then there will be a time it won't.
I think this is probably why I was a big advocate for Courser, then suddenly one day found it to be lacking simply because people knew to kill it.
Perhaps they understood my deck better, knew that I wasn't following Courser up with Polukranos and/or Desecration Demon or other bigger threats and I was more of a Control Deck, Walkers; and Courser really does a lot to smooth my draws out and so they absolutely made sure they killed it the first chance they get.
It has become less and less effective to rely on; so I have since cut it.
So I think you're right, but what happens if/when they understand your deck and know there's no other bombs coming other than walkers?
I'm of the opinion that they're free to kill Courser at their leisure. It is a roadblock against many decks and I expect it to die. The rest of the deck still does its work whether I have Courser online or not. But for many decks they have to answer it or they will lose tempo and board over time.
Mine usually stick. No one knows what to do against me because they don't know what's coming. Polukranos? Desecration Demon? They play it safe and hold their removal and I thereby gain cards and life while they're waiting. I think this may be partly why I am successful with them and like them and have chosen to continue with them.
This theory might work for a little while... but then there will be a time it won't.
I think this is probably why I was a big advocate for Courser, then suddenly one day found it to be lacking simply because people knew to kill it.
Perhaps they understood my deck better, knew that I wasn't following Courser up with Polukranos and/or Desecration Demon or other bigger threats and I was more of a Control Deck, Walkers; and Courser really does a lot to smooth my draws out and so they absolutely made sure they killed it the first chance they get.
It has become less and less effective to rely on; so I have since cut it.
So I think you're right, but what happens if/when they understand your deck and know there's no other bombs coming other than walkers?
I'm of the opinion that they're free to kill Courser at their leisure. It is a roadblock against many decks and I expect it to die. The rest of the deck still does its work whether I have Courser online or not. But for many decks they have to answer it or they will lose tempo and board over time.
Your asking why Jund Walkers list does not drop Courser, as if the same conclusion would be drawn at the same time by everyone. Not everyone can automatically notice in depth interactions and come to the same conclusion. This is why testing teams are so critical and if you have ever done any grinding with teams, you will know that value that comes out of them when you are stuck on a notion that is indeed incorrect. Reid Duke mentions at the end of his article that his Courser/Caryatid brews were just not good enough to deviate from the Team Channel Fireball's deck, and Jund Planeswalkers is among those. It was not a conclusion that just Reid Duke came to, it was the entire Channel Fireball team. So why did a Jund Walkers list make top 8? Simple variance. Look at the top 8 of the PT, variance was everywhere - not a single deck managed to seat 2 people into the top 8.
Whether Reid Duke and the rest of the Channel Fireball team came to the direct conclusion that Courser is bad for these walker decks or not, it is acknowledge by Reid Duke an a very indirect manner when he assesses how Planeswalker heavy decks tend to fall short by lack of interaction in the early stages of the game. Courser does not interact with your opponent. It just doesn't.
Another thing is that most people know that BUG Walkers is a brew deck, it is not something people are completely oblivious to. When the cat is out of the bag, you don't get to put it back in the bag without getting scratched.
I get that you, and a few others are attached to Courser of Kruphix, I understand how the card works - but I am telling you that for anyone wanting to make their walkers work, the most efficient way is with early interaction that does not allow your board state to fall behind because Courser will allow you to just fall behind.
Running redundant answers is going to give you more consistency in managing the board until your walkers can come online and start gaining you incremental advantages to break the symmetry of the game and bring you to a win.
Mine usually stick. No one knows what to do against me because they don't know what's coming. Polukranos? Desecration Demon? They play it safe and hold their removal and I thereby gain cards and life while they're waiting. I think this may be partly why I am successful with them and like them and have chosen to continue with them.
This theory might work for a little while... but then there will be a time it won't.
I think this is probably why I was a big advocate for Courser, then suddenly one day found it to be lacking simply because people knew to kill it.
Perhaps they understood my deck better, knew that I wasn't following Courser up with Polukranos and/or Desecration Demon or other bigger threats and I was more of a Control Deck, Walkers; and Courser really does a lot to smooth my draws out and so they absolutely made sure they killed it the first chance they get.
It has become less and less effective to rely on; so I have since cut it.
So I think you're right, but what happens if/when they understand your deck and know there's no other bombs coming other than walkers?
I'm of the opinion that they're free to kill Courser at their leisure. It is a roadblock against many decks and I expect it to die. The rest of the deck still does its work whether I have Courser online or not. But for many decks they have to answer it or they will lose tempo and board over time.
Your asking why Jund Walkers list does not drop Courser, as if the same conclusion would be drawn at the same time by everyone. Not everyone can automatically notice in depth interactions and come to the same conclusion. This is why testing teams are so critical and if you have ever done any grinding with teams, you will know that value that comes out of them when you are stuck on a notion that is indeed incorrect. Reid Duke mentions at the end of his article that his Courser/Caryatid brews were just not good enough to deviate from the Team Channel Fireball's deck, and Jund Planeswalkers is among those. It was not a conclusion that just Reid Duke came to, it was the entire Channel Fireball team. So why did a Jund Walkers list make top 8? Simple variance. Look at the top 8 of the PT, variance was everywhere - not a single deck managed to seat 2 people into the top 8.
Whether Reid Duke and the rest of the Channel Fireball team came to the direct conclusion that Courser is bad for these walker decks or not, it is acknowledge by Reid Duke an a very indirect manner when he assesses how Planeswalker heavy decks tend to fall short by lack of interaction in the early stages of the game. Courser does not interact with your opponent. It just doesn't.
Another thing is that most people know that BUG Walkers is a brew deck, it is not something people are completely oblivious to. When the cat is out of the bag, you don't get to put it back in the bag without getting scratched.
I get that you, and a few others are attached to Courser of Kruphix, I understand how the card works - but I am telling you that for anyone wanting to make their walkers work, the most efficient way is with early interaction that does not allow your board state to fall behind because Courser will allow you to just fall behind.
Running redundant answers is going to give you more consistency in managing the board until your walkers can come online and start gaining you incremental advantages to break the symmetry of the game and bring you to a win.
It is results that have kept Courser in my deck, not attachment. I don't even like the card. I wish there were something better.
I didn't start having success with any of my BUG brews until I included Courser. In fact, I resisted it for some time and tried many other avenues. Some closer to what you are currently running.
If you're going to say that variance is the only thing responsible for the Jund walkers top 8 at the Pro Tour, then I don't really see why arguing this back and forth is productive. Either Courser or no Courser is no longer relevant, and both strategies become equally viable. Using that reasoning, at least. Personally, I am attached to results.
Nobody ever said it was interactive. That's not what it's supposed to do. Sure I've killed a few folks with Courser beats but it's rare and not really on my radar.
If they don't kill it right off the rip you're good. And as MrRotten also pointed out...this happens.
This is the last I'll say on the subject. This is awesome and keeps me thinking, so thank you to any and all participants.
Interesting how you have been having more success since adding Courser of Kruphix, and most other people are collectively having more success after cutting it.
I have an aggro heavy meta as well -- which is why I changed things up a little bit in the MB and SB. I RE-added Ultimate Price to the MB and moved 1 Abrupt Decay back to the SB. I also dropped the 2x Golgari Charm and added 2x Fog -- yes -- I know its "fog," but honesty it does whats needed AND it can protect "walkers" as well 8D
As for burn, the only advise I can give is drop in those extra counter-spells from ur SB.
I know it's a bit early to predict this, but anyone have any guesses to what cards we should be picking up that we sobt run right now for post-rotation. Obviously Khans isn't leaked yet so it's hard to tell, but I know in picking Couraers up with a lot of the removal rotation out and allst the entire mono black engine rotating as well. I didn't know if anyone else had any clues what else might be good after rotation.
Ok guys I just figure something out after doing some research on all the top 10 decks in standard format. I notice that all the aggro decks in this format are Non-enchantment creatures. The only full enchantment creature deck that is still floating around but don't see that much play is a Black/Green Constellation deck.
G/W aggro - only enchantment creature is Boon Satyr
Naya aggro - same thing some run Boon Satyr and some build include non-enchantment creature.
Jund aggro - Only Courser of Kruphix
Jund walker - Same only Kruphix
U/W control - nothing
Hex proof - Nothing some might have Boon Satyr
Mono Black aggro / Rakdos aggro - Only have Herald of Torment and Gnarled Scarhide
Mono Blue = Nothing beside Thassa but that ***** is indestructible anyway.
Mono Black devotion - Nothing
These are deck's that I can think of off the top of my head that you will find in the Meta right now. Most of them don't run that much enchantment creature.
So I think its wise to use Extinguish All Hope, 4BB - " Destroy all non-enchantment creatures " . I think the casting it cost is reasonable especially in our deck that is running more then enough Mana to cast it. With the enchantment creatures that Extinguish can't handle we still have AEtherspourts to handle it and also the spot removal with hero downfall.
I'm going to add some in my play test to see how it work out. This deck seem like it have a hard time vs super aggro deck and lets face it Hornet Nest might not slow them down fast enough. I'm willing to sacrifice my caryatid to kill 4-5 of their creatures.
I do not think that the answer to an aggro rush is a SIX mana sorcery. Try it out, sure, but at that point you might as well be casting Gaze of Granite, which is FAR more flexible. Vault accomplishes the same task with 5 mana out, as does Aetherspouts.
Moreover, I have played many BG Constellation decks online, so you will run into them. BG Dredge uses quite a few enchantment creatures as well.
Finally, Golgari Charm (regen all) and Boros Charm (all permanents are indestructible) will stop any sweeper of this kind. We might as well stick with Perilous Vault, which also exiles the indestructible gods.
Both Spouts and Vault have one additional benefit: they can both be fired off during the opponent's turn, potentially. Certainly they can still cast spells in the second main phase, but we get to untap with a mostly clean board most of the time after one of those sweepers.
could they golari charm and boros charm with vault going off too? I was thinking of running both.
Actually Gaze of Granite might be a better option. Does it also destroy bestow enchantments also? Like nighthoweler if they were to bestow that on one of their creature?
Yes I also have a difficult time vs super aggro decks. I played yesterday TNM, end up 2-2-1. First lost to gw aggro then lost to jund walkers. The tie was vs another gw aggro, he got couple bad draws. The AEtherspouts save me couple times but need to find a way to completely remove their creatures. I think vault take to long and also they will hold their creatures until they can remove the vault.
I'm thinking about dropping the Hornet Nest from the SB and replacing it with Drown in Sorrow. Its the same CC (more/less) and I think with all the little aggro decks running around it may be the better answer.
WR burn: Bow of Nylea is extremely good vs WR burn. Sadly in game 1 I found it very difficult to win the match, IMO is almost an auto loss. But game two with discard, cheap counters and bow...is a different story. Also the sphinxes with their hexproof went a long way in these games.
Also in some of the matches something I did not understand happened, if any one could explain it would be appreciated. I play Nissa and animate a citadel. Next turn he plains Chained to the Rocks. I thought the land would be removed, but... oh surprise... he got control of it as a land !! What is the rule for this ? I thought it was weird.
Mono red: I lost miserably to it G1 also. He would kill me so fast that it was not even fun, specially if he went burning-tree and creature in t2. G2... well it depends on the Hornest Nest. What do you guys think of Golgari charm ? 2 in the 75 ?
Cheers
One thing that I have found in my own testing, however, is that this very fact is leverage. What I mean is this:
a) BUG control/walkers not a common deck;
b) Folks are used to the fact that killing Courser is usually unfavorable, vis-à-vis G/x Monsters decks.
Mine usually stick. No one knows what to do against me because they don't know what's coming. Polukranos? Desecration Demon? They play it safe and hold their removal and I thereby gain cards and life while they're waiting. I think this may be partly why I am successful with them and like them and have chosen to continue with them.
As I said, your reasoning is still solid and your observation of Reid Duke's article is intriguing. However, I continue to be successful with Courser so do the Jund walker decks. Particularly when a growing percentage of the field is R/x aggro. Why doesn't Jund drop Courser? Surely by now it would have become obvious that it's subpar. Right...? Not being facetious—just saying.
Anyway, I think we're both going to find things that support our reasonings. Not a lot can be done about that.
What's the difference between "going over" with Mistcutter and "going under" with it? Playing it at 3 vs. playing it at 5? Just curious.
I mean, I guess if your opponent does not know what cards are in the BUG card pool, they could assume Courser is not worth killing, but the lack of R is a pretty dead give away that you are not going to be rolling out fast and hard hitting creatures/walkers or slip a game away on the back of a Ghor-Clan Rampager.
Also, Jund is a Monsters deck and their threats are compacted pretty well on the curve.
The difference between playing Mistcutter Hydra on turn 3 as opposed to turn 6, is that you are getting more cumulative damage in in which your opponent spending 4 mana to deal with it, either taps them out enough to let you resolve a bigger threat, or you are able to play the catch up game and win any counter wars over a threat. You are bottle necking their mana on future plays, because at some point, they have to tap 4+ mana to deal with the Hydra or they die. Playing Hydra later in the game, means less damage and a harder time capitalizing on the removal of the Hydra. Winning the late game against UW Control decks, is not easy - Revelations will bury you often times and by going under a Verdict, you are able to command the pace of the game much better than if you were to try and go over.
So I went for a list with Caryatid, Courser AND sphinx (as the BUG THS block list) plus assorted removal and PW's. I run no counters MD but run 6 counters + more discard in sb for the control matchup (sphinx is king/queen there) . All in all, the matchup vs aggro and fast decks has improved a lot. The courser is not only a good blocker but gains me life and CA in general. True it can be killed, but that is time in my favor until I can hit the Aethersprout, vault, etc. So depending of the meta I say go for courser =)
A question: have people considered Gaze of Granite ? Seems like a nice reset button which can be played 'early' (T4-5 ...same as aethersprout I guess) vs some decks, or even in the ate game as a (virtually) one sided sweeper vs. aggro. Any thoughts on this ?
4 Xenagos, the Reveler
4 Nissa, Worldwaker
2 Chandra, Pyromaster
1 Vraska the Unseen
Creature (12)
4 Elvish Mystic
4 Sylvan Caryatid
4 Courser of Kruphix
Sorcery (8)
2 Thoughtseize
3 Mizzium Mortars
2 Dreadbore
1 Rakdos's Return
Instant (5)
1 Golgari Charm
1 Abrupt Decay
1 Putrefy
2 Ultimate Price
2 Mutavault
3 Forest
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
3 Llanowar Wastes
4 Stomping Ground
4 Temple of Abandon
1 Blood Crypt
4 Temple of Malice
2 Thoughtseize
1 Mizzium Mortars
1 Golgari Charm
1 Rakdos's Return
2 Magma Spray
4 Mistcutter Hydra
2 Doom Blade
2 Scavenging Ooze
As you can see, this deck, if subjected to your reasoning for excluding Courser from BUG, would not run it either. Yet here were have a Top 8 appearance—at a Pro Tour, no less—with four copies main board. For me, that's solid evidence.
Agreed. The game we play against control is all about leverage and tempo. If we're not forcing them to expend cards, we're not doing it right. I really like the following as a baseline against U/x control in the sideboard:
3-4 Duress
2 Mistcutter Hydra
1-2 Negate
This theory might work for a little while... but then there will be a time it won't.
I think this is probably why I was a big advocate for Courser, then suddenly one day found it to be lacking simply because people knew to kill it.
Perhaps they understood my deck better, knew that I wasn't following Courser up with Polukranos and/or Desecration Demon or other bigger threats and I was more of a Control Deck, Walkers; and Courser really does a lot to smooth my draws out and so they absolutely made sure they killed it the first chance they get.
It has become less and less effective to rely on; so I have since cut it.
So I think you're right, but what happens if/when they understand your deck and know there's no other bombs coming other than walkers?
Your asking why Jund Walkers list does not drop Courser, as if the same conclusion would be drawn at the same time by everyone. Not everyone can automatically notice in depth interactions and come to the same conclusion. This is why testing teams are so critical and if you have ever done any grinding with teams, you will know that value that comes out of them when you are stuck on a notion that is indeed incorrect. Reid Duke mentions at the end of his article that his Courser/Caryatid brews were just not good enough to deviate from the Team Channel Fireball's deck, and Jund Planeswalkers is among those. It was not a conclusion that just Reid Duke came to, it was the entire Channel Fireball team. So why did a Jund Walkers list make top 8? Simple variance. Look at the top 8 of the PT, variance was everywhere - not a single deck managed to seat 2 people into the top 8.
Whether Reid Duke and the rest of the Channel Fireball team came to the direct conclusion that Courser is bad for these walker decks or not, it is acknowledge by Reid Duke an a very indirect manner when he assesses how Planeswalker heavy decks tend to fall short by lack of interaction in the early stages of the game. Courser does not interact with your opponent. It just doesn't.
Another thing is that most people know that BUG Walkers is a brew deck, it is not something people are completely oblivious to. When the cat is out of the bag, you don't get to put it back in the bag without getting scratched.
I get that you, and a few others are attached to Courser of Kruphix, I understand how the card works - but I am telling you that for anyone wanting to make their walkers work, the most efficient way is with early interaction that does not allow your board state to fall behind because Courser will allow you to just fall behind.
Running redundant answers is going to give you more consistency in managing the board until your walkers can come online and start gaining you incremental advantages to break the symmetry of the game and bring you to a win.
I didn't start having success with any of my BUG brews until I included Courser. In fact, I resisted it for some time and tried many other avenues. Some closer to what you are currently running.
If you're going to say that variance is the only thing responsible for the Jund walkers top 8 at the Pro Tour, then I don't really see why arguing this back and forth is productive. Either Courser or no Courser is no longer relevant, and both strategies become equally viable. Using that reasoning, at least. Personally, I am attached to results.
Nobody ever said it was interactive. That's not what it's supposed to do. Sure I've killed a few folks with Courser beats but it's rare and not really on my radar.
If they don't kill it right off the rip you're good. And as MrRotten also pointed out...this happens.
This is the last I'll say on the subject. This is awesome and keeps me thinking, so thank you to any and all participants.
Seems somewhat indicative of a sideboard card.
Creatures: 5
1 AEtherling
4 Sylvan Caryatid
Walkers: 9
1 Garruk, Apex Predator
3 Jace, the Living Guildpact
3 Kiora, the Crashing Wave
2 Nissa, Worldwaker
Instants: 18
3 Abrupt Decay
4 AEtherspouts
4 Dissolve
4 Hero's Downfall
2 Jace's Ingenuity
1 Ultimate Price
4 Breeding Pool
2 Darksteel Citadel
1 Llanowar Wastes
4 Overgrown Tomb
3 Temple of Deceit
4 Temple of Malady
3 Temple of Mystery
2 Watery Grave
2 Yavimaya Coast
1 Abrupt Decay
1 Dispel
2 Fog
4 Hornet Nest
3 Mistcutter Hydra
2 Negate
2 Perilous Vault
Thoughts?
Modern
UWGB 4c Snow Control BGWU
As for burn, the only advise I can give is drop in those extra counter-spells from ur SB.
Modern
UWGB 4c Snow Control BGWU
G/W aggro - only enchantment creature is Boon Satyr
Naya aggro - same thing some run Boon Satyr and some build include non-enchantment creature.
Jund aggro - Only Courser of Kruphix
Jund walker - Same only Kruphix
U/W control - nothing
Hex proof - Nothing some might have Boon Satyr
Mono Black aggro / Rakdos aggro - Only have Herald of Torment and Gnarled Scarhide
Mono Blue = Nothing beside Thassa but that ***** is indestructible anyway.
Mono Black devotion - Nothing
These are deck's that I can think of off the top of my head that you will find in the Meta right now. Most of them don't run that much enchantment creature.
So I think its wise to use Extinguish All Hope, 4BB - " Destroy all non-enchantment creatures " . I think the casting it cost is reasonable especially in our deck that is running more then enough Mana to cast it. With the enchantment creatures that Extinguish can't handle we still have AEtherspourts to handle it and also the spot removal with hero downfall.
I'm going to add some in my play test to see how it work out. This deck seem like it have a hard time vs super aggro deck and lets face it Hornet Nest might not slow them down fast enough. I'm willing to sacrifice my caryatid to kill 4-5 of their creatures.
What do you guys think?
Moreover, I have played many BG Constellation decks online, so you will run into them. BG Dredge uses quite a few enchantment creatures as well.
Finally, Golgari Charm (regen all) and Boros Charm (all permanents are indestructible) will stop any sweeper of this kind. We might as well stick with Perilous Vault, which also exiles the indestructible gods.
Both Spouts and Vault have one additional benefit: they can both be fired off during the opponent's turn, potentially. Certainly they can still cast spells in the second main phase, but we get to untap with a mostly clean board most of the time after one of those sweepers.
My two cents, anyway.
Actually Gaze of Granite might be a better option. Does it also destroy bestow enchantments also? Like nighthoweler if they were to bestow that on one of their creature?
I am finding RDW and WR matches tough, border unwinnable g1 using kamahl's list. What are everyone else's experiences in these matchup?
On the other hand making the deck anti aggro with curser, etc. makes it vulnerable to control and RBG matchups. Any suggetiosn on a balanced build?