Planar Bridge was great vs Ad Naus - just kept chaining Karn's FTW. However, I've found myself boarding Planar Bridge out a lot, especially on the draw. It's awesome when it hits, letting you tutor for T4 Ugin, or an attacking T5 Emrakul, but the problem is that I find myself wanting to cast other cards in my hand rather than Planar Bridge (if I have a threat) - and usually if I'm doing that, I've probably already won the match and Bridge is just overkill.
Thanks for the lists, guys.
This is exactly what I found with Planar Bridge. I never found myself 'wanting' to cast it. I think it could be cool, but I think it would be a dedicated build.
I've never switched off of GR myself, but I feel like Blessed Alliance is a much stronger card, especially if Infect is present at all in your meta. Save your life on T2, and provide nice advantage later.
I primarily play GW and I prefer Blessed Alliance. I may test a Timely Reinforcements, but I like the versatility of the Blessed Alliance. Being active a turn earlier is great.
For the GR players, could someone share a current list? I'm looking to build it on MTGO and am interested in some specifics. Hit me up by PM if you prefer. Thanks!
Has anyone tried out Orbs of Warding? I was thinking of giving it a shot. After getting wrecked by Ad Nauseam, RG Shift, and (of all things) 8Rack at my last tournament, I was thinking of trying to run Leylines of Sanctity, maindeck at that. It seems like it really hurts a lot of our harder matchups, especially game 1. On the downside, it does nothing against aggressive decks, plus to maximize it you have to be running 4 copies and that takes up a lot of space. Then I remembered there was a card that gives you hexproof and also slows down aggressive decks in Orbs or Warding. You can't get it out on turn 1 but the only matchup it's really dead in is the mirror. I was thinking of running 2 copies maindeck, replacing my Relics. Anyone ever given it a go and have any input?
I believe this is another case of you would literally want any other card to advance your game state. The earliest this can come down is turn 3 (with full tron) and it is completely reactive. Against fast aggro, O-Stone would be better (especially with an extra mana to activate it) and against burn, you would be better off with Thragatusk (life gain), Batterskull, Blessed Alliance (GW), etc.
I haven't tested it yet, but what do you guys think of Thorn of Amethyst in the board for combo? On MTGO, there has been a definite up-tick in combo (Cheerios and Ad Nauseum, both) and it feels like Thorn would stop both pretty easily. It's a bump for us, but against those decks, we are usually just goldfishing for mana early and having an extra mana doesn't seem that bad. Thoughts?
Playing suboptimal cards for the chance of a risky payoff is a trap.
Also, using Bridge to fetch a Skite to defend the former assumes you have it sitting with eight untapped mana in play. Imagine how much better off you would have been with any of the other major threats already.
- the inclusion of bridge in my deck wasn't instead of any threats, it was replacing a couple of relic of progenitus or something. In those instances where I topdecked bridge or had it in my opener, it wasn't ever at the expense of a major threat in the deck, because they were already in there, not being drawn. If no#44 card in the deck used to be relic and is now bridge, when I draw card no#44 I'm not "missing out" on a karn or a wurmcoil or whatever. In that sense, you don't have to make the binary argument that drawing a more direct threat would be better than drawing bridge. You should instead argue that drawing relic is better than drawing bridge (I think bridge is, for reasons I'll outline later. Read on).
- Eye of ugin (bridge's closest analogue?) didn't help our bad matchups very much, if we're honest. That's why the deck used to run 4 pyroclasm maindeck. Instead it offerered versatility and a toolbox, and the ability to respond to certain situations deftly rather than just relying on a lucky topdeck. It engendered choice and plays which were favourable to a specific game-state. This is something the deck had lost until now. It's a valuable currency when trying to navigate the twists and turns of a load of unpredictable matchups over many rounds. It's the kind of thing we probably want to grab hold of and test thoroughly.
- Granted, if you cast stirrings and see a bridge and an Ugin, you're more than likely taking the ugin. Does this make bridge completely unplayable? No! As stated before, it doesn't have to replace your threats, just compliment them and act as an additional one itself.
- As I showed last night to my opponents' dismay, bridge can get lands. Ghost quarter or other tron lands is a legitimate thing to get, if going for a bomb would otherwise leave you vulnerable. Having a bridge in play and untapped mana means you are in complete control of the game, almost no matter what happens. That's an effect worth having, even if it's not as direct or fast as karn or ugin (but also because in a pinch bridge can represent either of these, and more)
I agree, numbers beat anecdote in the larger sense of viability, but recognise that we also need adopters. People willing to try the card on the larger stage and see where the deck goes, rather than dismiss after only a week of the card being legal. That may not be you, but it doesn't matter. We have to test the card *shrug*. Think of it as a versatility option, not a replacement for a threat.
I think you both have reasonable points to make and the testing should help.
Thenarus makes a great point above. Using Bridge sub-optimally is bad for this deck. Paying 14 for a Spellskite or a land means that either a) you're already winning or b) you needed anything but a Planar Bridge the turn you cast it.
Purklefluff also makes a good point that people need to test. We need to be aware of biases, though, and they are creeping into your post. If your build is not shorting threats, then you are increasing threat density (a good thing), but you need to track how often Bridge was dead and how often you win without it - not how often it works perfectly (outcome bias). Already, from what you said, "if you cast stirrings and see a bridge and an Ugin, you're more likely taking the ugin" makes me believe Bridge isn't worth it. You're last point kind of confirms it for me - "Having a bridge in play and untapped mana means you are in complete control of the game, almost no matter what happens." The question is - how often is this turn 3 and 4?
I'll keep my eye out for the same thing Thenarus suggested, tournament (or even MTGO league) results. I won't minimize the value of FNM testing, but, again, we need to filter the outcome bias. It's great to win, but we have to be more critical in order to properly evaluate.
Do you think there is room for both? I haven't tinkered too much with all the new cards, etc. entering, but I feel like there are a couple of slots opened up with the format becoming a hair slower. I expect with the shift there will be more decks gunning for Tron, especially post-board, and Heroic Intervention looks like a tool for the box.
If you cast Planar Bridge on turn 3, and you don't die on your opponent's following turn... (cuz bridge does nothing on entering)
you pretty much won the game on your turn 4. right? right.
How would you win on turn 4 (outside of concession)?
I think the fastest route to victory is (I think):
Turn 3 - Planar Bridge (off Tron)
Turn 4 - Land (need 8 mana to activate Bridge)
Next Opponent Turn - Activate Bridge - Search Emrakul, The Aeons Torn and put it into play
Turn 5 - Attack with Emrakul (15 damage and they sacrifice 6 permanents) - Activate Bridge for Ugin (3 more damage probably wins with their fetches) or Karn (would finish clearing their board) or pretty much anything you want since you still have Emrakul out for turn 6
I've talked about the lesser-seen advantages of what bridge offers, so I won't go into it again. There's some testing and number-munching to be done in order to find out how best it fits into the deck, but on paper it looks like a significant power-up for the deck in terms of achieving eye of ugin-levels of versatility/choice within games. It also allows your deck to run Emrakul. I've said it before, but simply having the option there is not to be underestimated. Missing out on the cast triggers is immaterial. Instant speed EoT Emrakul, swing with annihilator 6 for 15 damage is enough. As far as other cast triggers go, the only one that matters is ulamog, and so you could quite easily read the landscape of a game and decide that back-to-back karns is what you need, or ugin followed up by Emrakul, or whatever. You have the option, which is the powerful thing. Once you see a bridge on top, your range of choices and lines of play increase a huge amount.
I bolded the section that I'm most concerned with in your post. As I said earlier, I'm interested to see the testing results (I'll even test it if Bridge isn't insanely priced online). The cast triggers of the big Eldrazi isn't immaterial. Sneaking Ulamog into play and then attacking with him is very underwhelming. Casting him from your hand on turn 4 or 5 is an almost auto-scoop from half the decks in modern. Missing a cast trigger on Emrakul the first, you can miss it - Annihilator 6 is an extra turn when you can sneak him in on their EOT (especially if it's turn 4).
I think the other issue is that the only issue Bridge solves is drawing win-cons. I really don't think it opens up more lines of play. It's not powerful enough to cast and win, though, which is why I question it. It's a play and win 2 turns later (even with Emrakul 1) card and those have been notoriously inconsistent through the years.
I'm on the fence. Reliance on Bridge could make us more susceptible to disruption. Testing will tell.
I don't want my question to sound too simple (or snobbish), but why do you need Planar Bridge at all?
After reading the last couple pages of discussion (a couple of times), I understand what it does, but I'm not seeing how it makes any match-up (in particular) noticeably better. I play GW and my toughest matchups are the ones where a natural turn 3 Karn isn't enough - Burn, Infect, Zoo, Ad Nauseum. Most of these decks don't even afford me the 4th-5th turn to sweep and if I miss even a simple step early, it's a lost cause. Against all of those decks, Turn 3 Bridge, Turn 4 Activation is going to be too late. [I keep looking at GR and GB as potential 'upgrades', but keep returning to GW as I feel the sideboard options are still the best].
In almost every other match-up I feel like we are able to go with our general game plan and the match-up is at least 50-55% in our favor. Early turns - develop mana, middle turns - sweep, late turns - win. Yes, I can see how an active Bridge gets you inevitability, but I find almost every threat the deck plays gives you that. Turn 3 Bridge into Turn 4 EOT Emrakul into Turn 5 win is awesome, but this deck already has the potential of Turn 3 Karn into Turn 4 Ulamog which is gg in most matches (especially if they missed a land drop along the way).
As I've read the last couple of posts, I can see where you might push a match-up from 50-55% to 52-57% in your favor, but I'm not really convinced by the arguments [I'll wait to hear testing results for a final judgement]. Specifically, to the downside mentioned - (1) Bridge taking a spell spot is HUGE. I think the generic need for Relic of Progenitus is lower, so there may be a couple spots available, but the need to NOT draw into Bridge threats is huge too. Each threat you draw minimizes the impact of a Bridge. (2) Bridge is tough because you can't rely on it, but your build needs to take it into consideration. As is pointed out, drawing a threat makes you less reliant on Bridge, but you need enough Bridges to make it relevant/worth playing. I think with the filtering, shuffle, etc. 2 should be plenty [I wouldn't play it maindeck as a 1-of and 3-4 would likely make it the focus of the deck.] (3) Artifact removal is on the rise, even maindeck. This card makes it all more relevant and powerful against us. I can see siding it out - a lot. Cards that get sided out of every match-up are usually not warranted either. Some further counterpoints to the 'upsides' - (1) Sanctum is still worth running. I run a 1-of and find it totally worth it. With 2 Bridges that I don't need to cast, Sanctum is a 'free' way to include a powerful tutor. Casting Ulamog into next turn Ulamog usually gets a concession (putting one into play won't). (2) I can probably count the number of times I'm 'mana-screwed' at 7 mana on 1 hand. I'm either color-screwed or trying to find a land to get past 8 or 9 mana to turn on Ulamog. (3) If unanswered and you stabilize, literally any threat this deck plays wins the game. In fact, sometimes you don't even need to stabilize completely with Ulamog and/or Ugin.
I'm interested to hear how testing goes and I would never try to minimize the benefits of trying new cards or strategies, but I think it's important to evaluate how much it's doing for us.
Kozilek's Return #1 only kills - unpumped Tireless Tracker, unflipped Duskwatch Recruiter, Selfless Spirit, and Thalia. It is countered by Spell Queller, Selfless Spirit, Archangel Avacyn, and Dromka's Command (for the most part). Playing 2-3 mainboard, I have not been able to say this is any more than 1-for-1 removal, usually a Selfless Spirit or an unflipped Tracker.
Kozilek's Return #2 obviously does much better as it kills pretty much everything, but it still is countered by Spell Queller, Selfless Spirit, and Archangel Avacyn. With only 2-3 mainboard ways to flash it back, this isn't going to hit as often as needed.
Chandra is the other potential sweep, but she can only go to 4 which misses Advocate, a pumped Tracker, and the Archangel (maybe). While being countered by Spell Queller, Selfless Spirit, Archangel Avacyn and, maybe, the occasional Command save a guy.
I don't usually get too nutted up over what 'can be countered' since it's usually a weak argument, but in this case, nearly all of our advantage spells can be undercut by multiple spells which are all at lower mana cost. While we do have counters, counters look really bad right now and force us to play a slow deck even slower. If we can't rely on our sweepers to actually sweep... where does that leave us?
I haven't been able to make it work, but I still enjoy the archetype and am certainly interested in what the PT brings to the table.
I'm interested to know if anyone is having luck with this deck since Eldritch Moon hit. I haven't had much as I find Kozilek's Return to be really bad against the Company lists. The first one you cast might net you a 1-for-1 and that's just not enough to get you to 10 mana (or even 6 for Chandra). Interested to see if others experiences are similar...
Really great write-ups, guys. I played Armageddon Stax eons ago and did a lot of playtesting, etc. Recently, I've come back to the archetype and I've played a little with some of the Dutch Stax lists, but really found the WW in the cost of all the key cards to be pretty brutal. That's also been my hang-up on Elspeth. Love the idea, but just can't get myself into a situation where I had the right mana when I needed to drop him. I also play exclusively online anymore and with the amount of Miracles you face, the heavy anti-creature package just wasn't working for me.
I've been playing this list to some success in tournament practice and the occasional 2-man queue...
I'm certainly open to ideas and am hoping that I will have some more time to play a bit more (online, of course) over the next couple of months. In the main deck, I think Golem is one of the weakest cards. He was ideal in Vintage Stax, but he comes off as win-more in this list. If he sticks, you'll win, but if he sticks, you were probably winning anyways. I also think that Smokestack is weak, especially if Pyromancer or Mentor is generating tokens, but it's about the best available for the effect. May be worth a sweeper in the side to strengthen it similar to how Armageddon does... As far as the side goes, I've found Suppression Field to be a great general answer to the current meta and Council's Judgment to be the only answer to True-Name Nemesis, but, again, I'm open to ideas...
2/4 blocker on turn 3 that discounts a lot of relevant cards - basically everything in these lists except for Planeswalkers and non-Devoid counterspells.
Or is there something else we'd rather be doing on turn 3?
I've been running a (fairly messy) Grixis Eldrazi control deck for a while now, and I'm currently trying to clean it up. I think I'll be cutting black and going to U/R, and I'm wondering why none of these lists I'm seeing run Herald.
Pre-Eldritch Moon, I play it in a more control-oriented fashion. Turn 3 I am usually keeping up Void Shatter or Spell Shrivel mana, especially since the opponent's turn 4 can hit us with Gideon or CoCo (much worse if we are on the draw). Post-EMN, I kind of feel like Herald of Kozilek is not a spell I want to get hit with Reflector Mage or Spell Queller as the lost tempo seems like it would be brutal.
I agree, although sanctum chaining deep-fiends seems pretty cool. I could definitely see cutting a hedron archive, but it depends on what you're cutting it for.
I think this is my problem with jamming emerge creatures into this deck... 'it seems pretty cool'.
If you really look at it, though, the value of emerge is casting it early for an advantage... Turn 3 Matter Reshaper, into Turn 4 Elder Deep-Fiend, but on Turn 4, can you really afford to sac Sanctum of Ugin? I'm thinking with only 25 lands (no Mage-Ring), the answer is likely 'No'. Of course you can later, but if you are paying 'fair' mana-cost for the Emerge creatures, there may be better value elsewhere and I'm not sure I'd go UR at that point. [If I'm being super-critical of his list, I also don't like that 6 of the 10 3-drops used for acceleration die to new Liliana's +1 ability. That will be a tempo killer.]
I'm interested to see if this deck has legs post rotation or what colors it shifts into, UB may be a strong control combination with some combo potential...
I disagree with you about Coax, I think it honestly helps out a lot of matchups, it lets you have a more diverse range of options and that can go a really long way, while I agree paying the 3 extra mana sucks, against certain decks you could easily grab a bomb a turn before you play it. It definetly needs testing because I am obviously talking out of my rear end.
Take Inventory v.s. Anticipate is hard for me, I think the idea is you are only playing Take Inventory when you need a land drop (which honestly shouldn't be until turn 4 or 5 if you are unlucky) or late game when you have already settled the board, where Anticipate becomes better is that it helps you dig and see more cards like you said. From just play testing with my opponents in casual play I seem to like Take Inventory for the raw card advantage that it gives me and also how it accelerates off it itself.
All in all the deck does need a lot of testing, but I hope that having a more toolboxy deck allows less awkward defeats when exiling two permanents isn't enough because they have Declaration in Stone (I'm looking at you Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger)
I'll reserve real disagreement until I see it in some competitive testing (it's all just discussion right now). I'm not sure I'd characterize it as helping "a lot of matchups". The tough cards and decks are faster than us, taking two turns or needing 13 mana to land our bomb isn't going the right direction (on paper anyways). I agree having a toolbox or an out against Infinite Obliteration or even Transgress the Mind would be worth 1-2 sideboard slots, but I'm not convinced it's an auto-include in the first 60...
Same thing with Take Inventory. In this deck, I feel like search trumps advantage. I played with Dragonlord's Prerogative in some testing and it was always win-more. With the typical set-up right now, we have 4x Anticipate, 4x Hedron Archive, 2x Jace, and 2x Chandra which all function as draw and search. I find it not uncommon that I see 50% of my deck in a game with what is already there. If we swap Anticipate out for Inventory, I don't see as many, but draw more. Again, I don't think it's going to help the current 'bad' match-ups because instead of 'scrying' the lands/useless stuff to the bottom, they will end up in hand. In my opinion, this deck wins because our card quality is ultimately better than others, but the deck doesn't necessarily top-deck better since we play so many lands. The filters of Anticipate, Jace and Chandra all help that.
Did anyone else address this point? Honestly, it seems very risky for what you get since you're also potentially giving your opponent more gas too. I have often found myself topdecking in the late game, and would like a way to dig super deep since we don't have dig through time anymore. Drawing a single counterspell or land late-game feels so bad when you're facing down a never-ending army of bant company dudes...
How are you potentially giving your opponent gas? Take Inventory only looks at your graveyard, it's templated differently than Ancestral Knowledge.
What do you guys think of having a one of each of the Eldrazi titans plus maybe a few other good Eldrazi cards in the Sideboard and running Coax from the Blind Eternities? Random idea that popped into my head. It might be too janky, but I do like the idea of having a toolbox(ish) sideboard. http://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/443650#paper
There is 1 "flex" slot in the whole list and that's what Confirm Suspicions is in, I cut a Hedron Archive because I feel like the deck just doesn't need 4, 3 is super reasonable. Brutal Expulsion is also another reasonable choice, let me know! Criticism is welcomed!
I'm by no means an expert with the deck, but I've been playing it for a few weeks now online. I don't think I'd use Coax in the maindeck instead of Ulamog. Ulamog at 10 is already a build-up and at 13 it's back-breaking. I think it may be reasonable to sideboard it for games where Infinite Obliteration is used, but that's as far as I would go.
I would also question Take Inventory over Anticipate. I think the dig with Anticipate is needed in this deck and I think the instant vs sorcery is very relevant. It might be worth testing, but I think you'll see more cards with Anticipate and the filter outweighs the advantage in this case. At least in my estimation.
Also, props to those of you playing in the pptqs. Great to see and hear about. In my experience, the RG Ramp match isn't as bad as it looks on paper. It's a straight race and you do need to counter their ramp. I usually board in extra counters and ignore the early removal. Their early creatures can be ignored, but if you let them get to 6, 8, 10 lands you are definitely in trouble. I also play an Oblivion Sower in my 'flex' slot and he does a lot of work against a lot of decks in the format.
Thanks for the lists, guys.
This is exactly what I found with Planar Bridge. I never found myself 'wanting' to cast it. I think it could be cool, but I think it would be a dedicated build.
I primarily play GW and I prefer Blessed Alliance. I may test a Timely Reinforcements, but I like the versatility of the Blessed Alliance. Being active a turn earlier is great.
For the GR players, could someone share a current list? I'm looking to build it on MTGO and am interested in some specifics. Hit me up by PM if you prefer. Thanks!
I believe this is another case of you would literally want any other card to advance your game state. The earliest this can come down is turn 3 (with full tron) and it is completely reactive. Against fast aggro, O-Stone would be better (especially with an extra mana to activate it) and against burn, you would be better off with Thragatusk (life gain), Batterskull, Blessed Alliance (GW), etc.
I haven't tested it yet, but what do you guys think of Thorn of Amethyst in the board for combo? On MTGO, there has been a definite up-tick in combo (Cheerios and Ad Nauseum, both) and it feels like Thorn would stop both pretty easily. It's a bump for us, but against those decks, we are usually just goldfishing for mana early and having an extra mana doesn't seem that bad. Thoughts?
I think you both have reasonable points to make and the testing should help.
Thenarus makes a great point above. Using Bridge sub-optimally is bad for this deck. Paying 14 for a Spellskite or a land means that either a) you're already winning or b) you needed anything but a Planar Bridge the turn you cast it.
Purklefluff also makes a good point that people need to test. We need to be aware of biases, though, and they are creeping into your post. If your build is not shorting threats, then you are increasing threat density (a good thing), but you need to track how often Bridge was dead and how often you win without it - not how often it works perfectly (outcome bias). Already, from what you said, "if you cast stirrings and see a bridge and an Ugin, you're more likely taking the ugin" makes me believe Bridge isn't worth it. You're last point kind of confirms it for me - "Having a bridge in play and untapped mana means you are in complete control of the game, almost no matter what happens." The question is - how often is this turn 3 and 4?
I'll keep my eye out for the same thing Thenarus suggested, tournament (or even MTGO league) results. I won't minimize the value of FNM testing, but, again, we need to filter the outcome bias. It's great to win, but we have to be more critical in order to properly evaluate.
Do you think there is room for both? I haven't tinkered too much with all the new cards, etc. entering, but I feel like there are a couple of slots opened up with the format becoming a hair slower. I expect with the shift there will be more decks gunning for Tron, especially post-board, and Heroic Intervention looks like a tool for the box.
How would you win on turn 4 (outside of concession)?
I think the fastest route to victory is (I think):
Turn 3 - Planar Bridge (off Tron)
Turn 4 - Land (need 8 mana to activate Bridge)
Next Opponent Turn - Activate Bridge - Search Emrakul, The Aeons Torn and put it into play
Turn 5 - Attack with Emrakul (15 damage and they sacrifice 6 permanents) - Activate Bridge for Ugin (3 more damage probably wins with their fetches) or Karn (would finish clearing their board) or pretty much anything you want since you still have Emrakul out for turn 6
Is there a faster line of play?
I bolded the section that I'm most concerned with in your post. As I said earlier, I'm interested to see the testing results (I'll even test it if Bridge isn't insanely priced online). The cast triggers of the big Eldrazi isn't immaterial. Sneaking Ulamog into play and then attacking with him is very underwhelming. Casting him from your hand on turn 4 or 5 is an almost auto-scoop from half the decks in modern. Missing a cast trigger on Emrakul the first, you can miss it - Annihilator 6 is an extra turn when you can sneak him in on their EOT (especially if it's turn 4).
I think the other issue is that the only issue Bridge solves is drawing win-cons. I really don't think it opens up more lines of play. It's not powerful enough to cast and win, though, which is why I question it. It's a play and win 2 turns later (even with Emrakul 1) card and those have been notoriously inconsistent through the years.
I'm on the fence. Reliance on Bridge could make us more susceptible to disruption. Testing will tell.
After reading the last couple pages of discussion (a couple of times), I understand what it does, but I'm not seeing how it makes any match-up (in particular) noticeably better. I play GW and my toughest matchups are the ones where a natural turn 3 Karn isn't enough - Burn, Infect, Zoo, Ad Nauseum. Most of these decks don't even afford me the 4th-5th turn to sweep and if I miss even a simple step early, it's a lost cause. Against all of those decks, Turn 3 Bridge, Turn 4 Activation is going to be too late. [I keep looking at GR and GB as potential 'upgrades', but keep returning to GW as I feel the sideboard options are still the best].
In almost every other match-up I feel like we are able to go with our general game plan and the match-up is at least 50-55% in our favor. Early turns - develop mana, middle turns - sweep, late turns - win. Yes, I can see how an active Bridge gets you inevitability, but I find almost every threat the deck plays gives you that. Turn 3 Bridge into Turn 4 EOT Emrakul into Turn 5 win is awesome, but this deck already has the potential of Turn 3 Karn into Turn 4 Ulamog which is gg in most matches (especially if they missed a land drop along the way).
As I've read the last couple of posts, I can see where you might push a match-up from 50-55% to 52-57% in your favor, but I'm not really convinced by the arguments [I'll wait to hear testing results for a final judgement]. Specifically, to the downside mentioned - (1) Bridge taking a spell spot is HUGE. I think the generic need for Relic of Progenitus is lower, so there may be a couple spots available, but the need to NOT draw into Bridge threats is huge too. Each threat you draw minimizes the impact of a Bridge. (2) Bridge is tough because you can't rely on it, but your build needs to take it into consideration. As is pointed out, drawing a threat makes you less reliant on Bridge, but you need enough Bridges to make it relevant/worth playing. I think with the filtering, shuffle, etc. 2 should be plenty [I wouldn't play it maindeck as a 1-of and 3-4 would likely make it the focus of the deck.] (3) Artifact removal is on the rise, even maindeck. This card makes it all more relevant and powerful against us. I can see siding it out - a lot. Cards that get sided out of every match-up are usually not warranted either. Some further counterpoints to the 'upsides' - (1) Sanctum is still worth running. I run a 1-of and find it totally worth it. With 2 Bridges that I don't need to cast, Sanctum is a 'free' way to include a powerful tutor. Casting Ulamog into next turn Ulamog usually gets a concession (putting one into play won't). (2) I can probably count the number of times I'm 'mana-screwed' at 7 mana on 1 hand. I'm either color-screwed or trying to find a land to get past 8 or 9 mana to turn on Ulamog. (3) If unanswered and you stabilize, literally any threat this deck plays wins the game. In fact, sometimes you don't even need to stabilize completely with Ulamog and/or Ugin.
I'm interested to hear how testing goes and I would never try to minimize the benefits of trying new cards or strategies, but I think it's important to evaluate how much it's doing for us.
Kozilek's Return #1 only kills - unpumped Tireless Tracker, unflipped Duskwatch Recruiter, Selfless Spirit, and Thalia. It is countered by Spell Queller, Selfless Spirit, Archangel Avacyn, and Dromka's Command (for the most part). Playing 2-3 mainboard, I have not been able to say this is any more than 1-for-1 removal, usually a Selfless Spirit or an unflipped Tracker.
Kozilek's Return #2 obviously does much better as it kills pretty much everything, but it still is countered by Spell Queller, Selfless Spirit, and Archangel Avacyn. With only 2-3 mainboard ways to flash it back, this isn't going to hit as often as needed.
Chandra is the other potential sweep, but she can only go to 4 which misses Advocate, a pumped Tracker, and the Archangel (maybe). While being countered by Spell Queller, Selfless Spirit, Archangel Avacyn and, maybe, the occasional Command save a guy.
I don't usually get too nutted up over what 'can be countered' since it's usually a weak argument, but in this case, nearly all of our advantage spells can be undercut by multiple spells which are all at lower mana cost. While we do have counters, counters look really bad right now and force us to play a slow deck even slower. If we can't rely on our sweepers to actually sweep... where does that leave us?
I haven't been able to make it work, but I still enjoy the archetype and am certainly interested in what the PT brings to the table.
I've been playing this list to some success in tournament practice and the occasional 2-man queue...
4 Ancient Tomb
4 City of Traitors
4 Flagstones of Trokair
1 Karakas
2 Mishra's Factory
6 Plains
4 Wasteland
Creatures (5)
3 Lodestone Golem
2 Thought-Knot Seer
4 Mox Diamond
4 Thorn of Amethyst
3 Crucible of Worlds
3 Trinisphere
2 Banishing Light
4 Ghostly Prison
2 Smokestack
2 Armageddon
2 Ravages of War
4 Chalice of the Void
3 Rest In Peace
3 Suppression Field
3 Council's Judgment
4 Leyline of Sanctity
2 Grafdigger's Cage
I'm certainly open to ideas and am hoping that I will have some more time to play a bit more (online, of course) over the next couple of months. In the main deck, I think Golem is one of the weakest cards. He was ideal in Vintage Stax, but he comes off as win-more in this list. If he sticks, you'll win, but if he sticks, you were probably winning anyways. I also think that Smokestack is weak, especially if Pyromancer or Mentor is generating tokens, but it's about the best available for the effect. May be worth a sweeper in the side to strengthen it similar to how Armageddon does... As far as the side goes, I've found Suppression Field to be a great general answer to the current meta and Council's Judgment to be the only answer to True-Name Nemesis, but, again, I'm open to ideas...
Pre-Eldritch Moon, I play it in a more control-oriented fashion. Turn 3 I am usually keeping up Void Shatter or Spell Shrivel mana, especially since the opponent's turn 4 can hit us with Gideon or CoCo (much worse if we are on the draw). Post-EMN, I kind of feel like Herald of Kozilek is not a spell I want to get hit with Reflector Mage or Spell Queller as the lost tempo seems like it would be brutal.
I think this is my problem with jamming emerge creatures into this deck... 'it seems pretty cool'.
If you really look at it, though, the value of emerge is casting it early for an advantage... Turn 3 Matter Reshaper, into Turn 4 Elder Deep-Fiend, but on Turn 4, can you really afford to sac Sanctum of Ugin? I'm thinking with only 25 lands (no Mage-Ring), the answer is likely 'No'. Of course you can later, but if you are paying 'fair' mana-cost for the Emerge creatures, there may be better value elsewhere and I'm not sure I'd go UR at that point. [If I'm being super-critical of his list, I also don't like that 6 of the 10 3-drops used for acceleration die to new Liliana's +1 ability. That will be a tempo killer.]
I'm interested to see if this deck has legs post rotation or what colors it shifts into, UB may be a strong control combination with some combo potential...
I'll reserve real disagreement until I see it in some competitive testing (it's all just discussion right now). I'm not sure I'd characterize it as helping "a lot of matchups". The tough cards and decks are faster than us, taking two turns or needing 13 mana to land our bomb isn't going the right direction (on paper anyways). I agree having a toolbox or an out against Infinite Obliteration or even Transgress the Mind would be worth 1-2 sideboard slots, but I'm not convinced it's an auto-include in the first 60...
Same thing with Take Inventory. In this deck, I feel like search trumps advantage. I played with Dragonlord's Prerogative in some testing and it was always win-more. With the typical set-up right now, we have 4x Anticipate, 4x Hedron Archive, 2x Jace, and 2x Chandra which all function as draw and search. I find it not uncommon that I see 50% of my deck in a game with what is already there. If we swap Anticipate out for Inventory, I don't see as many, but draw more. Again, I don't think it's going to help the current 'bad' match-ups because instead of 'scrying' the lands/useless stuff to the bottom, they will end up in hand. In my opinion, this deck wins because our card quality is ultimately better than others, but the deck doesn't necessarily top-deck better since we play so many lands. The filters of Anticipate, Jace and Chandra all help that.
How are you potentially giving your opponent gas? Take Inventory only looks at your graveyard, it's templated differently than Ancestral Knowledge.
I'm by no means an expert with the deck, but I've been playing it for a few weeks now online. I don't think I'd use Coax in the maindeck instead of Ulamog. Ulamog at 10 is already a build-up and at 13 it's back-breaking. I think it may be reasonable to sideboard it for games where Infinite Obliteration is used, but that's as far as I would go.
I would also question Take Inventory over Anticipate. I think the dig with Anticipate is needed in this deck and I think the instant vs sorcery is very relevant. It might be worth testing, but I think you'll see more cards with Anticipate and the filter outweighs the advantage in this case. At least in my estimation.
Also, props to those of you playing in the pptqs. Great to see and hear about. In my experience, the RG Ramp match isn't as bad as it looks on paper. It's a straight race and you do need to counter their ramp. I usually board in extra counters and ignore the early removal. Their early creatures can be ignored, but if you let them get to 6, 8, 10 lands you are definitely in trouble. I also play an Oblivion Sower in my 'flex' slot and he does a lot of work against a lot of decks in the format.