I could be mistaken, but the one-two retreats in those lists indicates to me that the deck is moving further away from the combo and turning into an even more midrange deck.
I decided to post my Wednesday night modern games. I was running a fairly standard list with a Clique instead of a third retreat. Also, I like voice.
Round 1 - Grixsis Delver: 2-0 - got a little land screwed even with a Courser out and so the game went a fair bit longer than it needed to, but it's a fairly one sided matchup. Enough said.
Round 2 - Sun and moon: 2-1 - Game one I couldn't find a keep-able hand until I had 2 cards. Obviously, I lost. Game 2 I sided out all the paths because they're next to useless and brought in my negates as well as the forge tender (I thought I would try one in my side for the night). Game 2 I dropped an early skite which ate a Journey to nowhere. I waited till knight was a 4/4 before I dropped it. Then, in response the an anger of the gods, I sacrificed pridemage to kill the journey to get back skite. I managed think drop two more knights and I kept swinging with both knight and skite (playing around Nahiri and blessed Alliance). From there, I won. Game 3, I collected companied into a spell queller (for his chandra) and a selfless spirit. I Townshipped a few times and won through a bit of removal.
Side note: What do you guys do against sun and moon? While I've beaten sun and moon 2 out of the three times I've played it, I feel like it was due to luck. Especially with the new bans, I feel like they are our worst matchup (Valakut is close but I keep winning). Maybe I'm just being paranoid though by the fact that they're one of two match losses in the past 35ish matches.
Round 3 - R/G Tron: 2-1 - Game one I didn't see a third land so I couldn't company after Ugin the spirit dragon for his last three life. I brought in three negates and a Ghost Quarter for a Courser, two Scavenging oozes and a skite. In hindsight, I feel like maybe I should have boarded out One path. Anyway, in game two, I turn two spell queller a Ancient Stirrings. He draws natural tron, but doesn't draw a threat before I win. In other words, turn two spell queller probably won me the game. Game three, I Clique away his ugin. He drops an oblivion stone. As I had company in my hand, I just attacked with my voice and Clique before passing (dropping him to 8). He couldn't really play a threat and o-stone so he just passed and popped o-stone in response to attacking. With two companies now in hand, I passed. He Karned away my voice token before passing where I Cocoed into two spell quellers aND attacked for 4 before passing again. He Karned away a land forcing me to coco where I got a Knight and a pridemage. He then dropped an ulamog. To me, this was the most interesting moment in the game. He didn't have red mana for a Pyroclasm effect. I didn't have any white mana for my path. Obviously, as he was at four, he had to kill a spell queller. Thus, the only way for him to live would be exile a queller and pridemage (I had a Hierarch in hand) and hope I don't topdeck a white source. He missed this and took knight instead and I won.
The format isn't going to slow down a lot, but it should slow down a little. Without perfect information, a lot of decks are going to have to be weary of a few open mana. Also, fatal push should help heavy removal decks, like grixis delver, a little. As I think we have really strong matchup against heavy removal decks (I run 3 voice), I am more than happy for them to get a boost to keep other decks in line.
If you are looking for more grindy creatures, I think Tireless Tracker is better than Duskwatch Recruiter. Tireless tracker can serve as a win-con, is more likely to have an immediate impact (it's easier to play a land than to have three mana open), and has incredible synergy with knight. Also, even if you draw a land with the clue, he makes it almost a redraw. Lastly, drawing means that you can hit a Coco or a path.
I would reword Tarmogoyf as we tend not to use walkers. Also, the description of Pridemage still refers to the non-existent twin deck. I would also move Kitchen Finks to the sideboard area.
I've decided that I'm going to try a Vendilion Clique because why not. I do have a question though. How frequently would you guys say you could cast it on curve?
Most lists I see are running 0-3 Blessed alliances (I run three) and 0-3 staticasters (I also run three). That's a lot of really good infect hate. Adding Melira would just be overkill. Besides, staticaster can be hit off company.
Evolution knightfall and company knightfall, while similar, are fairly different decks. From my understanding, evolution tries to maximize the value of every card played. Of course, company tries to maximize value too, but part of the way it does that is through sheer numbers. Thus, I would imagine that evolution is better against decks where a single card can defeat there gameplan (Melira, Sylvok Outcast for infect, Eidolon of Reteric for storm). However, I would argue that most modern decks aren't all in on a combo. In other words, most decks have a certain degree of grindy-ness to them. As such, the pure card advantage that collected company brings (at least 2:1) makes it on average better against most decks. Additionally, company is an instant which let's us play more during our opponent's turn.
Two important things to note: 1. As pointed out above, one of these strategies is not strictly better. 2. Personal playstyle will trump averages. For example, some people would argue that infect is better than company knightfall. However, I understand knightfall vastly better. For the past four FNM, I've gone 4-0. I don't think that would happen with infect. I give this example to show how my personal preference for knightfall allows me to do better.
That said, I almost exclusively play company knightfall. I point this out to ask, am I missing anything?
Let's start with Clique. Clique has flying which makes it evasive. Combine this with it's 3 power and it can hit hard. It attacks the hand. This fact, I would argue, is more a control ability.
Let's continue with Courser. I would argue that Courser has defensive stats designed more to defend, but still with the ability to provide some form of a clock. He doesn't have any evasion. Additionally, Courser has a super grindy ability in that he filters your draws and provides some marginal lifegain. He also helps you plan future turns in the form he shows you (and your opponent) the top card of your deck. Lastly, he makes comboing off a way to gain life (or at least come out about neutral).
Now, let's compare them. I would argue that, while they go about it in vastly different ways, Courser and Clique do fairly similar things. I would argue that both of them are designed to net you "cards" and stall the game (albeit Courser is designed a lot more for stalling). Clique serves these roles, typically, by trading cards from your opponent's hand. This generates a virtual card advantage because, typically, the card your opponent will draw to replace it won't be as good. When you combine that with the fact that Clique attacks for at least three practically unblockable damage, Clique can really speed up the clock. As such, I would argue that Clique is better than Courser in matchups where your opponent is hoarding cards and you're role is to aggro (like Ad Nauseum). However, I would say that, overall, Courser is better. I say this for a few reasons. One of them is that, between township and wolfrun, we have can always use with more mana. In those cases where we actually don't want more mana, Courser helps filter to non-mana stuff so that we can go back to wanting more mana. While Clique can remove a key card in our opponent's hand and thereby net us a huge virtual card advantage, I would argue that, on average, Courser's topdeck manipulation overall generates even more virtual card advantage. Realistically, half the time, Clique is going to be a 1 for 1.5 (as most decks aren't an all in combo) while Courser will be a 1 for more than that. Of course, Clique is more of an aggressive creature that helps to end the game sooner, but Clique doesn't play defense well. Courser can play both Offense and Defense. As we are already running a few fliers and plenty of exalted creatures, I would argue that Courser's flexibility in the form that he can play defense makes his overall stat distribution more advantageous.
Lastly, Clique can be rather challenging to cast without a mana dork. This challenge in casting can lead to a loss in tempo that outweighs the advantages it provides. As knightfall is first and foremost a tempo deck, this is incredibly important to keep in mind.
Bottom line, Clique attacks the hand is a better aggro creature, but Courser is a better grindy creature. As we already have a lot of aggro creatures, the added flexibility of Courser to both be aggressive and to grind makes it an overall more flexible, more tempo oriented, and thereby more useful creature.
To be fair though, I haven't played nearly as much with Clique as I have Courser. Anyone see something I am missing?
We want to keep our non-Plains or non-forests to a minimum. Other than fetches, the only ones should be utility lands to maximize knights ability and combo potential.
I don't even have to try void grafter to know that he doesn't belong. The most obvious reason is that there are better things to do with three mana. However there are other rather good reasons as well. 1. Magic usually rewards the proactive player. Even path to exile is frequently a bad top deck and void grafter would usually be worse. 2. I'm vastly more afraid of the matchups where hexproof is almost useless (infect, tron, titanshift) than the matchups where it isn't (jund, grixis). 3. 2 power creatures like Courser already annoy me for being such a slow clock. Void grafter would only slow our clock even more. 4. He just straight-up doesn't do enough.
If you feel that your meta is full of removal and need something good then just run more voice.
You want a few retreats mainboard. The card is by far the worst thing in the deck, but some matchups you really need that "Oops, I win" factor. Not seeing them with consistency is good because you never want to draw more than one. That said, in the matchups when you need to draw one, there is still always a chance.
I'm super confused about this voice conversation. Obviously, voice isn't that great when my opponent doesn't kill it (like against tron). As such, I only run three, but I can easily see myself running a full playset in a different meta. The card is insane. Thus, I'm confused as to what the issue with the card is. He blocks and he's big. What makes him bad?
When siding against Abzan and Jund, it's also important to note roles. Against them, we are the aggressor. We usually win by out temping them and forcing bad trades (like chumping with goyf).
Admittingly, Birds of Paradise is a terrible top deck late game. However, Birds and Noble Hierarch make for the best turn one we have because they help us win the tempo race. The same is true of spellskite. Spellskite doesn't help us win the game. If they don't draw removal, spellskite does next to nothing. It lines up nicely with bolt, but it's usually better to just have cards that win us the game. Qasali Pridemage, on the other hand, is usually cut because what we bring in is better than it. If we were to only cut five cards, the pridemage would stay.
Once again from my experience, usually if I can get a early board advantage, I win. As such, I would follow the guide because that's what it is playing towards.
Round 1 - Grixsis Delver: 2-0 - got a little land screwed even with a Courser out and so the game went a fair bit longer than it needed to, but it's a fairly one sided matchup. Enough said.
Round 2 - Sun and moon: 2-1 - Game one I couldn't find a keep-able hand until I had 2 cards. Obviously, I lost. Game 2 I sided out all the paths because they're next to useless and brought in my negates as well as the forge tender (I thought I would try one in my side for the night). Game 2 I dropped an early skite which ate a Journey to nowhere. I waited till knight was a 4/4 before I dropped it. Then, in response the an anger of the gods, I sacrificed pridemage to kill the journey to get back skite. I managed think drop two more knights and I kept swinging with both knight and skite (playing around Nahiri and blessed Alliance). From there, I won. Game 3, I collected companied into a spell queller (for his chandra) and a selfless spirit. I Townshipped a few times and won through a bit of removal.
Side note: What do you guys do against sun and moon? While I've beaten sun and moon 2 out of the three times I've played it, I feel like it was due to luck. Especially with the new bans, I feel like they are our worst matchup (Valakut is close but I keep winning). Maybe I'm just being paranoid though by the fact that they're one of two match losses in the past 35ish matches.
Round 3 - R/G Tron: 2-1 - Game one I didn't see a third land so I couldn't company after Ugin the spirit dragon for his last three life. I brought in three negates and a Ghost Quarter for a Courser, two Scavenging oozes and a skite. In hindsight, I feel like maybe I should have boarded out One path. Anyway, in game two, I turn two spell queller a Ancient Stirrings. He draws natural tron, but doesn't draw a threat before I win. In other words, turn two spell queller probably won me the game. Game three, I Clique away his ugin. He drops an oblivion stone. As I had company in my hand, I just attacked with my voice and Clique before passing (dropping him to 8). He couldn't really play a threat and o-stone so he just passed and popped o-stone in response to attacking. With two companies now in hand, I passed. He Karned away my voice token before passing where I Cocoed into two spell quellers aND attacked for 4 before passing again. He Karned away a land forcing me to coco where I got a Knight and a pridemage. He then dropped an ulamog. To me, this was the most interesting moment in the game. He didn't have red mana for a Pyroclasm effect. I didn't have any white mana for my path. Obviously, as he was at four, he had to kill a spell queller. Thus, the only way for him to live would be exile a queller and pridemage (I had a Hierarch in hand) and hope I don't topdeck a white source. He missed this and took knight instead and I won.
Obviously, Spell Queller and Selfless Spirit need to be added.
I would reword Tarmogoyf as we tend not to use walkers. Also, the description of Pridemage still refers to the non-existent twin deck. I would also move Kitchen Finks to the sideboard area.
I would put Sejiri Steppe in the less played area.
For the side-board area, I would add Worship, Negate, Blessed Alliance, Izzet Staticaster, and rhox war monk. Also, all my sideboard images are also messed up.
Can we start working on the matchups and sideboarding section? What decklist do we want to use? I nominate BOONYARIT TRIPHONRATANA's Bant Knightfall.
Two important things to note: 1. As pointed out above, one of these strategies is not strictly better. 2. Personal playstyle will trump averages. For example, some people would argue that infect is better than company knightfall. However, I understand knightfall vastly better. For the past four FNM, I've gone 4-0. I don't think that would happen with infect. I give this example to show how my personal preference for knightfall allows me to do better.
That said, I almost exclusively play company knightfall. I point this out to ask, am I missing anything?
Let's start with Clique. Clique has flying which makes it evasive. Combine this with it's 3 power and it can hit hard. It attacks the hand. This fact, I would argue, is more a control ability.
Let's continue with Courser. I would argue that Courser has defensive stats designed more to defend, but still with the ability to provide some form of a clock. He doesn't have any evasion. Additionally, Courser has a super grindy ability in that he filters your draws and provides some marginal lifegain. He also helps you plan future turns in the form he shows you (and your opponent) the top card of your deck. Lastly, he makes comboing off a way to gain life (or at least come out about neutral).
Now, let's compare them. I would argue that, while they go about it in vastly different ways, Courser and Clique do fairly similar things. I would argue that both of them are designed to net you "cards" and stall the game (albeit Courser is designed a lot more for stalling). Clique serves these roles, typically, by trading cards from your opponent's hand. This generates a virtual card advantage because, typically, the card your opponent will draw to replace it won't be as good. When you combine that with the fact that Clique attacks for at least three practically unblockable damage, Clique can really speed up the clock. As such, I would argue that Clique is better than Courser in matchups where your opponent is hoarding cards and you're role is to aggro (like Ad Nauseum). However, I would say that, overall, Courser is better. I say this for a few reasons. One of them is that, between township and wolfrun, we have can always use with more mana. In those cases where we actually don't want more mana, Courser helps filter to non-mana stuff so that we can go back to wanting more mana. While Clique can remove a key card in our opponent's hand and thereby net us a huge virtual card advantage, I would argue that, on average, Courser's topdeck manipulation overall generates even more virtual card advantage. Realistically, half the time, Clique is going to be a 1 for 1.5 (as most decks aren't an all in combo) while Courser will be a 1 for more than that. Of course, Clique is more of an aggressive creature that helps to end the game sooner, but Clique doesn't play defense well. Courser can play both Offense and Defense. As we are already running a few fliers and plenty of exalted creatures, I would argue that Courser's flexibility in the form that he can play defense makes his overall stat distribution more advantageous.
Lastly, Clique can be rather challenging to cast without a mana dork. This challenge in casting can lead to a loss in tempo that outweighs the advantages it provides. As knightfall is first and foremost a tempo deck, this is incredibly important to keep in mind.
Bottom line, Clique attacks the hand is a better aggro creature, but Courser is a better grindy creature. As we already have a lot of aggro creatures, the added flexibility of Courser to both be aggressive and to grind makes it an overall more flexible, more tempo oriented, and thereby more useful creature.
To be fair though, I haven't played nearly as much with Clique as I have Courser. Anyone see something I am missing?
If you feel that your meta is full of removal and need something good then just run more voice.
I'm super confused about this voice conversation. Obviously, voice isn't that great when my opponent doesn't kill it (like against tron). As such, I only run three, but I can easily see myself running a full playset in a different meta. The card is insane. Thus, I'm confused as to what the issue with the card is. He blocks and he's big. What makes him bad?
Admittingly, Birds of Paradise is a terrible top deck late game. However, Birds and Noble Hierarch make for the best turn one we have because they help us win the tempo race. The same is true of spellskite. Spellskite doesn't help us win the game. If they don't draw removal, spellskite does next to nothing. It lines up nicely with bolt, but it's usually better to just have cards that win us the game. Qasali Pridemage, on the other hand, is usually cut because what we bring in is better than it. If we were to only cut five cards, the pridemage would stay.
Once again from my experience, usually if I can get a early board advantage, I win. As such, I would follow the guide because that's what it is playing towards.
PS, against burn, pridemage kill Eidolon