I don't think I've gone below 1 Leak against Burn, even on the draw. You probably have enough counters to not worry about having too few without it, though.
I agree on Merfolk. It is a nice answer if they don't have Vial, but those games are probably already in our favour. We probably have cards to bring in that are better than the first Leak/Deprive.
I kind of like some Leaks against Zoo (maybe not the one-drop one) and Elves. Mainly on the play. It gets better against Big Zoo, but that isn't overly aggressive anyways.
Lemonbuster, that is a very interesting list. As a Traverse user, I love that you are having success with it. Do you find that losing two copies of Mandrills has hurt your linear matchups much? Do you have much trouble being the beatdown with that list? Also, has the single Pyroclasm (which probably shows up less consistently than the tutorable Lavamancer) been enough to handle decks that go wide?
Thanks! I think Traverse is the lynchpin that gives this deck a fighting chance. It allows us to run 17 lands again like the good old day's, lets us grind against the removal heavy decks, and gives us access to additional counters/reach in the linear matchups all while 'fixing' otherwise unkeepable one land hands.
The linear mathups are still this deck's bread and butter. I must have faced Burn 10 times since my last loss to it, which is great if youre playing online. Decks like storm, AN, Living End, Titanshift, Puresteel, and to a lesser extend Dredge are all still heavily favored. While yes, there will be less early mandrills, those decks have little to no removal so clocking them with just one or two of my 11 proactive threats has been more than enough, especially when you consider goyf alongside tarfire/bauble is generally much larger than a 4/5. Once a clock is established you simply have to not run out of counters in those matchups and traverse--->snapcaster does that better than any other card. That's why I think its frivolous to worry about threat density in those matchups when interaction density is much more important. Increased access to snapcaster mage (without having to ruin the deck by running more than 2) more than compensates for having less 4/4's in the deck, especially when using a traverse to search for a mandrills is just a two mana chain, easily accomplished with counter mana up. Additionally, using traverse for snapcaster to simply burn an opponent out before their critical turn is another function travese provides in these matchups. When you just need to draw a bolt it sure helps when you can tutor for one.
Any deck that isn't linear and forces my resources, delerium will be enabled with ease and using it to find a beater is more than efficient, most certainly allowing the beatdown role there even in lieu of a full four mandrills.
Losing lavamancer hurts particularly against Merfolk, affinity, D&T, mana dorks, and elves but the only one of those matchups I consider bad is merfolk so not having it there is tough because it was so easy to gameplan around enabling delerium, finding lavamancer, and mowing things down. Other creature decks for the most part are great matchups so perhaps that itself is the biggest indicator that losing lavamancer isnt a huge blow. Pyroclasm isn't something I would want more than one of because I board out my delvers less than most people and I hate the way it conflicts with snapcaster and huntmaster but it's the best at what it does and it's a glaring hole in my sideboarding strategy without a sweeper. I liked firespout for the longest time but now that it hits renegade im not so sure. Could be overthinking it and it should just be EE though.
Traverse for Snapcaster into Snap-Bolt is rapidly becoming one of my favourite ways to close games. It gives us extra outs when we are in topdeck mode and have just a turn before the opponent takes over the game. I think I actually did this to Tron once.
While you still have high threat density, having fewer Mandrills reduces the number of threats that come down quickly. You do have plenty of interaction, but my concern was that your chances of landing a threat by turn 2 are lower. That is probably balanced by having more interaction though (you being a turn slower some games doesn't matter if the opponent is slowed down an extra turn too).
Exactly! it just gives you so many more ways to topdeck a win. Late late game it feels a lot more like demonic tutor.
I will say that running a single renegade MD is a concession to having less mandrills and needing that extra proactive early beater, but 13 threats is pretty similar to what most lists without curator are running. When you draw multiple mandrills early you're likely stuck with one in hand so having threat diversity in renegade sometimes allows you to be more aggressive, not less. In addition to traverse helping with the threat density, essentially being at 56 cards again due to bauble make me feel okay about being one or two creatures down compared to others. Additionally, although anecdotal, id say my stubborn denial potency hasn't dropped off a bit despite only having six enablers.
The final advantage to 2 mandrills is that I don't need to board them out to bring in reveler. I'm not delving enough to mitigate the impact of reveler in the right matchups.
Mnesci thanks for the thorough analysis of my post.
So I'm now led to believe that the only point left against deprive is that you're forced to fetch aggressively. Well, as far as my playstyle goes, I like to fetch very aggressively on the blind and I'd fetch like that even if I didn't have deprive in hand, or even in the deck, It doesn't make any difference since we really really need blue mana regardless.
I have an amazing win ratio against burn, like 85%. I usually take an average of 4-6 damages per game from lands and I'm not afraid of doing so, bacause the truth is that having access to better mana actually SAVES you life by the end of the game, and this is the focal point here. How many times did you pass the turn without playing a cantrip in order to keep countermagic up because you fetched for basic island/st. ground instead of pool/vents? Well those turns you pass COST YOU LIFE!
Well maybe it's just my personal preference, but fetching aggressively most of the times has led me to the best results. The only times where I fetch for basics is when I already have 3+ lands in hand.
Be a man. Next time, look straight into the burn opponent's eyes and prudly say: fetch, shock, seventeen, delver pass. Fetch, shock, 3 more, goyf go. I'm not afraid!!!
Makes sense. We do this in Counter-Cat and it works fine.
After more games with a tweaked build I believe I've had a revelation about RUG Delver, although I know most of you guys may disagree with me. I think we're too inconsistent without Probe. Traverse and Sleight are really poor replacements for what amounts to extra (and better) Scours. Our options are to play awful cantrips like Bauble that don't synergize enough with the deck and hurt Delver, or to cut Mandrills in some number. The former option gives us more consistency problems, and the latter hurts our ability to run Denial, which is one of the main draws to the deck IMO.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
So I'm now led to believe that the only point left against deprive is that you're forced to fetch aggressively. Well, as far as my playstyle goes, I like to fetch very aggressively on the blind and I'd fetch like that even if I didn't have deprive in hand, or even in the deck, It doesn't make any difference since we really really need blue mana regardless.
I have an amazing win ratio against burn, like 85%. I usually take an average of 4-6 damages per game from lands and I'm not afraid of doing so, bacause the truth is that having access to better mana actually SAVES you life by the end of the game, and this is the focal point here. How many times did you pass the turn without playing a cantrip in order to keep countermagic up because you fetched for basic island/st. ground instead of pool/vents? Well those turns you pass COST YOU LIFE!
Maybe it does mostly come down to playstyle.
You are absolutely correct that having access to better mana will save you life over the course of a game. I don't think you need UU very early though. Maybe you use more U due to having the extra Denial and Pierce. Not playing the cantrip could cost you the game. This is of course very dependent on the hand. I do think there are many hands with which you should fetch Island Stomping Ground instead of Steam Vents Breeding Pool. Many hands are surely the opposite as well, and justify getting UU.
Here is a concise presentation of my thoughts on Deprive vs Leak:
1) A certain percentage of games are lost due to taking extra damage getting shocks due to having Deprive instead of Leak (there are definitely hands with Leak with which you should get a basic and a shock to preserve life. I don't know how common they are, but they exist).
2) A certain percentage of games are lost due to running Deprive because you have insufficient mana (you naturally draw a forest or stomping and don't have the option to get UU in time).
3) A certain percentage of games are lost due to running Leak and not being able to counter a spell (they can pay 3).
If P(1)+P(2) is less than P(3), we should all be playing Deprive. I don't know which cases are more likely, but I don't think it is as simple as you've put it previously(the only downside to Deprive being X, so Deprive is better).
Edit: I forgot that Deprive makes you bounce a land.
4) A certain percentage of games which you lose due to bouncing the land and stalling land drops (probably something like counter a spell with 2 lands in play, and not be able to play a 2 drop plus interaction in a game where you needed the third mana that turn).
5) A certain percentage of games which you lose with Leak because you didn't get to bounce and replay a land during a game in which you needed the extra mana on that turn.
Deprive is better if P(1)+P(2)+P(4) is less than P(3)+P(5)
As in, you lose fewer games due to having Deprive than due to having Leak.
This is of course nearly impossible to determine statistically with accuracy (magic has a boatload of variance; many samples would be necessary). My goal isn't to probabilistically determine which is better, but to model the problem in a way that demonstrates all advantages and disadvantages.
Mnesci thanks for the thorough analysis of my post.
So I'm now led to believe that the only point left against deprive is that you're forced to fetch aggressively. Well, as far as my playstyle goes, I like to fetch very aggressively on the blind and I'd fetch like that even if I didn't have deprive in hand, or even in the deck, It doesn't make any difference since we really really need blue mana regardless.
I have an amazing win ratio against burn, like 85%. I usually take an average of 4-6 damages per game from lands and I'm not afraid of doing so, bacause the truth is that having access to better mana actually SAVES you life by the end of the game, and this is the focal point here. How many times did you pass the turn without playing a cantrip in order to keep countermagic up because you fetched for basic island/st. ground instead of pool/vents? Well those turns you pass COST YOU LIFE!
Well maybe it's just my personal preference, but fetching aggressively most of the times has led me to the best results. The only times where I fetch for basics is when I already have 3+ lands in hand.
Be a man. Next time, look straight into the burn opponent's eyes and prudly say: fetch, shock, seventeen, delver pass. Fetch, shock, 3 more, goyf go. I'm not afraid!!!
Makes sense. We do this in Counter-Cat and it works fine.
After more games with a tweaked build I believe I've had a revelation about RUG Delver, although I know most of you guys may disagree with me. I think we're too inconsistent without Probe. Traverse and Sleight are really poor replacements for what amounts to extra (and better) Scours. Our options are to play awful cantrips like Bauble that don't synergize enough with the deck and hurt Delver, or to cut Mandrills in some number. The former option gives us more consistency problems, and the latter hurts our ability to run Denial, which is one of the main draws to the deck IMO.
So yeah I'm not feeling optimistic
Obviously, I disagree. If anything I find Traverse makes us far more inconsistent, regardless of its ability to fetch for threats. Its why Traverse never really caught on for me. I think the Traverse build had a narrow window where it was good, but for me, the traverseless build allows us to be more consistent.
Obviously, nothing is as good as having Probe. But Sleight has done a good job in its place.
I think the worst part of losing Probe is that, as Lemonbuster said, we don't have an ideal path anymore.
When Probe was legal, there was a pretty standard core. Even if you didn't like Shoal or Leak, almost every list ran an agreed upon approximate number of cantrips, reach, bounce, counters, threats, etc. The variations were smaller.
We don't know what the best option to fill the hole is. Some play Traverse, some play Sleight, most maxed out Scour, I'm sure people are running other things too. Those differences cause other slots to change. The core is gone. That means that everyone is tuning a different list. We were already few. Now we are further split. It's a lot harder to form widespread objective opinions of slots with so few people testing whatever card. I imagine more popular decks like Jund and Affinity have a much easier time with this.
It's really a testament to the RUG Delver community we have in this little thread that we are able to collaborate and discuss the way we do. The deck is probably less competitive than it was (although we do absolutely still kick ass). I think we will get back there eventually though. I believe in us.
In post-SB games, you'll certainly remember how probes were often the first playset to leave the deck. Having 4 more cantrips to find your SB cards with is actually pretty good and improves our consistency by a lot. So yes, while it's true that without probes we steal less game ones, it's also true that our SB games improved quite a bit since then.
This is only true for sleight of hand IMO, because traverse is far too inconsistent both game one (very slow) and post SB, where graveyard hate seems to be a staple of the current format.
Yes, I remember how often. I sided out Probes in exactly the Burn matchup and kept them everywhere else.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Condescend needs a target. There will definitely be times you want to just cycle. If you topdeck Censor and want to draw a threat (or Bolt to finish off an opponent who is tapped out), you can cycle it immediately for a sorcery speed play. A very small extra point to this is the opponent can Remand their spell to fizzle your scry.
Scry 2 also isn't the same as draw 1. I'm not sure which is better- it probably depends on the situation.
Cycling is also uncounterable (generally).
The Shoal argument depends on your list. I find we often have many one-drops to pitch, and rarely have twos (I have 6 right now, while I have 17 ones).
I've never tried Condescend, but I've also never tried Censor. See how they play out, and how often you prefer one to the other.
I used to play Condescend in my RUG Midrange list. It was an awesome card, and it never got worse as the games went on. Scry 2 is what you need, sometimes, to dig for the right answer to close the game. Blind cycling just gets you the top card on your deck. You see more with a scry 2. It essentially allows you to dig up to 3 cards deep (assuming you scry 2 to the bottom). Im not sure it has a place in RUG Delver.
I like condescend as a card but this is a deck that quite often makes fewer land drops than our opponents, meaning their ability to play around it is quite high past the first few turns. In a deck like blue tron, the opposite is true and being a draw go deck they often pass turn willing to hold 3-5 mana up for a relevant condescend while we can't pass up a chance to cast our sorcery speed threats simply to hold up enough mana to make condescend work.
Scy 2 is sweet but censor just seems like a better fit here, if you were to run one.
EDIT: and to touch on probe once more, things like co sistency and velocity are critical tools prove gave us, but the main blow is the lack of information that probe provided before you had to even play your first land. Our counterspells are simply too narrow to perfectly sequence them without that information. Boy, were we spoiled.
EDIT: and to touch on probe once more, things like co sistency and velocity are critical tools prove gave us, but the main blow is the lack of information that probe provided before you had to even play your first land. Our counterspells are simply too narrow to perfectly sequence them without that information. Boy, were we spoiled.
I know everyone says that their deck is hard to play, but this deck is seriously hard to play sometimes. I fire up my critical thinking engines every time a match starts. It definitely got harder to play after Probe was banned.
I absolutely agree! I think it's the deck's playstyle that makes me love it, but the challenge is what makes it rewarding.
I think losing Probe made me a better player too. I certainly spend enough time thinking about what they could have and what the right line is. Makes me wish I had recorded some matches pre-ban so I could see how in-depth my thinking process was back then.
I agree on Merfolk. It is a nice answer if they don't have Vial, but those games are probably already in our favour. We probably have cards to bring in that are better than the first Leak/Deprive.
I kind of like some Leaks against Zoo (maybe not the one-drop one) and Elves. Mainly on the play. It gets better against Big Zoo, but that isn't overly aggressive anyways.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
The linear mathups are still this deck's bread and butter. I must have faced Burn 10 times since my last loss to it, which is great if youre playing online. Decks like storm, AN, Living End, Titanshift, Puresteel, and to a lesser extend Dredge are all still heavily favored. While yes, there will be less early mandrills, those decks have little to no removal so clocking them with just one or two of my 11 proactive threats has been more than enough, especially when you consider goyf alongside tarfire/bauble is generally much larger than a 4/5. Once a clock is established you simply have to not run out of counters in those matchups and traverse--->snapcaster does that better than any other card. That's why I think its frivolous to worry about threat density in those matchups when interaction density is much more important. Increased access to snapcaster mage (without having to ruin the deck by running more than 2) more than compensates for having less 4/4's in the deck, especially when using a traverse to search for a mandrills is just a two mana chain, easily accomplished with counter mana up. Additionally, using traverse for snapcaster to simply burn an opponent out before their critical turn is another function travese provides in these matchups. When you just need to draw a bolt it sure helps when you can tutor for one.
Any deck that isn't linear and forces my resources, delerium will be enabled with ease and using it to find a beater is more than efficient, most certainly allowing the beatdown role there even in lieu of a full four mandrills.
Losing lavamancer hurts particularly against Merfolk, affinity, D&T, mana dorks, and elves but the only one of those matchups I consider bad is merfolk so not having it there is tough because it was so easy to gameplan around enabling delerium, finding lavamancer, and mowing things down. Other creature decks for the most part are great matchups so perhaps that itself is the biggest indicator that losing lavamancer isnt a huge blow. Pyroclasm isn't something I would want more than one of because I board out my delvers less than most people and I hate the way it conflicts with snapcaster and huntmaster but it's the best at what it does and it's a glaring hole in my sideboarding strategy without a sweeper. I liked firespout for the longest time but now that it hits renegade im not so sure. Could be overthinking it and it should just be EE though.
While you still have high threat density, having fewer Mandrills reduces the number of threats that come down quickly. You do have plenty of interaction, but my concern was that your chances of landing a threat by turn 2 are lower. That is probably balanced by having more interaction though (you being a turn slower some games doesn't matter if the opponent is slowed down an extra turn too).
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
I will say that running a single renegade MD is a concession to having less mandrills and needing that extra proactive early beater, but 13 threats is pretty similar to what most lists without curator are running. When you draw multiple mandrills early you're likely stuck with one in hand so having threat diversity in renegade sometimes allows you to be more aggressive, not less. In addition to traverse helping with the threat density, essentially being at 56 cards again due to bauble make me feel okay about being one or two creatures down compared to others. Additionally, although anecdotal, id say my stubborn denial potency hasn't dropped off a bit despite only having six enablers.
The final advantage to 2 mandrills is that I don't need to board them out to bring in reveler. I'm not delving enough to mitigate the impact of reveler in the right matchups.
After more games with a tweaked build I believe I've had a revelation about RUG Delver, although I know most of you guys may disagree with me. I think we're too inconsistent without Probe. Traverse and Sleight are really poor replacements for what amounts to extra (and better) Scours. Our options are to play awful cantrips like Bauble that don't synergize enough with the deck and hurt Delver, or to cut Mandrills in some number. The former option gives us more consistency problems, and the latter hurts our ability to run Denial, which is one of the main draws to the deck IMO.
So yeah I'm not feeling optimistic 🤕
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Maybe it does mostly come down to playstyle.
You are absolutely correct that having access to better mana will save you life over the course of a game. I don't think you need UU very early though. Maybe you use more U due to having the extra Denial and Pierce. Not playing the cantrip could cost you the game. This is of course very dependent on the hand. I do think there are many hands with which you should fetch Island Stomping Ground instead of Steam Vents Breeding Pool. Many hands are surely the opposite as well, and justify getting UU.
Here is a concise presentation of my thoughts on Deprive vs Leak:
1) A certain percentage of games are lost due to taking extra damage getting shocks due to having Deprive instead of Leak (there are definitely hands with Leak with which you should get a basic and a shock to preserve life. I don't know how common they are, but they exist).
2) A certain percentage of games are lost due to running Deprive because you have insufficient mana (you naturally draw a forest or stomping and don't have the option to get UU in time).
3) A certain percentage of games are lost due to running Leak and not being able to counter a spell (they can pay 3).
If P(1)+P(2) is less than P(3), we should all be playing Deprive. I don't know which cases are more likely, but I don't think it is as simple as you've put it previously(the only downside to Deprive being X, so Deprive is better).
Edit: I forgot that Deprive makes you bounce a land.
4) A certain percentage of games which you lose due to bouncing the land and stalling land drops (probably something like counter a spell with 2 lands in play, and not be able to play a 2 drop plus interaction in a game where you needed the third mana that turn).
5) A certain percentage of games which you lose with Leak because you didn't get to bounce and replay a land during a game in which you needed the extra mana on that turn.
Deprive is better if P(1)+P(2)+P(4) is less than P(3)+P(5)
As in, you lose fewer games due to having Deprive than due to having Leak.
This is of course nearly impossible to determine statistically with accuracy (magic has a boatload of variance; many samples would be necessary). My goal isn't to probabilistically determine which is better, but to model the problem in a way that demonstrates all advantages and disadvantages.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
Obviously, I disagree. If anything I find Traverse makes us far more inconsistent, regardless of its ability to fetch for threats. Its why Traverse never really caught on for me. I think the Traverse build had a narrow window where it was good, but for me, the traverseless build allows us to be more consistent.
Obviously, nothing is as good as having Probe. But Sleight has done a good job in its place.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I still think being competitive isn't an issue, but we're miles behind where we were a few months ago, and the format is always getting stronger.
When Probe was legal, there was a pretty standard core. Even if you didn't like Shoal or Leak, almost every list ran an agreed upon approximate number of cantrips, reach, bounce, counters, threats, etc. The variations were smaller.
We don't know what the best option to fill the hole is. Some play Traverse, some play Sleight, most maxed out Scour, I'm sure people are running other things too. Those differences cause other slots to change. The core is gone. That means that everyone is tuning a different list. We were already few. Now we are further split. It's a lot harder to form widespread objective opinions of slots with so few people testing whatever card. I imagine more popular decks like Jund and Affinity have a much easier time with this.
It's really a testament to the RUG Delver community we have in this little thread that we are able to collaborate and discuss the way we do. The deck is probably less competitive than it was (although we do absolutely still kick ass). I think we will get back there eventually though. I believe in us.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I was being tongue and cheek about it. But yes, obviously.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Scry 2 also isn't the same as draw 1. I'm not sure which is better- it probably depends on the situation.
Cycling is also uncounterable (generally).
The Shoal argument depends on your list. I find we often have many one-drops to pitch, and rarely have twos (I have 6 right now, while I have 17 ones).
I've never tried Condescend, but I've also never tried Censor. See how they play out, and how often you prefer one to the other.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Scy 2 is sweet but censor just seems like a better fit here, if you were to run one.
EDIT: and to touch on probe once more, things like co sistency and velocity are critical tools prove gave us, but the main blow is the lack of information that probe provided before you had to even play your first land. Our counterspells are simply too narrow to perfectly sequence them without that information. Boy, were we spoiled.
I know everyone says that their deck is hard to play, but this deck is seriously hard to play sometimes. I fire up my critical thinking engines every time a match starts. It definitely got harder to play after Probe was banned.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I think losing Probe made me a better player too. I certainly spend enough time thinking about what they could have and what the right line is. Makes me wish I had recorded some matches pre-ban so I could see how in-depth my thinking process was back then.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg