Ashton's post nicely sums up my struggles since the probe ban. Seems there isn't a path left that is 'ideal'.
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.
I came back to check in with you guys to see how you've been doing, hoping for a positive surprise. I left the deck a few weeks after the Probe ban. It didn't take me more than a month to realize how much worse this deck was off without Probe, and I really did try to make it work. I felt like the deck did no longer to what it was supposed to do after it lost Probe. Gone were the days of über consistent T2 boltproof Goyf and Mandrills with counter protection up, and the loss of the hand information made our answers line up a lot worse. None of the reworked builds seem to make up for that. I'm kind of disappointed that it took you so long to realize (or just admit?), Ashton, my former Sensei, but kudos for giving it your best attempt. Losing my favourite deck ever still hurts, I have barely played the format since then.
It didn't. I have been playing Eldrazi since the ban. I just recently came back to this deck because a friend convinced me to try some other configurations but yeah it's still bad.
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.
But seriously, I think the deck is fine. If your goal is to qualify for a PT, or top 8 a GP, etc...then there are definitely easier decks to pilot out there. And that's fine.
But if you want to play a tempo game, with a challenging deck, that provides no real linear path in every game, then this deck is exactly what you want. And that's fine, too.
Im enjoying a 60-70% win rate with it (online and FNM), and thats fine for me. I dont know if Id still rock it if I were on the SCG tour (probably still would).
The deck got worse. The deck is still insanely fun (assuming you enjoy this sort of deck), and I'm still winning enough matches that I think it is viable. Probably not the best deck in Modern, but it's the best for me.
I know we discussed that tapping down isn't as good as removal a short while ago. But we don't have access to great removal so I'm all for supporting tempo.
The deck got worse. The deck is still insanely fun (assuming you enjoy this sort of deck), and I'm still winning enough matches that I think it is viable. Probably not the best deck in Modern, but it's the best for me.
My main gripe with post-Probe Grow isn`t how competitive it is or isn`t, but the fact that it doesn`t actually play like it used to do. Losing Shoal and T2 Hoot-Denial changed the deck completely. If feels kind of like Grixis Delver now, which is what I`d be playing in the first place if I wanted that. I would keep toying with it for FNM level tournaments if it played exactly the same but was less powerful, but it really doesn`t.
I envy you guys that still enjoy it, no sarcasm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
But seriously, I think the deck is fine. If your goal is to qualify for a PT, or top 8 a GP, etc...then there are definitely easier decks to pilot out there. And that's fine.
But if you want to play a tempo game, with a challenging deck, that provides no real linear path in every game, then this deck is exactly what you want. And that's fine, too.
Im enjoying a 60-70% win rate with it (online and FNM), and thats fine for me. I dont know if Id still rock it if I were on the SCG tour (probably still would).
I'm glad you guys still like and and are having fun with it. I'm a Spike, but a Johnny first, and can't ever bring myself to seriously play something I didn't design. I was playing RUG Delver back when it was trash (in the DRS-Decay days; see Primer Archives for more) because I loved the deck so much.
There are two reasons I've given up on it for now. The first is that I think it's a worse version of Death's Shadow X on just about every axis. The second is that I still have a deck I love to play---Colorless Eldrazi. Otherwise I'd either be casting Mandrills on turn three or just frantically brewing something else.
As for "this deck is viable," numbers talk. If you guys can do well at a high-profile event or even post a few consecutive 5-0 leagues, I'll probably even try your version! But if not, how am I supposed to believe a claim that goes against my own experience and has no backing? I'm not saying MG is unplayable and will never win a match. I'm just saying that a deck isn't competitively viable unless it consistently wins at competitive levels of play. I'm posting a win-rate with Eldrazi now similar to the one I had with MG back when Twin was legal, Top 16ing nearly every Comp REL event I play in and Top 8ing half. I really doubt anyone here is doing that with MG (but I would love to be wrong, so correct me if I am).
Wizards loves touting Modern as “wide-open,” a claim bolstered by the format’s incredibly diverse pool of viable decks. With so many options available to them, deckbuilders are bound to ask broader questions about archetype superiority. Is Allies just a worse Merfolk? Goblins, a worse Zoo? Bubble Hulk, a worse Grishoalbrand? Whatever the answers to these questions, someone will play those “worse version” decks, for one of a few reasons. They might think their version has something over the more established one. Maybe they like surprising opponents with lesser-known cards. And possibly, they don’t care so much about winning percentages, and simply have their hearts set on a pet deck, no matter how bad it is. Which is fine—even for many pros, there’s more to Magic than just winning games.
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.
I did say I dont think MG is going to win any easy top 16s at major events. My winrate is at FNM and Xmage Rated. So its good in those types of events/environments. Im sure my percentages would drop closer to the 50% spot at GPs, for example. And obviously, 50% aint getting me to day 2 most of the time.
I dont think Im trying to win you over, in particular. Your goals are more about success at higher level competitions. So playing MG because its challenging is not a reason to sleeve it up for those events.
I did say I dont think MG is going to win any easy top 16s at major events. My winrate is at FNM and Xmage Rated. So its good in those types of events/environments. Im sure my percentages would drop closer to the 50% spot at GPs, for example. And obviously, 50% aint getting me to day 2 most of the time.
I dont think Im trying to win you over, in particular. Your goals are more about success at higher level competitions. So playing MG because its challenging is not a reason to sleeve it up for those events.
But are you referring to challenging in the it's-hard-to-win-with-this-bad-deck sense, or challenging in the this-deck-is-very-punishing-but-also-very-rewarding sense? If the latter, wouldn't you get more out of playing a superior deck? As it stands, you can play very strong games with MG and still lose because of the deck's internal consistency and power issues. DSJ is similarly challenging in terms of combat, lines, sequencing, etc. and actually competent enough to take down events if you play well enough. Why does that not appeal to you more? Not trying to pressure you into picking up DSJ or anything, just curious about your thought process.
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.
I did say I dont think MG is going to win any easy top 16s at major events. My winrate is at FNM and Xmage Rated. So its good in those types of events/environments. Im sure my percentages would drop closer to the 50% spot at GPs, for example. And obviously, 50% aint getting me to day 2 most of the time.
I dont think Im trying to win you over, in particular. Your goals are more about success at higher level competitions. So playing MG because its challenging is not a reason to sleeve it up for those events.
But are you referring to challenging in the it's-hard-to-win-with-this-bad-deck sense, or challenging in the this-deck-is-very-punishing-but-also-very-rewarding sense? If the latter, wouldn't you get more out of playing a superior deck? As it stands, you can play very strong games with MG and still lose because of the deck's internal consistency and power issues. DSJ is similarly challenging in terms of combat, lines, sequencing, etc. and actually competent enough to take down events if you play well enough. Why does that not appeal to you more? Not trying to pressure you into picking up DSJ or anything, just curious about your thought process.
I guess it can be reduced down to personal preference. I like that it is challenging in a punish-reward kind of way. At the same time, I enjoy playing Temur colors, and I enjoy trying to make them work. My personality in the MTG world is also to go against the current best deck. At least, that's what I evolved into. I always prefer playing the underdog deck.
Plus, deep down, I always assume the deck is one new set (or ban/unban) away from being thrust back into the power seat.
Plus, deep down, I always assume the deck is one new set (or ban/unban) away from being thrust back into the power seat.
True of almost every fringe deck in Modern. A single new on-theme card often pushes them into playability or even the upper tiers. See: Storm (Baral), Cheeri0s (Sram), CoCo (Vizier), Eggs (Trawler), Colorless Eldrazi (Scourge), etc.
I think I get where you're coming from though. I like going against the grain with deck selection, too. I just can't bring myself to play something I'm so confident is a worse version of something 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.
We are playing against BW Tokens (game 2 on the draw with a basic Mountain replacing Breeding Pool) and just mulliganed two no-landers. Our five is Forest, Spreading Seas, Tarfire, Mandrills, and Huntmaster. I mulliganed again because even if I drew a Blue source for Seas, the rest of our hand was probably doing nothing for a long time. What would you do?
Enter the four: Tarfire, Tarfire, Revelry, and Mandrills. This I kept. I thought that the chances of finding a land by going to three was low. I just calculated it: 64%. That is far higher than I would have thought, although, that does include having two and three lands, which probably makes the hand about as bad. The chances of finding a land in the scry/draw are 53.5%. Knowing those probabilities, would you keep or mull at this point? I feel like my decision directly contradicted my previous one, but at the same time, going to three is very different than going to four.
For how it went: I drew a Mountain, Tarfired a Bob, drew a Forest, did nothing for a while, and eventually drew lands and threats. I drew really well I think. I ended up losing a race to a bunch of flying tokens thanks to Sorin. I believe I got as far as I did due to Revelry-ing their Relic as soon as I drew the Forest. I went with the high-variance play hoping that being able to play Mandrills and future graveyard things would win me a small percentage of games. I figured I was probably losing if I did nothing.
We are playing against BW Tokens (game 2 on the draw with a basic Mountain replacing Breeding Pool) and just mulliganed two no-landers. Our five is Forest, Spreading Seas, Tarfire, Mandrills, and Huntmaster. I mulliganed again because even if I drew a Blue source for Seas, the rest of our hand was probably doing nothing for a long time. What would you do?
Enter the four: Tarfire, Tarfire, Revelry, and Mandrills. This I kept. I thought that the chances of finding a land by going to three was low. I just calculated it: 64%. That is far higher than I would have thought, although, that does include having two and three lands, which probably makes the hand about as bad. The chances of finding a land in the scry/draw are 53.5%. Knowing those probabilities, would you keep or mull at this point? I feel like my decision directly contradicted my previous one, but at the same time, going to three is very different than going to four.
For how it went: I drew a Mountain, Tarfired a Bob, drew a Forest, did nothing for a while, and eventually drew lands and threats. I drew really well I think. I ended up losing a race to a bunch of flying tokens thanks to Sorin. I believe I got as far as I did due to Revelry-ing their Relic as soon as I drew the Forest. I went with the high-variance play hoping that being able to play Mandrills and future graveyard things would win me a small percentage of games. I figured I was probably losing if I did nothing.
I would go to 3 looking for blue source and Visions. Even a two- or three-lander with nothing else might work out since you have Masters in the deck and that card can beat the matchup alone. You're very likely to lose this game regardless but I think you have a better chance with 3 mystery cards than with that no-lander. Tarfire's also quite bad in this matchup in multiples (Bobs are rare out of that deck).
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.
Well, with nothing better to do I put my MG grow deck back to it's former glory involving probes PLUS I swapped out visions for preordain. I sat at my kitchen table and just played out a couple of cards and then scooped, shuffled, repeat.
Totally worth doing just for the smile I have messing about with my all time favorite deck.
#memories #alternateuniverse
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: MONKEY GROW & Amulet Titan Legacy: RG Lands EDH: Merieke Ri Berit Esper Good stuff
To be fair, this deck had "flash in the pan" success at the very most. Even with probe, this deck never truly took off providing very few substantial wins to reflect on. The people still playing it are the kind that probably don't find themselves contemplating to jund of any variety. They play this deck because they want to.
Guys, I just wanted to let you know that despite the deck's power level/meta positioning/whatever... I just don't care about these things at all. It is by far my favorite deck and I'm gonna sleeve it up and slam it next week at the GP Copenhagen. Hopefully, a good report is coming regardless of the result.
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.
Guys, I just wanted to let you know that despite the deck's power level/meta positioning/whatever... I just don't care about these things at all. It is by far my favorite deck and I'm gonna sleeve it up and slam it next week at the GP Copenhagen. Hopefully, a good report is coming regardless of the result.
Yeah, I didn't build this deck because I thought I was good, I built it because where else am I going to play these hooting mandrills? I built it because I feel like a god when I play turn two monkeys with a stubborn denial up. I just want to play tempo, man. I see no reason to abandon a fun deck just because it's not an all star in the current meta. Keep tuning your lists, we'll be back on top one day. Or not, I'll probably still be playing though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern U Mono Best Tron RUG Monkey Grow Delver RUGW Cats n' Gnats UR Wizard Tribal with Grapeshot Combo
After trying Soul-scar Mage, Swiftspear, Renegade/Dryad, and Curator of Mysteries in the 13th creature slot, they were all simply worse than having a third Mandrills, leaving me with the exact creature lineup I was playing before the probe ban and subsequent Traverse integration. None of the alternatives can be relied on as a singular aggressive threat to seal the game on its own like Mandrills, despite the asynergy with Traverse. There were exceptions in which some alternatives were situationaly better (particularly having a threat immune to grave hate) but game one the explosiveness is too valuable. To mitigate clunkiness with Traverse, I dropped one and added a 3rd Thought Scour to better facilitate a 3rd Mandrills and further the decks ability to fuel Traverse. The important take away i've discovered with this build is that game one using Traverse simply to hit your land drops, fuel Mandrills, and find Snapcasters to provide additional Stubborn Denials or to seal the game with Bolt is all you need out of the one mana cantrip so being 'slow' is never an issue with 13 threats. Only in grindy matchups do you have to rely on Traverse to find threats but when you need it, your graveyard will generally be stocked and it revolutionizes the midrange/control matchups. Additionally, Scour+Bauble are an excellent pair in fueling Mandrills, I'm truly surprised more people arn't running it.
The sideboard was adjusted partially to combat the recent rise of CoCo on MTGO but mostly due to the effectiveness of Narnam Renegade. 2 Narnam provides a plan to remain aggressive while boarding out Delvers to make Pyroclasm more synergistic. Renagade, along with Huntmaster, Snapcaster, and Traverse makes playing the control role in matchups where you would want Pyroclasm much more reasonable (althought I don't take out Delver against Blinkmoth Nexus). Reveler got the boot as I found myself bringing it as a rarity due to the format shifting away from grindy matchups - but remains a powerful piece for future consideration.
For the record, I think using the Spirit Bomb could get you a DQ. Outside energy to boost concentration and speed might be legal. Ask a judge. Here's some anyways!
On a more magic-related note, I am enjoying the one-off Renegade. It is very nice to have against fatties. Until the meta shifts to more Bolt-able opposing threats, I think it's a keeper. Being iffy against Endbringer (my main gripe with it against Eldrazi Tron) is pretty moot because that card gives us trouble regardlessly. I still don't think it takes the first Snapcaster's slot though.
The important take away i've discovered with this build is that game one using Traverse simply to hit your land drops, fuel Mandrills, and find Snapcasters to provide additional Stubborn Denials or to seal the game with Bolt is all you need out of the one mana cantrip so being 'slow' is never an issue with 13 threats. Only in grindy matchups do you have to rely on Traverse to find threats but when you need it, your graveyard will generally be stocked and it revolutionizes the midrange/control matchups.
The sideboard was adjusted partially to combat the recent rise of CoCo on MTGO but mostly due to the effectiveness of Narnam Renegade. 2 Narnam provides a plan to remain aggressive while boarding out Delvers to make Pyroclasm more synergistic. Renagade, along with Huntmaster, Snapcaster, and Traverse makes playing the control role in matchups where you would want Pyroclasm much more reasonable (althought I don't take out Delver against Blinkmoth Nexus).
This is exactly how I see Traverse. I use it to keep one landers (fetch Stomping Ground, Traverse for Island) regularly. It is pretty rare that I have Traverse legitimately stuck in hand (don't need lands and Delirium is off).
How are you (and everyone else) finding the CoCo matchup these days? Game 1, I feel favoured as long as I see a couple removal spells and a clock in time.
I'm interested in that sideboard plan. For some aggro decks (Zoo for example), switching Clasm for Delver seems great. Against the likes of CoCo, I usually want then dead ASAP, so I keep Delvers in to maximize the chances of having an early clock. Even if I end up Clasming my Delver(s), usually it is worth clearing the board. It's obviously better when your threats don't die to your boardwipe, but I don't think the Renegades do the trick when a topdecked CoCo can steal them the game. Slowing down for Huntmaster and friends is good, but that might be too slow for combo. Now that I think of it, I might not even bring in Moon against them (I used to bring it for Township, but it might not be worth the Tempo now).
I think I'll give some Baubles another spin once I am done with Curiosity and Spreading Seas. I know Bauble helps with Delver flips, but I hate going that low on Instants and Sorceries.
While their deck has gotten a small power creep recently (and continuously will with new sets), I still believe it's most certainly favored, particularly after boarding, but it's not a tremendously good matchup. Voice of ressurgance and finks are almost an antithesis to what this deck is trying to accomplish, and CoCo itself can do much to undo losing situations for them but as a whole manadork.deck still doesn't want to face down a flurry of bolts. That's one reason I value flame slash over other removal optional in the board - post board I have 7 ways to stop the turn on dork, and that's the most essential step to beating them.
As far as boarding goes, I've ran countless sideboard variations with no red sweeper at all, in which case I almost never took out delvers. This was usually the case when I didn't run traverse and favored forked bolt to tarfire though. Narnam did a lot to enable this strategy because having strictly mandrills and tarmogoyfs and proactive threats that cost less than four mana just isn't enough. I've always seen loading up on pyroclasm while simultaneously bringing in 3-4 huntmaster counter intuitive. They're good against the same strategy but are seriously antisynergistic, meaning taking our delvers turned the new 60 into a new deck entirely in terms of curve. Narnam let's you stay within a consistent gameplan while maxing out on the value of pyroclasm.
I stopped bringing in blood moon a long time ago. Their deck can essentially get all their colored mana off a single forest with a topdecked birds of paradise. You can't realistically expect to kill every mana dork they play, at least in my experience you don't want to have to try.
I run 26 I/s with 4 bauble and 17 lands but the only reason I can get away with such a low land count is the combination of bauble AND traverse, otherwise I agree the strain on our delver flip percentage is too great. I'm running the bare minimum in my opinion. Bauble helping to flip mitigates that in a way but not enough to justify 24 or 25 game one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
But seriously, I think the deck is fine. If your goal is to qualify for a PT, or top 8 a GP, etc...then there are definitely easier decks to pilot out there. And that's fine.
But if you want to play a tempo game, with a challenging deck, that provides no real linear path in every game, then this deck is exactly what you want. And that's fine, too.
Im enjoying a 60-70% win rate with it (online and FNM), and thats fine for me. I dont know if Id still rock it if I were on the SCG tour (probably still would).
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
The deck got worse. The deck is still insanely fun (assuming you enjoy this sort of deck), and I'm still winning enough matches that I think it is viable. Probably not the best deck in Modern, but it's the best for me.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
I know we discussed that tapping down isn't as good as removal a short while ago. But we don't have access to great removal so I'm all for supporting tempo.
Modern: MONKEY GROW & Amulet Titan
Legacy: RG Lands
EDH: Merieke Ri Berit Esper Good stuff
I envy you guys that still enjoy it, no sarcasm.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
There are two reasons I've given up on it for now. The first is that I think it's a worse version of Death's Shadow X on just about every axis. The second is that I still have a deck I love to play---Colorless Eldrazi. Otherwise I'd either be casting Mandrills on turn three or just frantically brewing something else.
As for "this deck is viable," numbers talk. If you guys can do well at a high-profile event or even post a few consecutive 5-0 leagues, I'll probably even try your version! But if not, how am I supposed to believe a claim that goes against my own experience and has no backing? I'm not saying MG is unplayable and will never win a match. I'm just saying that a deck isn't competitively viable unless it consistently wins at competitive levels of play. I'm posting a win-rate with Eldrazi now similar to the one I had with MG back when Twin was legal, Top 16ing nearly every Comp REL event I play in and Top 8ing half. I really doubt anyone here is doing that with MG (but I would love to be wrong, so correct me if I am).
Here's an excerpt from a piece I wrote back in August of last year:It's fine, but it won't sell me back on MG.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I dont think Im trying to win you over, in particular. Your goals are more about success at higher level competitions. So playing MG because its challenging is not a reason to sleeve it up for those events.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I guess it can be reduced down to personal preference. I like that it is challenging in a punish-reward kind of way. At the same time, I enjoy playing Temur colors, and I enjoy trying to make them work. My personality in the MTG world is also to go against the current best deck. At least, that's what I evolved into. I always prefer playing the underdog deck.
Plus, deep down, I always assume the deck is one new set (or ban/unban) away from being thrust back into the power seat.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
I think I get where you're coming from though. I like going against the grain with deck selection, too. I just can't bring myself to play something I'm so confident is a worse version of something else.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
We are playing against BW Tokens (game 2 on the draw with a basic Mountain replacing Breeding Pool) and just mulliganed two no-landers. Our five is Forest, Spreading Seas, Tarfire, Mandrills, and Huntmaster. I mulliganed again because even if I drew a Blue source for Seas, the rest of our hand was probably doing nothing for a long time. What would you do?
Enter the four: Tarfire, Tarfire, Revelry, and Mandrills. This I kept. I thought that the chances of finding a land by going to three was low. I just calculated it: 64%. That is far higher than I would have thought, although, that does include having two and three lands, which probably makes the hand about as bad. The chances of finding a land in the scry/draw are 53.5%. Knowing those probabilities, would you keep or mull at this point? I feel like my decision directly contradicted my previous one, but at the same time, going to three is very different than going to four.
For how it went: I drew a Mountain, Tarfired a Bob, drew a Forest, did nothing for a while, and eventually drew lands and threats. I drew really well I think. I ended up losing a race to a bunch of flying tokens thanks to Sorin. I believe I got as far as I did due to Revelry-ing their Relic as soon as I drew the Forest. I went with the high-variance play hoping that being able to play Mandrills and future graveyard things would win me a small percentage of games. I figured I was probably losing if I did nothing.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Totally worth doing just for the smile I have messing about with my all time favorite deck.
#memories #alternateuniverse
Modern: MONKEY GROW & Amulet Titan
Legacy: RG Lands
EDH: Merieke Ri Berit Esper Good stuff
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Yeah, I didn't build this deck because I thought I was good, I built it because where else am I going to play these hooting mandrills? I built it because I feel like a god when I play turn two monkeys with a stubborn denial up. I just want to play tempo, man. I see no reason to abandon a fun deck just because it's not an all star in the current meta. Keep tuning your lists, we'll be back on top one day. Or not, I'll probably still be playing though.
U Mono Best Tron
RUG Monkey Grow Delver
RUGW Cats n' Gnats
UR Wizard Tribal with Grapeshot Combo
After much fiddling, a couple 5-0's, and being up almost a hundred bucks this month on mtgo, heres where i'm at.
4 Delver of Secrets
2 Snapcaster Mage
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Hooting Mandrills
Spells:30
4 Mishra's Bauble
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Serum Visions
2 Spell Snare
3 Stubborn Denial
2 Tarfire
3 Thought Scour
3 Traverse the Ulvenwald
2 Vapor Snag
1 Deprive
2 Mana Leak
1 Breeding Pool
1 Forest
2 Island
4 Misty Rainforest
1 Mountain
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Steam Vents
1 Stomping Ground
1 Wooded Foothills
2 Narnam Renegade
1 Huntmaster of the Fells
2 Tormod's Crypt
1 Flame Slash
1 Vapor Snag
1 Ancient Grudge
2 Destructive Revelry
2 Pyroclasm
3 Blood Moon
After trying Soul-scar Mage, Swiftspear, Renegade/Dryad, and Curator of Mysteries in the 13th creature slot, they were all simply worse than having a third Mandrills, leaving me with the exact creature lineup I was playing before the probe ban and subsequent Traverse integration. None of the alternatives can be relied on as a singular aggressive threat to seal the game on its own like Mandrills, despite the asynergy with Traverse. There were exceptions in which some alternatives were situationaly better (particularly having a threat immune to grave hate) but game one the explosiveness is too valuable. To mitigate clunkiness with Traverse, I dropped one and added a 3rd Thought Scour to better facilitate a 3rd Mandrills and further the decks ability to fuel Traverse. The important take away i've discovered with this build is that game one using Traverse simply to hit your land drops, fuel Mandrills, and find Snapcasters to provide additional Stubborn Denials or to seal the game with Bolt is all you need out of the one mana cantrip so being 'slow' is never an issue with 13 threats. Only in grindy matchups do you have to rely on Traverse to find threats but when you need it, your graveyard will generally be stocked and it revolutionizes the midrange/control matchups. Additionally, Scour+Bauble are an excellent pair in fueling Mandrills, I'm truly surprised more people arn't running it.
The sideboard was adjusted partially to combat the recent rise of CoCo on MTGO but mostly due to the effectiveness of Narnam Renegade. 2 Narnam provides a plan to remain aggressive while boarding out Delvers to make Pyroclasm more synergistic. Renagade, along with Huntmaster, Snapcaster, and Traverse makes playing the control role in matchups where you would want Pyroclasm much more reasonable (althought I don't take out Delver against Blinkmoth Nexus). Reveler got the boot as I found myself bringing it as a rarity due to the format shifting away from grindy matchups - but remains a powerful piece for future consideration.
On a more magic-related note, I am enjoying the one-off Renegade. It is very nice to have against fatties. Until the meta shifts to more Bolt-able opposing threats, I think it's a keeper. Being iffy against Endbringer (my main gripe with it against Eldrazi Tron) is pretty moot because that card gives us trouble regardlessly. I still don't think it takes the first Snapcaster's slot though.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
This is exactly how I see Traverse. I use it to keep one landers (fetch Stomping Ground, Traverse for Island) regularly. It is pretty rare that I have Traverse legitimately stuck in hand (don't need lands and Delirium is off).
How are you (and everyone else) finding the CoCo matchup these days? Game 1, I feel favoured as long as I see a couple removal spells and a clock in time.
I'm interested in that sideboard plan. For some aggro decks (Zoo for example), switching Clasm for Delver seems great. Against the likes of CoCo, I usually want then dead ASAP, so I keep Delvers in to maximize the chances of having an early clock. Even if I end up Clasming my Delver(s), usually it is worth clearing the board. It's obviously better when your threats don't die to your boardwipe, but I don't think the Renegades do the trick when a topdecked CoCo can steal them the game. Slowing down for Huntmaster and friends is good, but that might be too slow for combo. Now that I think of it, I might not even bring in Moon against them (I used to bring it for Township, but it might not be worth the Tempo now).
I think I'll give some Baubles another spin once I am done with Curiosity and Spreading Seas. I know Bauble helps with Delver flips, but I hate going that low on Instants and Sorceries.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
As far as boarding goes, I've ran countless sideboard variations with no red sweeper at all, in which case I almost never took out delvers. This was usually the case when I didn't run traverse and favored forked bolt to tarfire though. Narnam did a lot to enable this strategy because having strictly mandrills and tarmogoyfs and proactive threats that cost less than four mana just isn't enough. I've always seen loading up on pyroclasm while simultaneously bringing in 3-4 huntmaster counter intuitive. They're good against the same strategy but are seriously antisynergistic, meaning taking our delvers turned the new 60 into a new deck entirely in terms of curve. Narnam let's you stay within a consistent gameplan while maxing out on the value of pyroclasm.
I stopped bringing in blood moon a long time ago. Their deck can essentially get all their colored mana off a single forest with a topdecked birds of paradise. You can't realistically expect to kill every mana dork they play, at least in my experience you don't want to have to try.
I run 26 I/s with 4 bauble and 17 lands but the only reason I can get away with such a low land count is the combination of bauble AND traverse, otherwise I agree the strain on our delver flip percentage is too great. I'm running the bare minimum in my opinion. Bauble helping to flip mitigates that in a way but not enough to justify 24 or 25 game one.