Tried the traverse list to mixed results last night. Not a fan of the Strangleroot Geists at all... A bit too aggressive and just overall not a good fit for a value/midrange deck in my opinion. I like Traverse a decent bit, but I kept having the feeling that we get to 3 card types (Creature, Land, Instant) really easily, but the fourth can be tricky. Running 2x Familiar, the 1x Spellskite and the other 3x of Traverse seem to the be the only way to get a 4th type of card in the graveyard. Possible solutions to this? Maybe run another spellskite main? I like the idea of Engineered Explosives main as well. I think about 10x cards of the 4th type would be necessary maindeck to make the card work.
Thoughts about this? It's most definitely (in my opinion) due to the lack of direction most lists have and the lack of a stock list that people can get into the play the deck. Not to mention how next to no pros are playing this deck.
Looks nice, @bfitz88. I'd change that Cunning Sparkmage to a Vulshok Sorcerer though. Twisted image kills Sparkmage, and we usually board that card in for Infect.
Wasn't directly trying to call you out @Ludafish, I mean no disrespect at all. I just get that the general sentiment is that bolt needs to be proven to work. We know what bolt is good at by looking at the format at large. Adding bolt can improve your matchups versus Affinity, Infect, Zoo, Burn, and a number of similarly minded aggro decks, while reducing our prowess against decks like Bant Eldrazi, Jund, and control/prison decks. Even then in those matchups bolt is not dead. If I went to a GP or any other high level event, I would expect to see decks like Affinity, Infect, Burn and the like in large volume so I choose to run bolt. But does doing that reduce my matchup against Bant Eldrazi (another deck I could see in large volume) a little? Yes. But that is a choice I can make or not make based upon what I want to be good against. Dismissing bolt because "It hasn't put up results" even though it has put up as much results as any of the company builds here is imprudent. Our deck as a whole is not putting up results. It's because the meta is hostile towards us. We need edges. Whether it's bolt or company that gives you the edge doesn't matter. The company build can work, the bolt build can work.
On the topic that the deck is falling off the map, I would agree. The only amount of consensus without father Hoogland we can make is "Eldritch Evolution is a good magic card". This deck has always been Hoogland's pet deck and almost nobody else has seen major success with it other than him. On MtgGoldfish we are a measly 0.3% of the meta. Does it mean this deck is bad? No. Does it mean we aren't a huge competitor in the meta? Yes.
If you think the card "Lightning Bolt" needs to be proven in modern, you are insane. Run it if you want a better matchup against decks that bolt is good against. Nothing more, nothing less. Lightning Bolt isn't a superior inclusion to anything else, it's a deckbuilding choice.
Re: the discussion about how we absolutely need "silver bullets" to win match-ups. If I play Pontiff against Affinity in the right situation do I automatically win? Yes. Well that means we need Pontiff to win those match-ups!! No. No we don't. Replace the word "Pontiff" with any silver bullet you can think of (Magus/Intrepid Hero/Scooze/Qasali/etc). Guess what wins the most amount of games in match-ups? Having a consistent deck with value creatures and removal. The ability to tutor out cards that are the best in a situation is an upside to our deck, not the only win-con.
Using the affinity example, we don't usually win by playing pontiff or landing a stony silence game 2 or 3. We win by playing decent creatures that interact like Pia and Kiran Nalaar, Huntmaster of the Fells, Reveillark, and bolting/pathing their creatures then playing eternal witness and doing it all again. Only sometimes do we win off of a silver bullet, and even then, that is only because we play Pontiff to kill a creature or two and convert that like any other Midrange deck does.
This deck is a MIDRANGE deck. We use value to switch between controlling the board and establishing our own board to win. Sometimes that takes the form of tutoring the right creature at the right time, but most of the time that comes from playing decent creatures like Courser, Finks, Reveillark, and Voice (and on and on and on). Bullets should be looked at as icing on the cake and not "You need this to win this match-up".
Yes, Pontiff/Magus/Staticaster can win you games, but what about the times you draw them and they might as well be any other creature in your deck? We gain points and LOSE points playing cards like these and we should adjust accordingly to that. Most of your bullets should be sideboard cards, and even then, you shouldn't have more than 5-6 silver bullets in your 75 because you lose points having very specific sideboard cards.
With Magus of the Moon, you can play around bolt/anger/pyroclasm, but you can't stop them from having it if they do. I'm very medium on him. In the Naya version, you function pretty alright under a moon. I would recommend just running blood moon if you want a moon effect. Usually the ability to tutor him out versus being easy as hell to kill is a wash.
@Restorical1111 Perhaps a 4 drop can be shaved? 6 seems like perhaps 1 too many, in my opinion. Maybe that second scooze can be cut? On the 22 lands, I bounce between 22-23 really frequently. 23 seems a necessary evil with as many 4 and 5 drops that we run. Having a second utility land like Gavony or a second manland, plus running 9 fetches really lessens the flood.
Less than a playset of Voice feels really wrong if you are running Evo as your only tutor. I'd recommend 4, if you have them. If not, go up to 4 walls. It looks like your targets for Evo are decently low early game, really reducing the areas where Evo is good. I also (read: personally) don't like Stony Silence, as it is a really narrow SB card, even though it's very good at hosing Affinity/Lantern. I run 2 ancient grudge, as there are decks that run artifacts that don't get destroyed by Stony Silence. 8-Rack, fringe prison lists with Ensaring Bridge, and Blue Moon just to name a few. Other than that, I really like the list.
Glad someone agrees about finks. It definitely wins games. Hard to remove, amazing against burn and zoo. You can just side it out against Infect or Affinity if you don't think you need more ground blockers. It's really not any more dead in match-ups like that than Voice is.
If you want to get to an optimal build of the deck, the first thing to talk about is the curve. Kiki chord decks remain all over the place from a curve perspective. Dial it back to the Pod days and put the right number of spells (and/or taplands) at each point.
Testing is pointless until you can get the distribution of plays.
If you go back and look at the pod decks, the fairly (proactive) typical curve was something like:
The chord decks I see invariably are doing weird stuff like shaving 1 drops to play more 2-drops (and sometimes shaving 3s to play more 2s as well!?), playing too many 4-drops, etc.
But the first thing to do is stop and question:
Can I play fewer mana sources (cutting roots, cutting dorks) than Pod and no birthing pod and still play curves like this? Let's remember that Pod offered a crapload of free mana. Sometimes it would turn a finks into a redcap into a 5-drop, actually creating mana.
If you're playing Chord you can maybe get away with thinking along the same curves as pod (especially if playing 2-3 wall of roots), but Evolution does not do what Pod did from a mana perspective. It offers a one time *possible* mana gain of 1 or 2 and also puts you down a card. You simply cannot think of evolution the same way as pod in terms of how it impacts your curve.
For starters if you're shaving any dorks at all you cannot play the same number of 3-drops as Pod. Most decks get this right (usually playing closer to 8 than 11).
But once you start cutting wall of roots *and* dorks and trying to play the same 23 lands, you have to back off of the 4 mana spells.
There is just no way you can play 24-25 (23 lands and 4 dorks) mana sources and 6 x 4 mana spells, especially when your dorks die to lightning bolt.
-------------------------------------
This is all just talking about mana not about how sketchy it is to be playing 4 turn 1 plays in modern. There is simply no successful deck in the history of modern that starts off by ceding the initiative and not doing anything on turn 1 over 60% of the time. Even the most greedy control decks play 6+ turn 1 plays (something like 4 colonnades and 3 AV/Serum visions).
In the end I would say step 1 is getting the curve right and then step 2 is getting the mana right to support the curve. This work has not been done on most of the EE/Chord/Nahiri decks that I have seen and it makes them clunky and extremely high variance.
EDIT: Reminder, when plotting a curve bolt/path do not count as 1-drops. You can certainly think about them but they are not turn 1 plays in the sense of a bird of paradise or a champion of the parish or whatever. You will not always want to cast them. They can smooth your curve later ofc which is worth thinking about.
This is very good insight. With the evo/bolt build I am playing, I only run 2-3 4 drops and 1-2 5 drops (including Kiki). With dorks and evo, a lot of your creature should be focused on 2-3 drops. I'm preferential to Kitchen Finks being great (Sorry, Hoogland) and I like courser. That leads me to want to run 22-23 lands. The format is fast, and without pod or some insane means of stabilizing, you can't run 5-6 4 drops and 3 5 drops.
If we want to "talk results" we should look at lists that have placed decently in tournaments instead of saying "I did well with this at my FNM". Let's look at MTGTop8's Creature Toolbox section of decks like ours that have placed decently at higher REL levels (http://mtgtop8.com/archetype?a=191&meta=51&f=MO for reference). Only looking at Kiki toolbox decks we have a total of 8 that have top8'd in about the last month. Let's also look at what these lists look like:
-Decks with high amounts of evolution (3-4)and low amounts of chord (1-2): 2
-Decks with high amounts of evolution (3-4)and high amounts of chord (3-4): 2
-Decks running collected company and evolution both as a full playset: 1
-Decks with moderate amounts of evolution (2-3)and moderate amounts of chord (2-3): 1
-Decks with Nahiri and Chord: 1
What does this demonstrate... Well hardly that anything is showing up more than one another. What it really shows is that almost everyone is in disagreement with what should be put in our deck. Even looking at these lists in detail, some hardly look like the same deck at all other than being a naya based toolbox deck. The other thing is that most decks ARE running evolution as at least a 2 of. No lists are adopting bolts to great success yet either (much to my disappointment). Company alongside Kiki seems to be the most uncommon version as well, and I know many on this forum are very favorable to that. That being said, I do agree that a compromised list where we can all play and test about the same 53-55 cards maindeck would be very good testing.
Are we considering Chandra, Torch of Defiance at all? She seems decent for a value oriented build. Besides Jund, Mardu and Skred I feel we are the only deck that could potentially run it. Worth testing as a 2 of, in my opinion.
I think a lot of the Chord/Evo/CoCo argument comes down to preference and the deck style you want. I guess the three styles of decks boil down to about this:
-The "Naya Rock" version: More removal, consistent creature quality (i.e. More live topdecks), less small guys to fuel chord and more individual card quality. Usually runs 4 Evolution and 0-2 chords or so.
-The "Original" version: More chords, more mana dorks and slower creatures to help develop board and fuel chord. Sometimes runs Nahiri to rummage and work as a win-con. Can run Evo, but usually only runs path as removal.
-The "Kiki Company" version: The one I am most unfamiliar with and haven't played, but Luda and others on this forum have attested to its quality. Runs more 1-3 drops to hit with Collected Company, including a few fauna shaman for extra toolboxing, and a village bell ringer for combo/value. Seems faster, and decently good at hitting silver bullets.
I don't think any of these versions are "better" than one another, and arguing about that doesn't solve anything. Usually if you're running more of one of the three toolbox cards, you'll want to run another in a smaller amount. All three have very apparent strengths and weaknesses and the combinations change that. The "Rock" version seems better in a traditionally aggressive meta and from my experience does very well in the Jund/Affinity/Infect/Burn/Zoo/Abzan matchups. The original seems the most flexible in my opinion, so play that if you generally want to have a change against a variety of decks. And the Company version I can't really attest to it's meta strengths/weaknesses, but it generally seems like you'd play this if you want to be the proactive deck. Pick which one you want based upon playstyle/meta/whatever, but there isn't a definitive answer.
http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-sep-16/
Thoughts about this? It's most definitely (in my opinion) due to the lack of direction most lists have and the lack of a stock list that people can get into the play the deck. Not to mention how next to no pros are playing this deck.
Using the affinity example, we don't usually win by playing pontiff or landing a stony silence game 2 or 3. We win by playing decent creatures that interact like Pia and Kiran Nalaar, Huntmaster of the Fells, Reveillark, and bolting/pathing their creatures then playing eternal witness and doing it all again. Only sometimes do we win off of a silver bullet, and even then, that is only because we play Pontiff to kill a creature or two and convert that like any other Midrange deck does.
This deck is a MIDRANGE deck. We use value to switch between controlling the board and establishing our own board to win. Sometimes that takes the form of tutoring the right creature at the right time, but most of the time that comes from playing decent creatures like Courser, Finks, Reveillark, and Voice (and on and on and on). Bullets should be looked at as icing on the cake and not "You need this to win this match-up".
Yes, Pontiff/Magus/Staticaster can win you games, but what about the times you draw them and they might as well be any other creature in your deck? We gain points and LOSE points playing cards like these and we should adjust accordingly to that. Most of your bullets should be sideboard cards, and even then, you shouldn't have more than 5-6 silver bullets in your 75 because you lose points having very specific sideboard cards.
Less than a playset of Voice feels really wrong if you are running Evo as your only tutor. I'd recommend 4, if you have them. If not, go up to 4 walls. It looks like your targets for Evo are decently low early game, really reducing the areas where Evo is good. I also (read: personally) don't like Stony Silence, as it is a really narrow SB card, even though it's very good at hosing Affinity/Lantern. I run 2 ancient grudge, as there are decks that run artifacts that don't get destroyed by Stony Silence. 8-Rack, fringe prison lists with Ensaring Bridge, and Blue Moon just to name a few. Other than that, I really like the list.
This is very good insight. With the evo/bolt build I am playing, I only run 2-3 4 drops and 1-2 5 drops (including Kiki). With dorks and evo, a lot of your creature should be focused on 2-3 drops. I'm preferential to Kitchen Finks being great (Sorry, Hoogland) and I like courser. That leads me to want to run 22-23 lands. The format is fast, and without pod or some insane means of stabilizing, you can't run 5-6 4 drops and 3 5 drops.
-Decks with high amounts of evolution (3-4)and low amounts of chord (1-2): 2
-Decks with high amounts of evolution (3-4)and high amounts of chord (3-4): 2
-Decks running collected company and evolution both as a full playset: 1
-Decks with moderate amounts of evolution (2-3)and moderate amounts of chord (2-3): 1
-Decks with Nahiri and Chord: 1
What does this demonstrate... Well hardly that anything is showing up more than one another. What it really shows is that almost everyone is in disagreement with what should be put in our deck. Even looking at these lists in detail, some hardly look like the same deck at all other than being a naya based toolbox deck. The other thing is that most decks ARE running evolution as at least a 2 of. No lists are adopting bolts to great success yet either (much to my disappointment). Company alongside Kiki seems to be the most uncommon version as well, and I know many on this forum are very favorable to that. That being said, I do agree that a compromised list where we can all play and test about the same 53-55 cards maindeck would be very good testing.
-The "Naya Rock" version: More removal, consistent creature quality (i.e. More live topdecks), less small guys to fuel chord and more individual card quality. Usually runs 4 Evolution and 0-2 chords or so.
-The "Original" version: More chords, more mana dorks and slower creatures to help develop board and fuel chord. Sometimes runs Nahiri to rummage and work as a win-con. Can run Evo, but usually only runs path as removal.
-The "Kiki Company" version: The one I am most unfamiliar with and haven't played, but Luda and others on this forum have attested to its quality. Runs more 1-3 drops to hit with Collected Company, including a few fauna shaman for extra toolboxing, and a village bell ringer for combo/value. Seems faster, and decently good at hitting silver bullets.
I don't think any of these versions are "better" than one another, and arguing about that doesn't solve anything. Usually if you're running more of one of the three toolbox cards, you'll want to run another in a smaller amount. All three have very apparent strengths and weaknesses and the combinations change that. The "Rock" version seems better in a traditionally aggressive meta and from my experience does very well in the Jund/Affinity/Infect/Burn/Zoo/Abzan matchups. The original seems the most flexible in my opinion, so play that if you generally want to have a change against a variety of decks. And the Company version I can't really attest to it's meta strengths/weaknesses, but it generally seems like you'd play this if you want to be the proactive deck. Pick which one you want based upon playstyle/meta/whatever, but there isn't a definitive answer.