In each instance, you’d probably want an extra piece of equipment in the side, whether it be a different Sword (access to Fire and Ice, Light and Shadow, and Feast and Famine would be ideal but not always realistic) or a second copy of Batterskull.
Also worth noting the minor nonbo between Bob and Batterskull (I say minor because it’s most often your first tutor target, especially if you have played or will play an early Bob). For that reason, I’d be inclined to shave down to three Bobs, and probably cut my one-of Tracker as well, it being the least efficient weapon bearer and its card advantage somewhat replaced by SFM. It’s tempting to look at Flayers as the next cut, just to keep the density of answers high, but Flayer just looks too good with a Sword in hand. 6/6 Trample with three damage triggers, seems alright!
On another note, what are people’s impressions of the players’ caliber in the MTGO Tournament Practice room? I’ve been spamming a ton of matches there over the last couple weeks—with family stuff, I sort of need to be able to leave on short notice a fair amount of the time and due to this would rather not spend money to play—but I’m wondering how strong the opposition tends to be. I’m approaching 50 matches and my winrate is around 65%, which feels great. It’s often said that competitive league players are about equivalent to day 2 players at a big Open, and the people in friendly leagues are about as good, just more likely to play non Tier 1 decks. How close is the tourney practice room to this level of play, in your experience?
Casting aside all thematic concerns for a moment, I really wish Alpine Moon was green! While I don’t expect the card to see much play in Modern overall, it does seem to fit a whole lot better into GBx than Damping Sphere does. It shuts off Tron just as well, hits Valakut (this is huge), and perhaps most importantly is a one-drop, leading to a far more impressive opening sequence of disruption + clock compared to a two-drop like Sphere. It also seems worth bringing in against UWx (Azcanta, or Colonnade if you’re able to answer the Azcantas in other ways) and Infect (Inkmoth).
Alpine Moon loses the upside Sphere brings against combo decks, but we’re well-positioned enough there that I would make the trade in a heartbeat.
Oh well, red gets another toy. At least we’ll have SFM soon if the Modern community’s consensus is anything to go by.
With respect, the above argument is steeped in radical subjectivism.
This is the underlying assumption fueling complaints about uninteractive decks:
Close games in which both players cast a lot of spells, at least begin to execute their game plan in a meaningful way, and have to make important decisions that influence the game’s outcome are more desirable to most people than lopsided forgone conclusions in which only one (or neither) player makes relevant decisions.
“Fair” decks are, on average, more likely to facilitate what is known in common parlance as a good game than “unfair” decks.
Is it really so outlandish for me to claim that a majority of players share this opinion? Check out the prevailing sentiments on Twitch chat during GP coverage. Head down and talk to the players at your LGS. Witness the continued popularity of fair decks regardless of meta results. Read this very thread.
No one, least of all me, is saying that uninteractive decks are “worth deleting from the format” or “should disappear”: these are straw men.
Once more, radical subjectivism is at play here. It’s okay to have aspirations for this format that seek to maximize the level of player enjoyment and the relevance of player skill. There will always be variance, and there will always be pet peeve/boogeyman decks, but that doesn’t mean that overarching standards (that appeal to the majority but not every last individual) cannot exist.
Implicit in the term “midrange” is the existence of an interactive strategy—which Tron decks are not shining examples of, to put it as diplomatically as possible, lol.
Tron is a big mana deck, and as a secondary archetype I would assert that it has much more in common with combo than midrange due to all of the tutoring, cantrips, and the night-and-day difference between what the deck can do when the “combo” is assembled versus when it isn’t.
As for the GP top 8/top 16, it’s rather disgraceful. The prospect of boarding a flight, spending a not-insignificant amount of money, and taking time away from loved ones only to run afoul of a nonsense meta like this is unappealing in the extreme to a majority of players, relative to the prospect of participating in a heavily interactive meta where decisions matter and player knowledge/skill are paramount, and—bear with me here, because this may be controversial—the games are fun!
Are there really people out there who still don’t realize that interactive decks comprising the lion’s share of the meta is what this game needs to thrive (or even survive, in the long run)?
Midrange decks are very difficult to pilot and take many hours to master. Don't let this discourage you! It will pay off and reward you greatly!
Coming from burn, you're probably used to a linear strategy. Junk is exactly the opposite. You need to know exactly what cards you need and what cards you lose to in order to stop linear decks and hit back. From the matches you had, Eldrazi was the real difficult one for Midrange. The others will definitely improve over time.
Just keep playing the deck, look at videos, learn what decisions you have and have to make.
Welcome to the family!
Well said.
Matsoni, good job taking down Infect. Heavy interaction with a big threat clocking them sounds like it got you there, and that’s exactly the sort of hands you need to see against Storm. Drawing the proverbial “wrong half of the deck” may not be quite as much of a problem for Abzan as it is for, say, a traditional control deck, but it’s still something you’ll have to get used to (and do your best to avoid) coming from a deck like Burn, where redundancy is quite high. If you know you’re against a combo deck like Storm where all forms of our interaction line up well, you should be mulliganing functional but low-interaction hands in search of discard effects and spot removal.
You’re not likely to pull off the win against colorless Eldrazi nut draws, sadly. As for the Pyro matchup, getting Mooned out of the game twice is rough. That’s a card that really needs to be respected. Borderline keep/mull decisions can be influenced by how well your lands line up against a prospective Moon. Depending on your and your opponent’s progression, it can also be correct to pass turns with GB mana open and a Decay in hand (especially if you’re on the play and landed a T2 threat) to answer the Moon.
Still, the card will frequently just get you. I love the art, flavor, and nostalgia factor of older sets, but holy crap do some of these 8th Edition cards have the potential to drain the joy out of games!
Back with another tourney report, this time from a different store (one with tougher opponents on average). I won’t clog up the thread with a ton of these, but I’m still new to the deck and stoked about it, so here goes:
Match 1 vs Amulet Titan: I opened on Thoughtseize and saw Sakura-Tribe Scout, Azusa, Primeval Titan, and 4 lands. Took away the Titan and now he needed to draw another one or a Summoner’s Pact, and for a while he didn’t. I went T2 Flayer into T3 LoTV and clocked him good while running him out of resources and filtering my draws so I could answer Titans (double Path in hand). Flayer went the whole way.
G2 he has a wicked threat-dense hand with 2 lands (one bounce), Explore, Tribe-Scout, and lots of big critters (Titan, Thragtusk, Ruric Thar). My T1 IoK takes Explore and he doesn’t draw more lands for a couple turns. I slam T3 LoTV and just start wrecking his hand. T4 I play Goyf, who eventually closes the game with help from the Ape Village.
Match 2 vs Jeskai Tempo: G1 he opened on Delver. I had discard but no removal; saw he had a handful of gas. His Delver flipped right away and started the clock. I flooded out and made the stand with some Lingering Souls, but he out-tempoed me and finished with end step Snap->Helix, untap Snap->Bolt.
G2 I opened on IoK and saw a one-land 7 with Delver and Serum. I took the Serum. He played Delver, I played Goyf, he topdecked a Serum to flip Delver but whiffed on a land for that one turn, which let me pull ahead with a T3 discard + second Goyf. He then found a second land but was too far behind to deal with 4/5 Goyfs. G3 was quite fun and close. I curved out perfectly and just dominated early, but he topdecked two straight Snapcasters (I had already cracked my early Spellbomb to blank an earlier Snap) to almost claw his way back in. But in the end, Goyfs were just too hard for him to answer efficiently. Props to Shambling Vent for helping me stay out of double burn spell range.
Match 3 vs Storm. G1 was INSANE, lol. I lost the die roll and drew this 7:
Vent
Swamp
Catacombs
Goyf
Goyf
Flayer
LoTV
I would have likely kept that on the play (T2 threat, T3 Lili, tick down to kill a cost reducer if he has one, start ticking up to win), but on the draw I needed earlier interaction. Shipped it and drew a no-land 6, shipped that and drew an ok 5. I Pushed his T2 Eletromancer then landed a Bob. A 30 minute game followed where he value Grapeshotted 3 or maybe 4 different times (once on T4 to kill my Bob and LoTV, 10 minutes later to answer another Lili, and near the end to kill a Scooze that was on the verge of putting the game away, maybe another time in between that I can’t recall).
Eventually, after a ton of back and forth, I got there. That Scooze was clutch, coming down the turn after after a value GS to eat his Past in Flames. G2 was a lot quicker. I had a strong 7, he mulled to a weak 6 with no cost reducer and I just buried him with discard into Goyf into LoTV. Grew the Goyf to a 6/7 by pitching an extra LoTV and EE to LoTV +1s.
Round 4 vs Infect: on the draw, I mulled to a 6 with Push and IoK. He opened on Glistener Elf, I pushed it and passed. He played Blighted Agent, I played IoK and saw lethal in his hand. No second removal spell, but I bluffed one. He went for it anyway and T3ed me despite eating removal and discard in the first two turns. No wonder Probe got banned, lol.
G2 I went IoK (seeing an Inkmoth but no creatures, taking a Blossoming Defense) into Bob, who buried him in card advantage. Things were still a little hairy midgame but I found a Fulminator for his Inkmoth. Bob and Flayer beats got me there. G3 I once again leveraged Bob to take over the game—he is absurd when your life total doesn’t matter, lol. I thought I had it all locked up with Goyf and some Souls tokens attacking, always leaving one back to block his Inkmoth (he had Pendelhaven so I was forced to repeatedly chump, but four chumpers from one card was still great here). I found a bunch of discard but no removal in the late game.
He topdecked a Distortion Strike to make my blockers irrelevant. He actually had lethal in hand but didn’t go for it because I had a nearly full hand and he just assumed I had Push/Path/Decay. He just kept forcing chumps and chumped with his own Hierarchs, presumably hoping to draw a protection spell to go all in. But I found another Fulminator first, and that was that.
4-0! I won the matchup lottery for sure, but also had to really earn every win besides the Amulet Titan ones, which just sorta lined up perfectly for me. Having all kinds of a good time on Abzan, to the point where my desire to acquire the red pieces needed to be able switch over to Jund at times is basically nonexistent. I’m so happy with Lingering Souls that I’m considering the fourth copy in place of Tireless Tracker—otherwise, this 75 feels great.
I'm not a fan of Path but otherwise I like your list. Lingering Souls also seems to be a good card right now, I'm really happy about it in my Mardu deck.
Congratz on your finish.
Thank you.
The Path question may perhaps the most important one for Abzan pilots to work out. You're certainly in good company (a certain Mr. Duke springs to mind) when it comes to eschewing Path in this deck. I get the reasoning behind that stance--giving the opponent a free anything, even a basic land, is a little weird in a build that otherwise wants to grind them out of resources--but I just see it as a necessary evil. We're still in a world of Hollow Ones, Gurmag Anglers, Wurmcoil Engines, Primeval Titans, and Bedlam Revelers, to say nothing of all the CMC 3-4 dudes that you can't guarantee Push will be live for when you really need it. If these cards are a concern, Path is as clean an answer as we've got.
Interestingly I've also had the opposite experience where opponents (friends) would prefer I played U/R prison than grixis shadow because at least they can choose what they play. I honestly hadn't considered anyone would rather be blood moon'd or bridged than thoughtseized but it seems like (locally) there is a substantial casual player base that would rather the illusion of being able to get out from under an effect than it just shred their hands.
Edit - despite never beating U/R prison and having a 60%+ win rate v shadow.
Also thanks ktkenshinx!
I'm not sure I follow. Are these opponents of yours running decks that aren't greatly hampered by prison effects? I can't imagine a world in which a player--especially a casual player--would rather be locked out of plays/attacks entirely than eat a discard spell or two. I've witnessed this frequently when spectating Lantern games locally, where newer players are more likely to play out the game (and grow increasingly frustrated) despite their chances of drawing out of the lock approaching zero. (I'm not attacking Lantern here, by the way--just providing another example of how prison-style effects are generally perceived).
Radical subjectivism is just as faulty of a framework for assessing the Modern metagame as it is for assessing things in the real world. Traditional control decks, traditional midrange decks, and go-wide/tribal decks that pack a respectable amount of interaction should absolutely be the strong backbone of this format if we want it to survive and thrive.
Interesting assertion, but I dont think it holds up.
Modern offers other flavours of the game that cannot be found (often/at all) in Standard. Control, Midrange, and 'Go Wide' certainly are common enough. I played Control to punish a lack of archetype diversity, it worked.
I play Turns when I want to play 'Modern' and not just play 'punish people for thinking they can just be aggro and turn em sideways'.
Turns, Storm, any kind of Prison, none of those types of things will exist in Standard, and THAT is a huge part of the appeal of Modern.
I agree! Part of what makes Modern great is the vast array of viable archetypes. But the greatest part of what makes MtG great in general is--not to insult anyone's intelligence by stating the blindingly obvious--the fact that it's an extremely fun game whose outcomes happen to depend to a significant degree on player skill. What must be avoided, if you ask me, is sacrificing the things that make MtG great in service of Modern's archetype diversity. A preponderance of matches which are neither fun (for both players) nor skill-testing (for either) are anathema to the long-term prospects of this game.
Let me be clear about three things: I think the current meta is quite decent; banning anything should be used only as an absolute last resort; and the existence non-"fair" archetypes is 100% fine with me. I only waded into this discussion to contest the notion that fair deck players are out of line to complain at higher rates, because a metagame comprised predominantly of fair decks (assuming sufficient diversity) will, on the whole, be the most fun and the most skill-testing for a majority of players.
the subjectivity of what leads to fun or enjoyment in magic will always be a divisive topic. i do think there IS a right answer, insofar as it pertains to the majority of players, but its also something we cant find out with any level of certainty. so we fall back on anecdotal evidence and sifting through complaints, some being far more outrageous than others.
it also isnt all or nothing. sure there are some people who think many of the 'unfair' or 'unfun' elements should be excised from the format entirely, but i think that those people are few and far between. however that is separate from believing a better state cant be reached that leaves both parties satisfied, or that there is nothing that can be done without drastic measures (ie bans).
for example wizards unbanning or printing more cards that benefit one side of the fence more than the other. cards like jace and BBE was one step, and so was the printing of damping sphere. a few more steps like these, such as unbanning stoneforge or more catch-all hate cards, could go a long way in giving such players more confidence that they arent placing a self-imposed handicap on themselves while still leaving the door open for players to enjoy the less common elements in magic that are no longer featured in standard.
Couldn't agree more, and recent signs have honestly been encouraging (in a one step back, two steps forward sort of way). Printing Fatal Push, banning Gitaxian Probe, printing Field of Ruin, unbanning Jace and BBE--these all represent firmly positive strides toward making Modern MtG the gold standard of enjoyable, widely accessible, and skill-intensive gaming.
I finally got to bring my Abzan deck to its first Modern tourney. Went out of town, met up with a couple of friends, and played four rounds against an almost entirely blind meta, running the following list:
Match 1 vs. Bant Knightfall
Nothing like driving many miles and playing at an unfamiliar store only to wind up sitting down against your main testing partner—and facing an unfavorable matchup to boot. Good times!
G1 I nailed him with a T2 Brutality, killing his Hierarch and taking away his CoCo. He followed up with a Voice of Resurgence, which I was able to answer T3 with a Path into a Goyf. He flooded out and I rode the Goyf to victory with an assist from some Souls tokens, killing a Spell Queller along the way.
You can see my sideboard plan a few posts up. I followed it and lost G2 to a T2 Exalted Kitchen Finks that went most of the distance while my Goyf and Flayer ate Paths, and it was my turn to flood out. But I took G3 on the back of another T2 Brutality that not only killed his Birds and took his Negate (which I was moderately surprised to see), but also revealed a hand with Queller and some funky mana (no white access). A T3 Goyf went the entire way as I found more discard and held up removal spells.
Match 2 vs. Humans
G1 we both interacted heavily with him finding multiple copies of Phantasmal Image to Freebooters and Meddlers, but he never really developed a beefy board presence. So I was able to leverage my T2 Confidant into enough advantage to overwhelm him. A motley crew of Bob, Flayer, Souls, and a Treetop Village were my beaters that put the game away.
I sided as per the guide and then ran into my worst luck of the night. My hand was straight fire:
It would be hard to design a better hand against Humans. He mulled to 6 and on my T1 I Inquisitioned and saw a very mediocre and durdly hand. Slammed my T2 Bob and knew the game was in the bag even though I didn’t hit a third land yet. But five turns and ten draws later, I STILL have no third land, Bob triggers have wrecked my life total, I haven’t been able to play the Scooze or Lilis in my hand that could take over the game, and I’m dead to two straight topdecked Mantis Riders. Rough.
G3 I kept a 3-land 7 with Bob, Goyf, IoK, and LoTV, but no spot removal. I started strong but found 0 pieces of removal and once more died to two Mantis Riders (one was an Image). Can’t help feeling pretty hard done by here; I think both keeps were correct and I don’t believe I made any gameplay mistakes. It happens.
Match 3 vs. Dimir Mill
G1 I hit the poor dude with 3 discard spells in the first two turns, taking away Mesmeric Orb, Fraying Sanity, and Mind Funeral. He hit me back with a Glimpse the Unthinkable, and then I slammed a 7/8 Goyf, followed up the next turn by a delirious Flayer for good measure. T5 kill.
-3 Path
-3 Push
+2 Brutality
+1 Last Hope
+2 Fulminator
+1 Extraction (this is probably incorrect, but I was gunning for Ensnaring Bridge, and it was that or the third Fulminator)
G2 he stuck a T2 Orb that I was unable to answer. I went Bob into Goyf into Thoughtseize + Brutality, and taking away two mill spells gave me enough breathing room to close out the game despite Orb doing significant damage.
Match 4 vs. Kiki-Chord
G1: he leads on Birds, I Push them. He plays Voice, I Thoughtseize and see three lands plus a Restoration Angel. I take the Angel, Path the Voice, and then have too much gas in my hand for his land-heavy hand to keep up with, with Goyf and Souls putting the damage across.
After making sideboard changes that were very similar to how I ran against Knightfall, I opened on a strong 7, but it wasn’t enough. Throughout a heavily interactive early/mid game, my opponent buried me in value (Renegade Rallier/Voice/Eternal Witness/Chord), and I flooded out when I needed some big topdecks. Manlands extended the game but their efforts were not sufficient.
G3 I opened on manland into Bob. On my end step, opponent Pathed the Bob and then untapped and played a Voice. I was fortunate enough to have a T3 that allowed me to answer back with a Path of my own and a second Bob, who stuck around and provided me with an insurmountable advantage. After answering several of his plays, I closed out the game with a classic board state of Bob, Goyf, and both Lilianas, with Vent swings keeping me out of the death-by-Bob red zone.
3-1 my first time out, with the sole loss coming to one of the store’s best players running Modern’s top deck, and me being desperately unlucky to whiff on a third land for twelve straight draws, which my opponent agreed he couldn’t have won through with the sheer amount of gas I started with and drew into. That said, I can’t complain about my luck overall. G2/3 against Humans aside, my progressions were always at least reasonable, and I think I only mulliganed once over 11 games.
Couldn’t be more pleased to be all-in on the GBx life! I hold the perhaps unpopular opinion that Abzan is criminally underplayed right now, especially relative to Jund’s meta share—not only because of the power of Souls and the access to Stony, arguably the format’s strongest silver bullet—but also because Path seems like it’s approaching must-have status for fair decks, with all of the high-CMC or huge-statted creatures running around.
One of my goals moving forward is to develop a comprehensive sideboard plan for even fringe or obscure matchups, so if anyone feels like sharing their thoughts on facing literally any deck out there, I’m interested.
Yet another possibility is that Tron pilots who are salty jerks need to learn how to beat their worst case scenarios, e.g. disrupted Maps, Quarters/Fields on their lands, T3 Karn met with Stubborn, etc. I would totally agree with this. But I would take it to the next step and argue that everyone needs to push themselves to improve from bad scenarios. This includes not just Tron players disrupted before T3 but also Storm players who mull to 6 and lose their engine, Affinity players who get hit with T2 Stony Silence when they are on the draw, Dredge players who face T1 Leyline, and Jeskai players who are battling Tron. All of these players, fair deck pilots included, would benefit from not getting so upset in bad situations and instead looking for and playing to outs. This is a better recipe for improvement.
This is very good advice insofar as it pertains specifically to becoming a better Modern player. Anger severely clouds one’s judgment; and setting aside one’s emotional investment in the result in order to better assess what could have changed if x decision had been made differently is a very useful tool for improvement.
However, I disagree with the underlying implication that “fair” deck players are somehow out of line to complain at higher rates than people who play “unfair” decks.
The overwhelming consensus of the Modern community is that games which lead to both players getting to cast lots of cards and execute at least some significant portion of their game plan are desirable. It also seems clear that games with more frequent decisions—and more complex decision trees—will, on average, tend to reward the more skillful player. No, I do not have data points buttressing these assertions—I would say they fall firmly under the umbrella of common sense.
Perhaps the gap between peak desirability (both players making a great many meaningful decisions) and a game that may as well have been decided by a dice roll (T1 Blood Moon on the play) is lessened at the pro and dedicated grinder levels. People in these categories play such an enormous frequency of matches that individual game experiences don’t loom as large in the memory. But for players with more limited time to actually get games in—and remember that these players comprise the silent majority—experiences that make them feel as though they were robbed of the ability to play the game in any meaningful way are an absolute detriment to the prospects of their long-term participation in this hobby. This applies to new players, yes, but also to skilled and knowledgeable players who simply don’t have the free time to play day-in, day-out.
Consider the plethora of hobby alternatives that exist to a $1k+ investment in one or more tiered Modern decks. Consider the growing prominence of streaming and live coverage of big paper events, both of which benefit greatly from being able to showcase interactive games where the streamer or commentators can narrate a variety of options.
If fair deck pilots complain more (and understand that I’m not specifically addressing Tron here, nor the state of blue decks, nor anything else besides the fair/unfair dichotomy), then I would assert it’s because their complaints are justified. A strong majority presence of fair matches of MtG are healthier for the long-term prospects of this wonderful game than the alternative.
I own one fair deck (Abzan midrange) and one unfair deck (Ad Nauseam). Abzan consistently leads to a more enjoyable game experience for my opponents—and lets be honest, Ad Naus is definitely on the tame side as far as unfair decks go. It’s mostly uninteractive and has a combo kill, but at least it lets the opponent cast spells and have a reasonable shot at interacting or racing.
I’ve personally witnessed severalnew and budding Modern players get driven entirely away from this game because veterans on decks like Pyro Prison want to cast T1 Moons, Chalices, and Bridges. I will never understand this mentality, which seems rooted in the conception of fun as a zero-sum game rather than something that can be symbiotic. I can’t help but assume that the types of players gravitating toward decks which require as few difficult decisions as possible just aren’t very good—otherwise, why would they leave so much to chance?
Radical subjectivism is just as faulty of a framework for assessing the Modern metagame as it is for assessing things in the real world. Traditional control decks, traditional midrange decks, and go-wide/tribal decks that pack a respectable amount of interaction should absolutely be the strong backbone of this format if we want it to survive and thrive.
For Knightfall, Kalitas is an all-star here. Damnation and Last Hope is good as well. Not too sure with EE but it’s still solid on 3. I would take out Liliana, specially on the draw. Too slow and Finks and Voices will make her feel bad. Bring in all the removals you have. As for discards, I would cut some IoK for Brutality. They might be running CoCo bit watch out for Smiters and/or Baloths.
I’m totally with you here. EE on 1 isn’t bad at all either in certain situations; I think it’s well worth including.
vs. Bant Knightfall
+1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
+1 Liliana, the Last Hope
+2 Collective Brutality
+1 Damnation
+1 Engineered Explosives
On the play:
-3 Liliana of the Veil
-2 Lingering Souls
-1 Inquisition of Kozilek
On the draw:
-4 Liliana of the Veil
-2 Inquisition of Kozilek
I’ll be rolling with something like that.
8Rack. Depending on the list but usually all Push and Path goes out same goes for any type of discards. Bring in EE and creatures. You need to race them. Last Hope and Extraction is not bad against them.
Sounds about right. What are the best Extraction targets? Thoughtseize seems like the first of our discard spells that should go, but would you rather leave in IoK or Brutality if there aren’t enough slots to replace discard with?
As for Ponza, I don’t like this mu. Lol. The best way, I believe, to beat them is through discards early on and kill the dorks. T2 BM is kinda bad. Discards and a good threat is prolly the best way against them, specially in Junk coz Junk is slower. You don’t wanna grind against them coz they can go bigger than us.
I share your distaste for Ponza, believe me! Agreed on early discard and spot removal being absolutely crucial. When you say that playing the grindy game isn’t good here, I agree to some extent. I can’t see Souls doing much, and this might be a match to move away from the one-of Tireless Tracker and maybe even a Scooze due to mana constraints. (Correct me if I’m wrong; for some reason I tend toward shaving on Scooze more than I probably should.)
On the other hand, I think other grindy options like Last Hope and Fulminator would be great here. Explosives on 1 can be superb as well, and if there’s a mid-game window, I don’t hate laying it down on 3 either as a hedge against future Moons—although that will depend greatly on the board state and whether or not a topdecked Moon will radically influence the game.
I am not sure how cards like Kalitas, Thrun, and Damnation factor in.
So that’s just my 2cents based on experience. Hope this helps and hopefully other people with add in their ideas as well.
It was helpful for sure! I too would love to hear more input on these matchups, and any other ones people feel like discussing.
Hey Grim_Flayer, welcome to the forums and thank you for your feedback, appreciate it!
Thanks!
Onto your list, it looks really solid, nothing odd here.
For the matchups: Against Ad Nauseam your plan looks good, the one thing what you could think about is which threat is slower: Ooze or Souls? Souls comes down a turn later but has 4 power total and Ooze can attack sooner but doesn't get to eat many creatures. I tend to think Ooze is still a little bit better, for which reason I would keep Ooze and board out Souls completely.
Makes sense. I hedged a little bit toward Souls, thinking of the value from having all 3 Brutalities main post-side, but you’re probably right. I could see leaving in one Scooze and one Souls as well. Either way, the changes we’re able to make here feel great.
Against Merfolk you have 6 cards which you want to bring in: 1 Liliana, the Last Hope, 1 EE, 1 Damnation, 2 CB, 1 Kalitas. Kalitas is pretty clear, it is really good in creature based matchups, Damnation and EE are also self explanatory. CB and LtLH are mainly in to be able to kill Master of Waves. Its really important since this creature can overwhelm you quite a bit if you don't have other removal. On the other hand, both can just act as additional removal.
I would board out all Souls, and then some number of discard spells (I think IOK over TS) you can either side out all IOKs and bring in 2 CBs, which I would do on the play, and I would only side out 1 IOK and bring in no CB if you are on the draw, since you want to be able to snag a turn 2 Spreading Seas, which is really strong from them on the play.
This is great insight. I forgot that Master of Waves only has one toughness (same is true for Silvergill Adept, for what it’s worth). Brutality and Last Hope were actually the other cards I was considering, but I had talked myself out of them. Your case for them has changed my mind.
Siding out more Inquisitions on the play than on the draw seems really counterintuitive on its face, but in context of Merfolk’s redundancy and what you mentioned about Spreading Seas, I actually love it. I feel a lot more clarity as it regards this matchup now.
Skred is a very tough matchup. I think we can pretty much not beat the deck, unless we discard any removal for Goyf and then hit them hard with quick goyfs. I think I would board out all Pushs and keep the Path.
Fair assessment, lol. Yeah, Path is mostly just better. In general, I’m probably getting a little too cute by leaving in too many one-ofs.
Thanks again for the welcome and the feedback; this has been quite fruitful.
If you (or anyone else) are so inclined, I’d be very interested in thoughts on how to best side against Bant Knightfall, Ponza, and 8Rack. I’ve worked on some ideas for these matchups as well, but I’ll defer to the experts before sharing my thoughts.
I am new to this thread, and to BGx decks in general. Just wanted to start off by saying a quick thanks to FlyingDelver for a fantastic primer. Now, moving on (warning: long post ahead!)...
Ever since getting into Modern almost two years back (which was preceded by decades of on-and-off kitchen table casual play), I've cycled in and out of decks an almost embarrassing number of times. This is a consequence of having a great deal of free time at work to read and theorycraft, combined with a severely restricted ability to actually get out and play due to familial obligations. Keeping 3+ decks tuned for a meta I rarely experience has begun to feel like a fool's errand. The only reason I mention this is to emphasize my strong desire to stick with one major archetype and get really bloody good at it. For a variety of reasons (interactive playstyle, stability as a constant meta presence, adaptability, cool factor), I've settled on BGx as that archetype--and I'm starting off with Abzan in particular, because red cards just aren't as appealing to me.
With that in mind, I've read the primer closely, especially the matchup section. The sheer number of cards that get sided in and out in this deck is unusual to say the least; I'm more accustomed to decks where the risk of overboarding is quite real. Due to this, I'm zeroing in on some sideboard protocols for decks that aren't mentioned in the primer, but are at least somewhat common in my local meta.
Please note that I've only played a couple dozen or so games with this deck! It's possible that I'm way, way off; if so, don't hesitate to let me know. What follows is my initial crack at a variety of sideboard plans, but first, for reference, my list:
The list is close enough to a stock build to make the following sideboarding discussions widely relevant. I followed the formula seen in the primer, wherein the highest priority changes are at the top of the list. On to the matchups:
vs. Ad Nauseam
- 3 Fatal Push
- 3 Path to Exile
- 2 Scavenging Ooze
- 1 Lingering Souls
This one I'm fairly confident is at least close to the mark. Scooze is just a grizzly bear and Souls is a tad slow, while the Paths and Pushes are completely dead. (Even if they're the type to pack a Grave Titan or whatever in the side for an alternative wincon in certain matchups, we still have some answers). So we bring in hand hate, Surgical to extract Ad Nauseam itself (or a white combo piece under certain circumstances), and all kinds of ways to cripple their mana production without losing much of anything in the way of a clock.
vs. Merfolk
- 2 Lingering Souls
- 1 Scavenging Ooze
I'll admit to plenty of uncertainty here, most especially regarding the low number of changes. I cut a couple of Souls because they line up poorly against what Merfolk has to offer, even if we're better than most decks at keeping them off Islandwalk. Lost a Scooze because they're clunky in multiples while being vulnerable to interaction like Harbinger of the Tides and Merfolk Trickster. Speaking of Trickster--he's very good against our creature suite, especially Goyf. Should trimming Goyfs be considered here, or is that pure heresy? Nothing else looks great out of the side--maybe the Fulminators and Lili the Last Hope, at a stretch? I'd love any thoughts here.
vs. Skred
+ 2 Stony Silence
+ 1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
+ 1 Thrun, the Last Troll
+ 1 Liliana, the Last Hope
Alright, this is another weird one. The spot removal is pretty bad here--half the point of Skred is that its threats blank a lot of interaction--but I'd leave in one Push (Pia and Kiran Nalaar) and two Path (Hazoret the Fervent). If they're on an old-school Boros Reckoner list, leave in most of those spells. Brutality's discard mode is surprisingly likely to whiff, the -2/-2 kills nothing relevant outside of P&K, and the drain isn't what we want to spend a card on. Finally, losing a Scooze might seem terrible against a red deck--and maybe it is--but they play 4x Relic of Progenitus, and of course Blood Moon, which means even if we aren't toally hosed, green mana may be at a premium. As for what comes in: Kalitas survives Bolts and Angers; Thrun survives everything. Lili the Last Hope grants more grinding power, even if her abilities aren't at their best. Stony Silence tops the list because it is low-key amazing against Skred. Shutting off Relics and Mind Stones can make them look like a Limited deck that happened to draft a lot of big haymakers--and they can't even remove Stony, because their catch-all answer is Ratchet Bomb, lol.
I've been working on a couple other matchups, but that should suffice for now. Once again, I'm quite new to piloting Abzan--so if these suggestions need a major overhaul, I'd love any advice! Thanks for reading.
In regards to SFM, I could see the following configurations making sense:
- 3 SFM, 1 Batterskull, 1 Sword
- 4 SFM, 1 Batterskull, 2 Swords
- 4 SFM, 2 Batterskull, 1 Sword
In each instance, you’d probably want an extra piece of equipment in the side, whether it be a different Sword (access to Fire and Ice, Light and Shadow, and Feast and Famine would be ideal but not always realistic) or a second copy of Batterskull.
Also worth noting the minor nonbo between Bob and Batterskull (I say minor because it’s most often your first tutor target, especially if you have played or will play an early Bob). For that reason, I’d be inclined to shave down to three Bobs, and probably cut my one-of Tracker as well, it being the least efficient weapon bearer and its card advantage somewhat replaced by SFM. It’s tempting to look at Flayers as the next cut, just to keep the density of answers high, but Flayer just looks too good with a Sword in hand. 6/6 Trample with three damage triggers, seems alright!
On another note, what are people’s impressions of the players’ caliber in the MTGO Tournament Practice room? I’ve been spamming a ton of matches there over the last couple weeks—with family stuff, I sort of need to be able to leave on short notice a fair amount of the time and due to this would rather not spend money to play—but I’m wondering how strong the opposition tends to be. I’m approaching 50 matches and my winrate is around 65%, which feels great. It’s often said that competitive league players are about equivalent to day 2 players at a big Open, and the people in friendly leagues are about as good, just more likely to play non Tier 1 decks. How close is the tourney practice room to this level of play, in your experience?
Alpine Moon loses the upside Sphere brings against combo decks, but we’re well-positioned enough there that I would make the trade in a heartbeat.
Oh well, red gets another toy. At least we’ll have SFM soon if the Modern community’s consensus is anything to go by.
This is the underlying assumption fueling complaints about uninteractive decks:
Close games in which both players cast a lot of spells, at least begin to execute their game plan in a meaningful way, and have to make important decisions that influence the game’s outcome are more desirable to most people than lopsided forgone conclusions in which only one (or neither) player makes relevant decisions.
“Fair” decks are, on average, more likely to facilitate what is known in common parlance as a good game than “unfair” decks.
Is it really so outlandish for me to claim that a majority of players share this opinion? Check out the prevailing sentiments on Twitch chat during GP coverage. Head down and talk to the players at your LGS. Witness the continued popularity of fair decks regardless of meta results. Read this very thread.
No one, least of all me, is saying that uninteractive decks are “worth deleting from the format” or “should disappear”: these are straw men.
Once more, radical subjectivism is at play here. It’s okay to have aspirations for this format that seek to maximize the level of player enjoyment and the relevance of player skill. There will always be variance, and there will always be pet peeve/boogeyman decks, but that doesn’t mean that overarching standards (that appeal to the majority but not every last individual) cannot exist.
Tron is a big mana deck, and as a secondary archetype I would assert that it has much more in common with combo than midrange due to all of the tutoring, cantrips, and the night-and-day difference between what the deck can do when the “combo” is assembled versus when it isn’t.
As for the GP top 8/top 16, it’s rather disgraceful. The prospect of boarding a flight, spending a not-insignificant amount of money, and taking time away from loved ones only to run afoul of a nonsense meta like this is unappealing in the extreme to a majority of players, relative to the prospect of participating in a heavily interactive meta where decisions matter and player knowledge/skill are paramount, and—bear with me here, because this may be controversial—the games are fun!
Are there really people out there who still don’t realize that interactive decks comprising the lion’s share of the meta is what this game needs to thrive (or even survive, in the long run)?
Well said.
Matsoni, good job taking down Infect. Heavy interaction with a big threat clocking them sounds like it got you there, and that’s exactly the sort of hands you need to see against Storm. Drawing the proverbial “wrong half of the deck” may not be quite as much of a problem for Abzan as it is for, say, a traditional control deck, but it’s still something you’ll have to get used to (and do your best to avoid) coming from a deck like Burn, where redundancy is quite high. If you know you’re against a combo deck like Storm where all forms of our interaction line up well, you should be mulliganing functional but low-interaction hands in search of discard effects and spot removal.
You’re not likely to pull off the win against colorless Eldrazi nut draws, sadly. As for the Pyro matchup, getting Mooned out of the game twice is rough. That’s a card that really needs to be respected. Borderline keep/mull decisions can be influenced by how well your lands line up against a prospective Moon. Depending on your and your opponent’s progression, it can also be correct to pass turns with GB mana open and a Decay in hand (especially if you’re on the play and landed a T2 threat) to answer the Moon.
Still, the card will frequently just get you. I love the art, flavor, and nostalgia factor of older sets, but holy crap do some of these 8th Edition cards have the potential to drain the joy out of games!
Match 1 vs Amulet Titan: I opened on Thoughtseize and saw Sakura-Tribe Scout, Azusa, Primeval Titan, and 4 lands. Took away the Titan and now he needed to draw another one or a Summoner’s Pact, and for a while he didn’t. I went T2 Flayer into T3 LoTV and clocked him good while running him out of resources and filtering my draws so I could answer Titans (double Path in hand). Flayer went the whole way.
G2 he has a wicked threat-dense hand with 2 lands (one bounce), Explore, Tribe-Scout, and lots of big critters (Titan, Thragtusk, Ruric Thar). My T1 IoK takes Explore and he doesn’t draw more lands for a couple turns. I slam T3 LoTV and just start wrecking his hand. T4 I play Goyf, who eventually closes the game with help from the Ape Village.
Match 2 vs Jeskai Tempo: G1 he opened on Delver. I had discard but no removal; saw he had a handful of gas. His Delver flipped right away and started the clock. I flooded out and made the stand with some Lingering Souls, but he out-tempoed me and finished with end step Snap->Helix, untap Snap->Bolt.
G2 I opened on IoK and saw a one-land 7 with Delver and Serum. I took the Serum. He played Delver, I played Goyf, he topdecked a Serum to flip Delver but whiffed on a land for that one turn, which let me pull ahead with a T3 discard + second Goyf. He then found a second land but was too far behind to deal with 4/5 Goyfs. G3 was quite fun and close. I curved out perfectly and just dominated early, but he topdecked two straight Snapcasters (I had already cracked my early Spellbomb to blank an earlier Snap) to almost claw his way back in. But in the end, Goyfs were just too hard for him to answer efficiently. Props to Shambling Vent for helping me stay out of double burn spell range.
Match 3 vs Storm. G1 was INSANE, lol. I lost the die roll and drew this 7:
Vent
Swamp
Catacombs
Goyf
Goyf
Flayer
LoTV
I would have likely kept that on the play (T2 threat, T3 Lili, tick down to kill a cost reducer if he has one, start ticking up to win), but on the draw I needed earlier interaction. Shipped it and drew a no-land 6, shipped that and drew an ok 5. I Pushed his T2 Eletromancer then landed a Bob. A 30 minute game followed where he value Grapeshotted 3 or maybe 4 different times (once on T4 to kill my Bob and LoTV, 10 minutes later to answer another Lili, and near the end to kill a Scooze that was on the verge of putting the game away, maybe another time in between that I can’t recall).
Eventually, after a ton of back and forth, I got there. That Scooze was clutch, coming down the turn after after a value GS to eat his Past in Flames. G2 was a lot quicker. I had a strong 7, he mulled to a weak 6 with no cost reducer and I just buried him with discard into Goyf into LoTV. Grew the Goyf to a 6/7 by pitching an extra LoTV and EE to LoTV +1s.
Round 4 vs Infect: on the draw, I mulled to a 6 with Push and IoK. He opened on Glistener Elf, I pushed it and passed. He played Blighted Agent, I played IoK and saw lethal in his hand. No second removal spell, but I bluffed one. He went for it anyway and T3ed me despite eating removal and discard in the first two turns. No wonder Probe got banned, lol.
G2 I went IoK (seeing an Inkmoth but no creatures, taking a Blossoming Defense) into Bob, who buried him in card advantage. Things were still a little hairy midgame but I found a Fulminator for his Inkmoth. Bob and Flayer beats got me there. G3 I once again leveraged Bob to take over the game—he is absurd when your life total doesn’t matter, lol. I thought I had it all locked up with Goyf and some Souls tokens attacking, always leaving one back to block his Inkmoth (he had Pendelhaven so I was forced to repeatedly chump, but four chumpers from one card was still great here). I found a bunch of discard but no removal in the late game.
He topdecked a Distortion Strike to make my blockers irrelevant. He actually had lethal in hand but didn’t go for it because I had a nearly full hand and he just assumed I had Push/Path/Decay. He just kept forcing chumps and chumped with his own Hierarchs, presumably hoping to draw a protection spell to go all in. But I found another Fulminator first, and that was that.
4-0! I won the matchup lottery for sure, but also had to really earn every win besides the Amulet Titan ones, which just sorta lined up perfectly for me. Having all kinds of a good time on Abzan, to the point where my desire to acquire the red pieces needed to be able switch over to Jund at times is basically nonexistent. I’m so happy with Lingering Souls that I’m considering the fourth copy in place of Tireless Tracker—otherwise, this 75 feels great.
Thank you.
The Path question may perhaps the most important one for Abzan pilots to work out. You're certainly in good company (a certain Mr. Duke springs to mind) when it comes to eschewing Path in this deck. I get the reasoning behind that stance--giving the opponent a free anything, even a basic land, is a little weird in a build that otherwise wants to grind them out of resources--but I just see it as a necessary evil. We're still in a world of Hollow Ones, Gurmag Anglers, Wurmcoil Engines, Primeval Titans, and Bedlam Revelers, to say nothing of all the CMC 3-4 dudes that you can't guarantee Push will be live for when you really need it. If these cards are a concern, Path is as clean an answer as we've got.
I'm not sure I follow. Are these opponents of yours running decks that aren't greatly hampered by prison effects? I can't imagine a world in which a player--especially a casual player--would rather be locked out of plays/attacks entirely than eat a discard spell or two. I've witnessed this frequently when spectating Lantern games locally, where newer players are more likely to play out the game (and grow increasingly frustrated) despite their chances of drawing out of the lock approaching zero. (I'm not attacking Lantern here, by the way--just providing another example of how prison-style effects are generally perceived).
I agree! Part of what makes Modern great is the vast array of viable archetypes. But the greatest part of what makes MtG great in general is--not to insult anyone's intelligence by stating the blindingly obvious--the fact that it's an extremely fun game whose outcomes happen to depend to a significant degree on player skill. What must be avoided, if you ask me, is sacrificing the things that make MtG great in service of Modern's archetype diversity. A preponderance of matches which are neither fun (for both players) nor skill-testing (for either) are anathema to the long-term prospects of this game.
Let me be clear about three things: I think the current meta is quite decent; banning anything should be used only as an absolute last resort; and the existence non-"fair" archetypes is 100% fine with me. I only waded into this discussion to contest the notion that fair deck players are out of line to complain at higher rates, because a metagame comprised predominantly of fair decks (assuming sufficient diversity) will, on the whole, be the most fun and the most skill-testing for a majority of players.
Couldn't agree more, and recent signs have honestly been encouraging (in a one step back, two steps forward sort of way). Printing Fatal Push, banning Gitaxian Probe, printing Field of Ruin, unbanning Jace and BBE--these all represent firmly positive strides toward making Modern MtG the gold standard of enjoyable, widely accessible, and skill-intensive gaming.
Match 1 vs. Bant Knightfall
Nothing like driving many miles and playing at an unfamiliar store only to wind up sitting down against your main testing partner—and facing an unfavorable matchup to boot. Good times!
G1 I nailed him with a T2 Brutality, killing his Hierarch and taking away his CoCo. He followed up with a Voice of Resurgence, which I was able to answer T3 with a Path into a Goyf. He flooded out and I rode the Goyf to victory with an assist from some Souls tokens, killing a Spell Queller along the way.
You can see my sideboard plan a few posts up. I followed it and lost G2 to a T2 Exalted Kitchen Finks that went most of the distance while my Goyf and Flayer ate Paths, and it was my turn to flood out. But I took G3 on the back of another T2 Brutality that not only killed his Birds and took his Negate (which I was moderately surprised to see), but also revealed a hand with Queller and some funky mana (no white access). A T3 Goyf went the entire way as I found more discard and held up removal spells.
Match 2 vs. Humans
G1 we both interacted heavily with him finding multiple copies of Phantasmal Image to Freebooters and Meddlers, but he never really developed a beefy board presence. So I was able to leverage my T2 Confidant into enough advantage to overwhelm him. A motley crew of Bob, Flayer, Souls, and a Treetop Village were my beaters that put the game away.
I sided as per the guide and then ran into my worst luck of the night. My hand was straight fire:
Catacombs
Swamp
Inquisition
Confidant
LoTV
Decay
Pulse
It would be hard to design a better hand against Humans. He mulled to 6 and on my T1 I Inquisitioned and saw a very mediocre and durdly hand. Slammed my T2 Bob and knew the game was in the bag even though I didn’t hit a third land yet. But five turns and ten draws later, I STILL have no third land, Bob triggers have wrecked my life total, I haven’t been able to play the Scooze or Lilis in my hand that could take over the game, and I’m dead to two straight topdecked Mantis Riders. Rough.
G3 I kept a 3-land 7 with Bob, Goyf, IoK, and LoTV, but no spot removal. I started strong but found 0 pieces of removal and once more died to two Mantis Riders (one was an Image). Can’t help feeling pretty hard done by here; I think both keeps were correct and I don’t believe I made any gameplay mistakes. It happens.
Match 3 vs. Dimir Mill
G1 I hit the poor dude with 3 discard spells in the first two turns, taking away Mesmeric Orb, Fraying Sanity, and Mind Funeral. He hit me back with a Glimpse the Unthinkable, and then I slammed a 7/8 Goyf, followed up the next turn by a delirious Flayer for good measure. T5 kill.
-3 Path
-3 Push
+2 Brutality
+1 Last Hope
+2 Fulminator
+1 Extraction (this is probably incorrect, but I was gunning for Ensnaring Bridge, and it was that or the third Fulminator)
G2 he stuck a T2 Orb that I was unable to answer. I went Bob into Goyf into Thoughtseize + Brutality, and taking away two mill spells gave me enough breathing room to close out the game despite Orb doing significant damage.
Match 4 vs. Kiki-Chord
G1: he leads on Birds, I Push them. He plays Voice, I Thoughtseize and see three lands plus a Restoration Angel. I take the Angel, Path the Voice, and then have too much gas in my hand for his land-heavy hand to keep up with, with Goyf and Souls putting the damage across.
After making sideboard changes that were very similar to how I ran against Knightfall, I opened on a strong 7, but it wasn’t enough. Throughout a heavily interactive early/mid game, my opponent buried me in value (Renegade Rallier/Voice/Eternal Witness/Chord), and I flooded out when I needed some big topdecks. Manlands extended the game but their efforts were not sufficient.
G3 I opened on manland into Bob. On my end step, opponent Pathed the Bob and then untapped and played a Voice. I was fortunate enough to have a T3 that allowed me to answer back with a Path of my own and a second Bob, who stuck around and provided me with an insurmountable advantage. After answering several of his plays, I closed out the game with a classic board state of Bob, Goyf, and both Lilianas, with Vent swings keeping me out of the death-by-Bob red zone.
3-1 my first time out, with the sole loss coming to one of the store’s best players running Modern’s top deck, and me being desperately unlucky to whiff on a third land for twelve straight draws, which my opponent agreed he couldn’t have won through with the sheer amount of gas I started with and drew into. That said, I can’t complain about my luck overall. G2/3 against Humans aside, my progressions were always at least reasonable, and I think I only mulliganed once over 11 games.
Couldn’t be more pleased to be all-in on the GBx life! I hold the perhaps unpopular opinion that Abzan is criminally underplayed right now, especially relative to Jund’s meta share—not only because of the power of Souls and the access to Stony, arguably the format’s strongest silver bullet—but also because Path seems like it’s approaching must-have status for fair decks, with all of the high-CMC or huge-statted creatures running around.
One of my goals moving forward is to develop a comprehensive sideboard plan for even fringe or obscure matchups, so if anyone feels like sharing their thoughts on facing literally any deck out there, I’m interested.
This is very good advice insofar as it pertains specifically to becoming a better Modern player. Anger severely clouds one’s judgment; and setting aside one’s emotional investment in the result in order to better assess what could have changed if x decision had been made differently is a very useful tool for improvement.
However, I disagree with the underlying implication that “fair” deck players are somehow out of line to complain at higher rates than people who play “unfair” decks.
The overwhelming consensus of the Modern community is that games which lead to both players getting to cast lots of cards and execute at least some significant portion of their game plan are desirable. It also seems clear that games with more frequent decisions—and more complex decision trees—will, on average, tend to reward the more skillful player. No, I do not have data points buttressing these assertions—I would say they fall firmly under the umbrella of common sense.
Perhaps the gap between peak desirability (both players making a great many meaningful decisions) and a game that may as well have been decided by a dice roll (T1 Blood Moon on the play) is lessened at the pro and dedicated grinder levels. People in these categories play such an enormous frequency of matches that individual game experiences don’t loom as large in the memory. But for players with more limited time to actually get games in—and remember that these players comprise the silent majority—experiences that make them feel as though they were robbed of the ability to play the game in any meaningful way are an absolute detriment to the prospects of their long-term participation in this hobby. This applies to new players, yes, but also to skilled and knowledgeable players who simply don’t have the free time to play day-in, day-out.
Consider the plethora of hobby alternatives that exist to a $1k+ investment in one or more tiered Modern decks. Consider the growing prominence of streaming and live coverage of big paper events, both of which benefit greatly from being able to showcase interactive games where the streamer or commentators can narrate a variety of options.
If fair deck pilots complain more (and understand that I’m not specifically addressing Tron here, nor the state of blue decks, nor anything else besides the fair/unfair dichotomy), then I would assert it’s because their complaints are justified. A strong majority presence of fair matches of MtG are healthier for the long-term prospects of this wonderful game than the alternative.
I own one fair deck (Abzan midrange) and one unfair deck (Ad Nauseam). Abzan consistently leads to a more enjoyable game experience for my opponents—and lets be honest, Ad Naus is definitely on the tame side as far as unfair decks go. It’s mostly uninteractive and has a combo kill, but at least it lets the opponent cast spells and have a reasonable shot at interacting or racing.
I’ve personally witnessed severalnew and budding Modern players get driven entirely away from this game because veterans on decks like Pyro Prison want to cast T1 Moons, Chalices, and Bridges. I will never understand this mentality, which seems rooted in the conception of fun as a zero-sum game rather than something that can be symbiotic. I can’t help but assume that the types of players gravitating toward decks which require as few difficult decisions as possible just aren’t very good—otherwise, why would they leave so much to chance?
Radical subjectivism is just as faulty of a framework for assessing the Modern metagame as it is for assessing things in the real world. Traditional control decks, traditional midrange decks, and go-wide/tribal decks that pack a respectable amount of interaction should absolutely be the strong backbone of this format if we want it to survive and thrive.
Thank you!
I’m totally with you here. EE on 1 isn’t bad at all either in certain situations; I think it’s well worth including.
vs. Bant Knightfall
+1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
+1 Liliana, the Last Hope
+2 Collective Brutality
+1 Damnation
+1 Engineered Explosives
On the play:
-3 Liliana of the Veil
-2 Lingering Souls
-1 Inquisition of Kozilek
On the draw:
-4 Liliana of the Veil
-2 Inquisition of Kozilek
I’ll be rolling with something like that.
Sounds about right. What are the best Extraction targets? Thoughtseize seems like the first of our discard spells that should go, but would you rather leave in IoK or Brutality if there aren’t enough slots to replace discard with?
I share your distaste for Ponza, believe me! Agreed on early discard and spot removal being absolutely crucial. When you say that playing the grindy game isn’t good here, I agree to some extent. I can’t see Souls doing much, and this might be a match to move away from the one-of Tireless Tracker and maybe even a Scooze due to mana constraints. (Correct me if I’m wrong; for some reason I tend toward shaving on Scooze more than I probably should.)
On the other hand, I think other grindy options like Last Hope and Fulminator would be great here. Explosives on 1 can be superb as well, and if there’s a mid-game window, I don’t hate laying it down on 3 either as a hedge against future Moons—although that will depend greatly on the board state and whether or not a topdecked Moon will radically influence the game.
I am not sure how cards like Kalitas, Thrun, and Damnation factor in.
It was helpful for sure! I too would love to hear more input on these matchups, and any other ones people feel like discussing.
Thanks!
Makes sense. I hedged a little bit toward Souls, thinking of the value from having all 3 Brutalities main post-side, but you’re probably right. I could see leaving in one Scooze and one Souls as well. Either way, the changes we’re able to make here feel great.
This is great insight. I forgot that Master of Waves only has one toughness (same is true for Silvergill Adept, for what it’s worth). Brutality and Last Hope were actually the other cards I was considering, but I had talked myself out of them. Your case for them has changed my mind.
Siding out more Inquisitions on the play than on the draw seems really counterintuitive on its face, but in context of Merfolk’s redundancy and what you mentioned about Spreading Seas, I actually love it. I feel a lot more clarity as it regards this matchup now.
Fair assessment, lol. Yeah, Path is mostly just better. In general, I’m probably getting a little too cute by leaving in too many one-ofs.
Thanks again for the welcome and the feedback; this has been quite fruitful.
If you (or anyone else) are so inclined, I’d be very interested in thoughts on how to best side against Bant Knightfall, Ponza, and 8Rack. I’ve worked on some ideas for these matchups as well, but I’ll defer to the experts before sharing my thoughts.
I am new to this thread, and to BGx decks in general. Just wanted to start off by saying a quick thanks to FlyingDelver for a fantastic primer. Now, moving on (warning: long post ahead!)...
Ever since getting into Modern almost two years back (which was preceded by decades of on-and-off kitchen table casual play), I've cycled in and out of decks an almost embarrassing number of times. This is a consequence of having a great deal of free time at work to read and theorycraft, combined with a severely restricted ability to actually get out and play due to familial obligations. Keeping 3+ decks tuned for a meta I rarely experience has begun to feel like a fool's errand. The only reason I mention this is to emphasize my strong desire to stick with one major archetype and get really bloody good at it. For a variety of reasons (interactive playstyle, stability as a constant meta presence, adaptability, cool factor), I've settled on BGx as that archetype--and I'm starting off with Abzan in particular, because red cards just aren't as appealing to me.
With that in mind, I've read the primer closely, especially the matchup section. The sheer number of cards that get sided in and out in this deck is unusual to say the least; I'm more accustomed to decks where the risk of overboarding is quite real. Due to this, I'm zeroing in on some sideboard protocols for decks that aren't mentioned in the primer, but are at least somewhat common in my local meta.
Please note that I've only played a couple dozen or so games with this deck! It's possible that I'm way, way off; if so, don't hesitate to let me know. What follows is my initial crack at a variety of sideboard plans, but first, for reference, my list:
1x Forest
1x Godless Shrine
4x Marsh Flats
2x Overgrown Tomb
1x Plains
2x Shambling Vent
2x Swamp
1x Temple Garden
1x Treetop Village
4x Verdant Catacombs
4x Liliana of the Veil
3x Inquisition of Kozilek
3x Lingering Souls
2x Maelstrom Pulse
3x Thoughtseize
4x Dark Confidant
2x Grim Flayer
2x Scavenging Ooze
4x Tarmogoyf
1x Tireless Tracker
2x Abrupt Decay
3x Fatal Push
3x Path to Exile
2x Collective Brutality
1x Damnation
1x Engineered Explosives
3x Fulminator Mage
1x Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
1x Liliana, the Last Hope
2x Nihil Spellbomb
2x Stony Silence
1x Surgical Extraction
1x Thrun, the Last Troll
The list is close enough to a stock build to make the following sideboarding discussions widely relevant. I followed the formula seen in the primer, wherein the highest priority changes are at the top of the list. On to the matchups:
vs. Ad Nauseam
- 3 Fatal Push
- 3 Path to Exile
- 2 Scavenging Ooze
- 1 Lingering Souls
+ 2 Collective Brutality
+ 1 Surgical Extraction
+ 2 Stony Silence
+ 1 Engineered Explosives
+ 3 Fulminator Mage
This one I'm fairly confident is at least close to the mark. Scooze is just a grizzly bear and Souls is a tad slow, while the Paths and Pushes are completely dead. (Even if they're the type to pack a Grave Titan or whatever in the side for an alternative wincon in certain matchups, we still have some answers). So we bring in hand hate, Surgical to extract Ad Nauseam itself (or a white combo piece under certain circumstances), and all kinds of ways to cripple their mana production without losing much of anything in the way of a clock.
vs. Merfolk
- 2 Lingering Souls
- 1 Scavenging Ooze
+ 1 Engineered Explosives
+ 1 Damnation
+ 1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
I'll admit to plenty of uncertainty here, most especially regarding the low number of changes. I cut a couple of Souls because they line up poorly against what Merfolk has to offer, even if we're better than most decks at keeping them off Islandwalk. Lost a Scooze because they're clunky in multiples while being vulnerable to interaction like Harbinger of the Tides and Merfolk Trickster. Speaking of Trickster--he's very good against our creature suite, especially Goyf. Should trimming Goyfs be considered here, or is that pure heresy? Nothing else looks great out of the side--maybe the Fulminators and Lili the Last Hope, at a stretch? I'd love any thoughts here.
vs. Skred
+ 2 Stony Silence
+ 1 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
+ 1 Thrun, the Last Troll
+ 1 Liliana, the Last Hope
- 2 Fatal Push
- 1 Path to Exile
- 1 Collective Brutality
- 1 Scavenging Ooze
Alright, this is another weird one. The spot removal is pretty bad here--half the point of Skred is that its threats blank a lot of interaction--but I'd leave in one Push (Pia and Kiran Nalaar) and two Path (Hazoret the Fervent). If they're on an old-school Boros Reckoner list, leave in most of those spells. Brutality's discard mode is surprisingly likely to whiff, the -2/-2 kills nothing relevant outside of P&K, and the drain isn't what we want to spend a card on. Finally, losing a Scooze might seem terrible against a red deck--and maybe it is--but they play 4x Relic of Progenitus, and of course Blood Moon, which means even if we aren't toally hosed, green mana may be at a premium. As for what comes in: Kalitas survives Bolts and Angers; Thrun survives everything. Lili the Last Hope grants more grinding power, even if her abilities aren't at their best. Stony Silence tops the list because it is low-key amazing against Skred. Shutting off Relics and Mind Stones can make them look like a Limited deck that happened to draft a lot of big haymakers--and they can't even remove Stony, because their catch-all answer is Ratchet Bomb, lol.
I've been working on a couple other matchups, but that should suffice for now. Once again, I'm quite new to piloting Abzan--so if these suggestions need a major overhaul, I'd love any advice! Thanks for reading.