Some people do play a single fiend hunter in the main to act as removal.
It's slightly better for the builds that run viscera seer.
It's like having access to 5-9 semi removal spells because of your chords/coco's.
I found the 1/3 body a bit fragile and low impact, but it's good in some matchups.
Hi guys, draw-go player here. Wondering what you guys think of the matchup. I haven't dropped a game to counters company yet so I didn't know if it's just a good MU for me or there's more to it. How do you guys play the g2/3 against control decks? What's your plan if they board into GY hate?
You have to be a bit more specific as there are many different control decks.
It also depends how the decks are built, as there are many ways to build and sideboard.
I myself find control to be a fairly good matchup and I do ok, but for example UWR is a bit harder than grixis.
Also, I find the inexperienced players really struggle against control because they don't know how to play against it.
I myself board out a lot of combo pieces and bring in resilient threats that are not vulnerable to anger or graveyard hate, along with maelstrom pulses to answer any problem card. So if you bring in graveyard hate, you might lose to something else.
It really depends on the build, player and sideboard.
@FitzRolf
I seriously think you are gearing your deck too much for attrition game 1. There is just no room in the modern decklists for 3 voices, especially not the dual combo builds.
I would suggest at minimum 1 flickerwisp main deck - or a fiend hunter or something like that. I have found Flickerwisp to be perfect for beating opposing creature toolbox decks (especially ones that go bigger than us) since you can buy some time then wisp their Linvala and kill them. Most of them will try to coast on a Linvala. You may prefer a fiend hunter but I like having a way to beat G1 pithing needles out of Lantern too all in one card.
Once you start ceding the fast combo for interaction or card draw game 1 you start getting destroyed by storm, tron, ad nauseam and similar. The reason the deck is good is because it's focused on the combo and now we can do it faster.
Just commenting on a few things here.
There are some flex slots game 1 to have a more grindy deck. Once you have 4 druids, 4 witness and 3/4 viziers, there's really not much you can do to increase your combo potential too much. Adding a bunch of payoff spells for infinite mana is counter productive, as getting the combo in the first place is the hard part, not finding a payoff.
I strongy disliked both fiend hunter and flickerwisp. They never did anything when I needed them to, and some of the matchups where you want them, they die too easy to fatal push and cheap removal. In theory, flickerwisp could remove some piece temporary, but that's not how the game played out. Most of the time you just play it for very little or no value and you spent 3 mana on a 3/1 flier. Fiend hunter is good in the mirror, and pherhaps against eldrazi tron, but I still found it too fragile.. Game 2/3 I boarded it out even in some of the matchups that it was good, because I prefer hard removal such as path or pulse that permanently fix a problem.
If you run into weird decks with Linvala main at your LGS then pherhaps, but against the tier 1 decks it was underwhelming.
If the 1 or 2 decks in the world that maindecks pithing needle makes your druid into a slighlty worse mana dork, then that is fine. Lantern is a good matchup anyway, so who cares.
I would not play a single rallier. Tracker or courser seem ok.
The idea of having one to get druid back seems alright but not sure it's worth it. I'm pretty firmly on 4 rallier tho. I've found in lower numbers they seem to be less impactful.
I'll also comment quickly on your opinion about 1 vs 4 Renegade Rallier. You can play 1 Renegade rallier if you want, as it's great to chord for 3, and get back druid if they kill it in respons (or a vizier from the GY if they don't kill it).
I find the "you must have 0 or 4" opinion to just be absurd.
Be the last one to act. The one who goes for the combo first seems to lose a lot in the Abzan mirror.
I generally think people are making a mistake bringing in Paths in that matchup. Their creatures suck so you never want to path and give them the mana advantage. It's better to play hate like like Linvala, Pontiff or Phyrexian Revoker, etc.
Mana advantage and board advantage are key, township is important, and whoever has the better sideboard hate is likely to win.
Linvala is a card I see floated a lot but it needs to be protected with spellskite(s) if you want to to ride it to victory.
One thing you can do is play 4 damned Townships (at minimum 3)! Try it. The deck can support them easily and drawing a township in the mirror is very important.
Edit: Another thing you can do is be unpredictable in your sideboarding. Try keeping all the combo in and just boarding in like 2 cards (say pontiff + spellskite or something) and aggressively jamming the combo on the play, then sideboarding controlly on the draw.
Just wanted to say I disagree strongly to this.
You want paths, it's what wins the mirrors. I won 4 mirrors this weekend at GP Copenhagen. Actually a 100% mirror win rate. (and I only won 1 of the die rolls)
Linvala isn't as great as people think imo as everyone brings in lots of removal anyway, and getting your 4 drop pathed feels bad. Just keep path up to remove the druid in response to any shenanigans and try to develop your board/get your own druid out.
Pontiff can also be a beating in the mirror.
Revoker is bad to bring in, as it shuts down your own druids as well.
I rarely win with the township part. It happened once out of maaaaany games in the mirror, someone usually ends up comboing.
Also one of the mirror matches, the guy didn't know how the combo actually worked, and didn't use his 2/2 ballista untill I already had the vizier out.. This was round 3 of the GP when I was 2-0 so you'd assume he would know.. This happened a couple of times during the weekend, but I guess people will catch on eventually and wise up..
Storm, living end and Ad Nauseam is a reason to have aethersworn cannonist in addition to Eidolon in the side. You can chord for 2 turn 3 off a druid, but you often can't chord for 3 fast enough to not lose, especially on the draw. Also, it's an additional coco hit and hate piece.
Ballista is amazing vs infect and affinity and elves and delver and the mirror especially.
The entity and Rhonas hate come from a place of informed analysis, not spite. I don't want to play 3 mana creatures that don't do anything on their own and require a minimum of 3 mana + other creatures on the field to attack or block. I don't want to t3 CoCo into Rhonas and then have to hold up 3 mana on t4 if I want to attack or block with him. Unless you have a creature with 2 power out, double that mana requirement to 6.
Go look at the druid/vizier lists that have topped or placed in leagues and tourneys. Virtually all of them are playing Ballista, and that's because it's clearly the best card.
In your response, could you explain the matchup you'd prefer to have Rhonas or Entity as your wincon? I can't think of any personally.
Have you actually tested this? Because what you're saying is not true at all. And weird lists exist online because you can't play the deck properly. Getting all the creatures in your deck,stacking infinite bolsters and gaining infinite life is not viable online, so you need a win con that takes little time and wins on the spot.
Playing in paper is totally different, and you can set up win in many different ways.
Rhonas is miles better against all deaths shadow and control decks, where ballista is an embarrasment. Play a ballista for 2 against death's shadow that just gets fatal pushed and ping them for 2? Whereas Rhonas can be an unbeatable threat against some decks. Against all decks with big creatures, Rhonas can do a lot of work. And the opposite, against affinity, elves and mirror, ballista is good. They are good against very opposite decks. Though being a hit off coco, and chordable, like you can win through rest in peace if ballista or duskwatch has hit the gy.
They both have their weaknesses, but when casting a coco, I'd rather have another live hit and another chance off winning with coco if that's your only payoff when you have the combo.
I could see running ballista in side against the small creature matchups, but I had in in the deck for a long time, and after drawing it so many times against death's shadow, tron, grixis shadow/control, it just felt so bad. Quite often I've chorded for Rhonas against jund or other grindy decks, when no other cards would win. It won alone through a board of ooze and double goyf, because with it and som random 2 power creatures and 3/6 mana up they could never attack.
And most importantly, Rhonas seems better in the difficult matchups. I could see a ballista in the side, and swap them for the small creature matchups.
Mindbender and Sculler really dont fulfill the same roles. I don't think they should be compared. Mindbender is a value card for midrange and control that's hard to interact with. Sculler is a 2 drop that takes a card in the matchups where you want it.(i.e., very little removal/expensive removal)
As much as I like Voice of Resurgence, it gets much worse relative to the number of renegade ralliers and viscera seers, both of which are worse in a druid-vizier build.
Why are they worse? There are a lot of flex slots after you put in 4 druids and 3/4 vizier. You won't always have your combo to win, you probably have to play a real game of magic more often than you combo. Voices even protect you going for the combo if they are in play. Being all in on the druid combo isn't enough imo, you still need to play a real game, and having several angles of attack makes it harder to play against and sideboard against.
Keep in mind that online and paper lists will be a bit different. Gaining "infinite" life online isn't possible, so understand people add things like redcap to make killing people easier. It's not needed in paper.
Ballista: I think ballista is a really embarrasing creature in most matchups in modern. Especially in our harder matchups. It's just horrible against control, death's shadow, eldrazi, tron, valakut etc, and it's also a coco miss.
The matchups where ballista is a good creature its own is Affinity, coco, elves, Soul Sisters and hatebears. He’s fine against merfolk and dredge and a few other as well.
Rhonas: In something like 99% of cases, Rhonas is good enough. You should play your deck, gain infinite life and bolster and all that stuff before attacking anyway. (also not really possible online)
However, Rhonas is actually a really good creature against control type decks and bad matchups. Death’s shadow can often not attack at all with him and a couple of creatures, and some decks simply can’t beat him. He brawls with the biggest creatures in modern and only dies to path (and a few other fringe cards).
I’ve won games against these decks by chording for Rhonas, when no other creatures would save me. Sometimes my finks and voices are just small and embarrassing. Rhonas helps a lot. Being a coco hit is great as well. (another hit if your only infinite mana payoff is coco for example)
Notes: Ensnaring bridge does nothing against Rhonas, neither does cryptic tapping the team. Druid is 0 power and can untap itself.
Cards Rhonas is sometimes bad against: Phyrexian Unlife, deflecting palm, Angel’s grace, condemn, Blessed Alliance, sometimes Thalia (first strike)
(note that you will still probably win against these cards if you play properly and draw/play your deck first, it's just sometimes you sometimes have to play around)
Mirror entity is fine imo, but a bit mana intensive and fragile.
Fiend hunter: In theory he’s good. However all the matchups I want him in are matchups where they have so much removal, he’s more of a liability on an embarrassing body than an asset. Unless you can sac him in response to trigger, I would much rather just sideboard in lots of paths and maelstrom pulses. Kalitas and oozes aren’t such a huge problem as they used to be since we have a better combo that doesn’t use the graveyeard anyway.
Spellskite vs Selfless Spirit: Selfless spirit is just better these days. There are so few bolts and so many pushes. There are however angers and other boardwipes. Spirit can also attack, block things from affinity and plays well with Renegade rallier. You can also do things like triple block big threats and kill something. Spellskite might come back, but for now I think spirit is much better.
Flickerwisp:
I thought it’s be good in theory, but after testing I found it mediocre.. It was ofte a sorcery speed low impact 3 mana spell. Once in a while it did something cool, from a cooc or chord.
Voice of Resurgence:
This card is soo good against difficult matchups. It can sometimes win the game alone against control. If they kill your voice on their turn and you follow up with rallier it can just be game over.
Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit:
I like the old combo as well. I think diversifying and having 2 good combos is great, and infinite bolster has been usefull. Bolster on druid is also cool.
Sideboard:
Distended Mindbender vs Tidehollow Sculler:
I see I differ from most lists by running mindbender. There are a couple of reasons. Mindbender is so much better against control. Sculler is bad against control, and even worse against decks with kolaghans command. It’s a liability and dies to the same cards that the rest of our deck does.
Mindbender on the other hand, attacks from a completely different angle. It doesn’t die to push or anger or Ugin while being a 2 or 3 for 1 most often. It just wrecks Ad Nauseam, and it can sometimes even brawl with goyfs, thought knot seers and reality smashers.
I think Sculler is better against storm and fast combo decks, but I bring in Mindbender in more matchups than I would sculler. Double black is a downside, but worth it imo. I’ve snagged damnations, cryptics, kalitas, oozes, reality smashers, or even angel’s graze + ad nauseam from the same cast. It’s not a minor annoyance as Sculler might be, it’s sometimes just a 1 card lights out combo.
Eidolon of Rhetoric AND Ethersworn Canonist ??
First of all, I want more than 1 hatepiece for these decks. Second, chording for Eidolon turn 3 is unfortunately very difficult, while chording for 2 on turn 3 is usually possible. Just gives me an easier time against storm, ad Nauseam and some fringe combo decks. Eidolon is the better card though.
Maelstrom Pulse vs Abrubt decay:
I think people still on Abrubt decay haven’t seen yet how good maelstrom pulse actually is, or are on old lists. You will sometimes kill 2+ death’s shadow with it or 2 goyfs, but that’s not the main reason to run it. Maelstrom pulse can be brought in against decks where abrubt decay is useless. Want to kill a black leyline, a kalitas, lingering souls, while still hitting all the relevant hate you might want to hit? Maelstrom Pulse has you covered.
You can’t bring in abrubt decay incase they have grafdiggers, rest in peace, or bring in path against control decks that might bring in Kalitas or lingering souls, but you CAN bring in Maelstrom Pulse against almost any deck in modern and hit good targets.
Ballista is not good against death's shadow. It doesn't kill anything of theirs, dies to push and pinging for 2 or whatever might even help them.
Breakdown of Ballista vs Rhonas:
Ballista:
Pros: Good against affinity, elves, Mirror, infect, sometimes merfolk. (decks with small creatures).
Can win without an attack step, wins through fringe cards like worship, Phyrexian unlife, 3 and 5 mana gideon. Cons: Is a miss with coco and chord. (if you have combo turn 3 and just coco as payoff for infinite mana for example.
It's bad against control, death's shadow, eldrazitron, tron, valakut decks, jund/grixis etc (except against decks playing bob). It's often just a 2 mana mogg fanatic.
Rhonas:
Pros: Good against death's shadow, control, jund/abzan/grixis. Basicly any slow deck without path. I've chorded for it when it was the only creature that could save me against a board of like ooze + double goyf or similar. It also provides a very quick clock, just +2 power on a random 2 drop and go to town. It's also a good coco/chord hit.
Cons: It's worse against fast decks, like affinity, burn, elves, etc and some decks with path. It needs combat to win with infinite mana.
Conclusion:
I can see the argument for ballista. But I think the minor upsides of not requiring combat isn't worth the added utility when not having infinite mana. There are some fringe cases where ballista wins with infinite mana, but Rhonas doesnt. But there might also be times where you have infinite mana, and you hit Rhonas with coco and win, where ballista would miss.
After tests, I found to be chording for Rhonas quite often against decks like death's shadow, jund, grixis, and decks with no way of removing him, as he's quite a pain for them to deal with. It also makes you less vulnerable to anger and damnation while pressuring them hard.
Both death's shadow and jund etc can have boardstates where they simply have bigger creatures than you, and you can't attack or block profitably. Rhonas mitigates that with deathtouch and indestructible, while making your other threats able to attack through theirs.
Ensnaring bridge is not an nissue by the way, you just pump after attacking. The bridge, it does nothing.
Bonus: Duskwatch Recruiter:
So, is duskwatch needed or can we shave to 1 win condition?
The way the deck often plays is that you don't want to coco in your mainphase every time. They might have mana open and you suspect counterspells or removal. Maybe you "accidently" combo in your own endstep while they do something EOT?
Duskwatch recruiter is great in those cases, since he gives you an outlet for infinite mana at instant speed!
If you draw 10 good creatures and set up a perfect coco or 2 you will probably just win without infinite damage. This instant speed combo is actually very powerful to have access to.
Ok, many games tested today, also against grindy matchups like jund and jeskai control and similar. Also the mirror, which is really stupid game 1..
Anyway, imo ballista is not needed. I have 1 duskwatch recruiter and 1 Rhonas. Rhonas is actually a great creature in the grindy matchups. Jund had a really hard time beating him, and he's good enough to win 99,6% of the time from just pumping something infinite times.
The reason I have duskwatch as well is 2 fold. It gives us another win com if Rhonas gets pathed.. But most important, it lets us combo at instant speed, like in an opponents endstep or when they are tapped out. Pulling 10+ creatures and stacking our deck should be enough to win often. You don't want to coco mainphase in the counterspell matchups, so this is actually very useful.
To Meyou: zulaport/blood artist are really bad creatures. They are complete duds when you play anything with removal and some grind. Redcap is not needed either for the same reason. Infinite bolster triggers off anafenza is enough, and actually a hit from coco.
IMO we shouldn't play bad creatures that are only usefull when you have the combo. Play things that can at least attack, are good coco/chord hits. You very often need to play a game without ever comboing, and your deck needs to do a proper job with beatdown and card advantage. If you actually manage to combo, winning is often trivial, you don't need cute specialized pieces to win with.
I've had some small discussions with my friend playing the deck, if a 3/1 or 2/2 rallier/witness split is correct. It can be argued both ways.
This list has a positive control matchup for me so far. Against low removal decks, it just wrecks them, I have won many games turn 3. The challenge comes when they actually disrupt you. I don't want "win more" cards, I want a stronger overall deck.
I think 4 druid is correct as well. It just improves our bad matchups immensely! You can now commit just 1 druid to the battlefield and threaten a combo. They have to anger/kozileks return or even path it right away in their mainphase or risk being dead. And getting a mana dork pathed on their turn feels good.
They cannot even do it in our upkeep as they risk being severely punished if we have coco.
It just makes the deck really hard to play against, and even 4 untapped mana can mean hitting a druid EOT and winning. We are now 1 turn faster than most our bad matchups. I feel 4 vizier is not needed, 3 has felt great. Druid needs to be played first, so it's more important to have more of. Playing vizier and chording for druid is worse than playing druid and chording for vizier.
I think we are actually lucky that the combo is easy to interact with, because turn 3 wins with fairly high consistency is ban worthy. I think this deck is definitely tier 1 now, and we just have to work on finding the optimal list.
Playing both Ballista and Rhonas is a possibility too. In a wide meta, it's probably a good call. At this point, can't we assume both cards are good finishers which can help eachother beating corner-case situations / hate ?
It's just 1 extra slot for a finisher, it's easy to find room if the need for a sure kill takes over the need for a bullet or a Xth copy of a combo card.
this!
I think you have to add 2 finisher into the deck to dodge Surgical and have outs vs different cards. You even might want to play big mama Emrakul.
It's an option, but ballista is more like 2 slots, since you need duskwatch recruiter to fetch it since you cant chord or cooc it. With Rhonas you actually dont need anything beside that 1 piece. Getting your Rhonas surgicaled though it not easy since its indestructible, you'd have to draw it and it got thoughtseized:P
I am guessing lots of lists will pop up, so we'll just have to start testing to find the best stock list.
But please don't play emrakul, she is horrible in this deck.
On this Rhonas vs. Walking Ballista debate,there are too many scenarios where Rhonas can't end the game to make that worth having one additional Coco hit. Examples: Ensnaring Bridge, Ad Nauseam, Angel's grace ( Ballista kills them the next turn). Not to mention that Ballista is by no means a bad card on its own. Ask Standard players!
Ensnaring bridge does nothing to stop Rhonas.
Balista is NOT a great card in coco. It's ok in the matchups where you can kill mana dorks and other small stuff.
People are just playing it for the infinite combo. Having the win con be something that is hit off coco is not to be underestimated. The question you have to ask yourself is, how many games are lost by hitting ballista off coco, or drawing it when it is bad, contra how many games you lose where Rhonas would not win, when ballista would. It's really not that hard to math out with some testing.
The argument so far is that it's better against Ad Nauseam and pherhaps Displacer, which seems narrow and not very hard matchups. (and even if they blow the angel's grace to save themselves they are down a combo piece and might just be dead anyway)
Not sure if it's better of worse, but if you wanted to you could also drop duskwatch and just run Rhonas, which is enough in most cases, but maybe it's too risky..
I suggest imaging Rhonas/ballista as a split card when testing. Every time you combo, see if it would make a difference which you had. And every time you hit either of coco, note it down.
Also, if you are running ballista, anafenza becomes better, as bolstering on ballista can be neat, but so is bolstering on a 3/2 to turn on Rhonas permanently:)
I've found fiend hunter to be really mediocre.. The matchups I want it in are the ones where they have so much cheap removal to kill it and it becomes a liability. It's good in the mirror though.
As for voice, it has been extremely good for me lately. Against death's shadow and all kinds of control decks to combat deaths shadow. It blocks well (we have lost some blocking ability), and it protects you when trying to go for the combo, coco, or anything,by giving you free big creatures if they are forced to interact to stop you. I understand going to 3, I just don't know how I'd find room.
I still think the 1 of anafenza is important, so you can infinite bolster after gaining infinite life, so you can actually kill people after assembling the "old" combo.
And once again, I feel like green god and ballista are good in totally opposite matchups. Do you want to ping x/1's or be resilient to removal/boardwipes?
As said, if you have infinite mana, you can attack with druid. I think the cases where they dont disrupt the combo, you draw your library, play half your deck, attack with a million power druid, and THEN they fatal push it are super rare and corner case. It can even attack through a bridge.
Rhonas was great in testing against death's shadow. It can usually block it as long as you keep up 3 mana and another creature, and threatens to win on the swingback. Ballista is bad against death's shadow as it just chumps, or gets pushed and doesn't kill anything, just grows their shadow.
Balista is better against aggro, while Rhonas is better against controlish decks. But being coco and chordaable is a big + for Rhonas. I won by chording for Rhonas when no other creature would win the game against death's shadow.
For people saying death's shadow is a hard matchup, you probably cut your voices? I am currently running 4 druids, 3 vizier, and still have 2 voice. Only infinite mana sinks atm is Rhonas and Duskwatch. I feel going wide and tall is enough. I dropped the angel combo for now and now have no misses on coco. Voices have been performing so extremely well that I will keep them.
What does an opponent do if you have voice + Rhonas out? Take 9? Chump? Kill voice and give you 2 tokens? It's difficult to deal with for some decks.
Will test more, as something like 30 games isnt enough, but it's very promising.
It's slightly better for the builds that run viscera seer.
It's like having access to 5-9 semi removal spells because of your chords/coco's.
I found the 1/3 body a bit fragile and low impact, but it's good in some matchups.
You have to be a bit more specific as there are many different control decks.
It also depends how the decks are built, as there are many ways to build and sideboard.
I myself find control to be a fairly good matchup and I do ok, but for example UWR is a bit harder than grixis.
Also, I find the inexperienced players really struggle against control because they don't know how to play against it.
I myself board out a lot of combo pieces and bring in resilient threats that are not vulnerable to anger or graveyard hate, along with maelstrom pulses to answer any problem card. So if you bring in graveyard hate, you might lose to something else.
It really depends on the build, player and sideboard.
Just commenting on a few things here.
There are some flex slots game 1 to have a more grindy deck. Once you have 4 druids, 4 witness and 3/4 viziers, there's really not much you can do to increase your combo potential too much. Adding a bunch of payoff spells for infinite mana is counter productive, as getting the combo in the first place is the hard part, not finding a payoff.
I strongy disliked both fiend hunter and flickerwisp. They never did anything when I needed them to, and some of the matchups where you want them, they die too easy to fatal push and cheap removal. In theory, flickerwisp could remove some piece temporary, but that's not how the game played out. Most of the time you just play it for very little or no value and you spent 3 mana on a 3/1 flier. Fiend hunter is good in the mirror, and pherhaps against eldrazi tron, but I still found it too fragile.. Game 2/3 I boarded it out even in some of the matchups that it was good, because I prefer hard removal such as path or pulse that permanently fix a problem.
If you run into weird decks with Linvala main at your LGS then pherhaps, but against the tier 1 decks it was underwhelming.
If the 1 or 2 decks in the world that maindecks pithing needle makes your druid into a slighlty worse mana dork, then that is fine. Lantern is a good matchup anyway, so who cares.
I'll also comment quickly on your opinion about 1 vs 4 Renegade Rallier. You can play 1 Renegade rallier if you want, as it's great to chord for 3, and get back druid if they kill it in respons (or a vizier from the GY if they don't kill it).
I find the "you must have 0 or 4" opinion to just be absurd.
Just wanted to say I disagree strongly to this.
You want paths, it's what wins the mirrors. I won 4 mirrors this weekend at GP Copenhagen. Actually a 100% mirror win rate. (and I only won 1 of the die rolls)
Linvala isn't as great as people think imo as everyone brings in lots of removal anyway, and getting your 4 drop pathed feels bad. Just keep path up to remove the druid in response to any shenanigans and try to develop your board/get your own druid out.
Pontiff can also be a beating in the mirror.
Revoker is bad to bring in, as it shuts down your own druids as well.
I rarely win with the township part. It happened once out of maaaaany games in the mirror, someone usually ends up comboing.
Also one of the mirror matches, the guy didn't know how the combo actually worked, and didn't use his 2/2 ballista untill I already had the vizier out.. This was round 3 of the GP when I was 2-0 so you'd assume he would know.. This happened a couple of times during the weekend, but I guess people will catch on eventually and wise up..
Have you actually tested this? Because what you're saying is not true at all. And weird lists exist online because you can't play the deck properly. Getting all the creatures in your deck,stacking infinite bolsters and gaining infinite life is not viable online, so you need a win con that takes little time and wins on the spot.
Playing in paper is totally different, and you can set up win in many different ways.
Rhonas is miles better against all deaths shadow and control decks, where ballista is an embarrasment. Play a ballista for 2 against death's shadow that just gets fatal pushed and ping them for 2? Whereas Rhonas can be an unbeatable threat against some decks. Against all decks with big creatures, Rhonas can do a lot of work. And the opposite, against affinity, elves and mirror, ballista is good. They are good against very opposite decks. Though being a hit off coco, and chordable, like you can win through rest in peace if ballista or duskwatch has hit the gy.
They both have their weaknesses, but when casting a coco, I'd rather have another live hit and another chance off winning with coco if that's your only payoff when you have the combo.
I could see running ballista in side against the small creature matchups, but I had in in the deck for a long time, and after drawing it so many times against death's shadow, tron, grixis shadow/control, it just felt so bad. Quite often I've chorded for Rhonas against jund or other grindy decks, when no other cards would win. It won alone through a board of ooze and double goyf, because with it and som random 2 power creatures and 3/6 mana up they could never attack.
And most importantly, Rhonas seems better in the difficult matchups. I could see a ballista in the side, and swap them for the small creature matchups.
Why are they worse? There are a lot of flex slots after you put in 4 druids and 3/4 vizier. You won't always have your combo to win, you probably have to play a real game of magic more often than you combo. Voices even protect you going for the combo if they are in play. Being all in on the druid combo isn't enough imo, you still need to play a real game, and having several angles of attack makes it harder to play against and sideboard against.
My list:
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/abzan-company-devoted-rallier-20/
Some notes on card choices:
Ballista:
I think ballista is a really embarrasing creature in most matchups in modern. Especially in our harder matchups. It's just horrible against control, death's shadow, eldrazi, tron, valakut etc, and it's also a coco miss.
The matchups where ballista is a good creature its own is Affinity, coco, elves, Soul Sisters and hatebears. He’s fine against merfolk and dredge and a few other as well.
Rhonas:
In something like 99% of cases, Rhonas is good enough. You should play your deck, gain infinite life and bolster and all that stuff before attacking anyway. (also not really possible online)
However, Rhonas is actually a really good creature against control type decks and bad matchups. Death’s shadow can often not attack at all with him and a couple of creatures, and some decks simply can’t beat him. He brawls with the biggest creatures in modern and only dies to path (and a few other fringe cards).
I’ve won games against these decks by chording for Rhonas, when no other creatures would save me. Sometimes my finks and voices are just small and embarrassing. Rhonas helps a lot. Being a coco hit is great as well. (another hit if your only infinite mana payoff is coco for example)
Notes: Ensnaring bridge does nothing against Rhonas, neither does cryptic tapping the team. Druid is 0 power and can untap itself.
Cards Rhonas is sometimes bad against: Phyrexian Unlife, deflecting palm, Angel’s grace, condemn, Blessed Alliance, sometimes Thalia (first strike)
(note that you will still probably win against these cards if you play properly and draw/play your deck first, it's just sometimes you sometimes have to play around)
Mirror entity is fine imo, but a bit mana intensive and fragile.
Fiend hunter:
In theory he’s good. However all the matchups I want him in are matchups where they have so much removal, he’s more of a liability on an embarrassing body than an asset. Unless you can sac him in response to trigger, I would much rather just sideboard in lots of paths and maelstrom pulses. Kalitas and oozes aren’t such a huge problem as they used to be since we have a better combo that doesn’t use the graveyeard anyway.
Spellskite vs Selfless Spirit:
Selfless spirit is just better these days. There are so few bolts and so many pushes. There are however angers and other boardwipes. Spirit can also attack, block things from affinity and plays well with Renegade rallier. You can also do things like triple block big threats and kill something. Spellskite might come back, but for now I think spirit is much better.
Flickerwisp:
I thought it’s be good in theory, but after testing I found it mediocre.. It was ofte a sorcery speed low impact 3 mana spell. Once in a while it did something cool, from a cooc or chord.
Voice of Resurgence:
This card is soo good against difficult matchups. It can sometimes win the game alone against control. If they kill your voice on their turn and you follow up with rallier it can just be game over.
Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit:
I like the old combo as well. I think diversifying and having 2 good combos is great, and infinite bolster has been usefull. Bolster on druid is also cool.
Sideboard:
Distended Mindbender vs Tidehollow Sculler:
I see I differ from most lists by running mindbender. There are a couple of reasons. Mindbender is so much better against control. Sculler is bad against control, and even worse against decks with kolaghans command. It’s a liability and dies to the same cards that the rest of our deck does.
Mindbender on the other hand, attacks from a completely different angle. It doesn’t die to push or anger or Ugin while being a 2 or 3 for 1 most often. It just wrecks Ad Nauseam, and it can sometimes even brawl with goyfs, thought knot seers and reality smashers.
I think Sculler is better against storm and fast combo decks, but I bring in Mindbender in more matchups than I would sculler. Double black is a downside, but worth it imo. I’ve snagged damnations, cryptics, kalitas, oozes, reality smashers, or even angel’s graze + ad nauseam from the same cast. It’s not a minor annoyance as Sculler might be, it’s sometimes just a 1 card lights out combo.
Eidolon of Rhetoric AND Ethersworn Canonist ??
First of all, I want more than 1 hatepiece for these decks. Second, chording for Eidolon turn 3 is unfortunately very difficult, while chording for 2 on turn 3 is usually possible. Just gives me an easier time against storm, ad Nauseam and some fringe combo decks. Eidolon is the better card though.
Maelstrom Pulse vs Abrubt decay:
I think people still on Abrubt decay haven’t seen yet how good maelstrom pulse actually is, or are on old lists. You will sometimes kill 2+ death’s shadow with it or 2 goyfs, but that’s not the main reason to run it. Maelstrom pulse can be brought in against decks where abrubt decay is useless. Want to kill a black leyline, a kalitas, lingering souls, while still hitting all the relevant hate you might want to hit? Maelstrom Pulse has you covered.
You can’t bring in abrubt decay incase they have grafdiggers, rest in peace, or bring in path against control decks that might bring in Kalitas or lingering souls, but you CAN bring in Maelstrom Pulse against almost any deck in modern and hit good targets.
Breakdown of Ballista vs Rhonas:
Ballista:
Pros: Good against affinity, elves, Mirror, infect, sometimes merfolk. (decks with small creatures).
Can win without an attack step, wins through fringe cards like worship, Phyrexian unlife, 3 and 5 mana gideon.
Cons: Is a miss with coco and chord. (if you have combo turn 3 and just coco as payoff for infinite mana for example.
It's bad against control, death's shadow, eldrazitron, tron, valakut decks, jund/grixis etc (except against decks playing bob). It's often just a 2 mana mogg fanatic.
Rhonas:
Pros: Good against death's shadow, control, jund/abzan/grixis. Basicly any slow deck without path. I've chorded for it when it was the only creature that could save me against a board of like ooze + double goyf or similar. It also provides a very quick clock, just +2 power on a random 2 drop and go to town. It's also a good coco/chord hit.
Cons: It's worse against fast decks, like affinity, burn, elves, etc and some decks with path. It needs combat to win with infinite mana.
Conclusion:
I can see the argument for ballista. But I think the minor upsides of not requiring combat isn't worth the added utility when not having infinite mana. There are some fringe cases where ballista wins with infinite mana, but Rhonas doesnt. But there might also be times where you have infinite mana, and you hit Rhonas with coco and win, where ballista would miss.
After tests, I found to be chording for Rhonas quite often against decks like death's shadow, jund, grixis, and decks with no way of removing him, as he's quite a pain for them to deal with. It also makes you less vulnerable to anger and damnation while pressuring them hard.
Both death's shadow and jund etc can have boardstates where they simply have bigger creatures than you, and you can't attack or block profitably. Rhonas mitigates that with deathtouch and indestructible, while making your other threats able to attack through theirs.
Ensnaring bridge is not an nissue by the way, you just pump after attacking. The bridge, it does nothing.
Bonus: Duskwatch Recruiter:
So, is duskwatch needed or can we shave to 1 win condition?
The way the deck often plays is that you don't want to coco in your mainphase every time. They might have mana open and you suspect counterspells or removal. Maybe you "accidently" combo in your own endstep while they do something EOT?
Duskwatch recruiter is great in those cases, since he gives you an outlet for infinite mana at instant speed!
If you draw 10 good creatures and set up a perfect coco or 2 you will probably just win without infinite damage. This instant speed combo is actually very powerful to have access to.
Anyway, imo ballista is not needed. I have 1 duskwatch recruiter and 1 Rhonas. Rhonas is actually a great creature in the grindy matchups. Jund had a really hard time beating him, and he's good enough to win 99,6% of the time from just pumping something infinite times.
The reason I have duskwatch as well is 2 fold. It gives us another win com if Rhonas gets pathed.. But most important, it lets us combo at instant speed, like in an opponents endstep or when they are tapped out. Pulling 10+ creatures and stacking our deck should be enough to win often. You don't want to coco mainphase in the counterspell matchups, so this is actually very useful.
To Meyou: zulaport/blood artist are really bad creatures. They are complete duds when you play anything with removal and some grind. Redcap is not needed either for the same reason. Infinite bolster triggers off anafenza is enough, and actually a hit from coco.
IMO we shouldn't play bad creatures that are only usefull when you have the combo. Play things that can at least attack, are good coco/chord hits. You very often need to play a game without ever comboing, and your deck needs to do a proper job with beatdown and card advantage. If you actually manage to combo, winning is often trivial, you don't need cute specialized pieces to win with.
I will post my list again, which I've been very happy with.
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/abzan-company-devoted-rallier-20/
I've had some small discussions with my friend playing the deck, if a 3/1 or 2/2 rallier/witness split is correct. It can be argued both ways.
This list has a positive control matchup for me so far. Against low removal decks, it just wrecks them, I have won many games turn 3. The challenge comes when they actually disrupt you. I don't want "win more" cards, I want a stronger overall deck.
They cannot even do it in our upkeep as they risk being severely punished if we have coco.
It just makes the deck really hard to play against, and even 4 untapped mana can mean hitting a druid EOT and winning. We are now 1 turn faster than most our bad matchups. I feel 4 vizier is not needed, 3 has felt great. Druid needs to be played first, so it's more important to have more of. Playing vizier and chording for druid is worse than playing druid and chording for vizier.
I think we are actually lucky that the combo is easy to interact with, because turn 3 wins with fairly high consistency is ban worthy. I think this deck is definitely tier 1 now, and we just have to work on finding the optimal list.
It's an option, but ballista is more like 2 slots, since you need duskwatch recruiter to fetch it since you cant chord or cooc it. With Rhonas you actually dont need anything beside that 1 piece. Getting your Rhonas surgicaled though it not easy since its indestructible, you'd have to draw it and it got thoughtseized:P
I am guessing lots of lists will pop up, so we'll just have to start testing to find the best stock list.
But please don't play emrakul, she is horrible in this deck.
Ensnaring bridge does nothing to stop Rhonas.
Balista is NOT a great card in coco. It's ok in the matchups where you can kill mana dorks and other small stuff.
People are just playing it for the infinite combo. Having the win con be something that is hit off coco is not to be underestimated. The question you have to ask yourself is, how many games are lost by hitting ballista off coco, or drawing it when it is bad, contra how many games you lose where Rhonas would not win, when ballista would. It's really not that hard to math out with some testing.
The argument so far is that it's better against Ad Nauseam and pherhaps Displacer, which seems narrow and not very hard matchups. (and even if they blow the angel's grace to save themselves they are down a combo piece and might just be dead anyway)
Not sure if it's better of worse, but if you wanted to you could also drop duskwatch and just run Rhonas, which is enough in most cases, but maybe it's too risky..
I suggest imaging Rhonas/ballista as a split card when testing. Every time you combo, see if it would make a difference which you had. And every time you hit either of coco, note it down.
Also, if you are running ballista, anafenza becomes better, as bolstering on ballista can be neat, but so is bolstering on a 3/2 to turn on Rhonas permanently:)
As for voice, it has been extremely good for me lately. Against death's shadow and all kinds of control decks to combat deaths shadow. It blocks well (we have lost some blocking ability), and it protects you when trying to go for the combo, coco, or anything,by giving you free big creatures if they are forced to interact to stop you. I understand going to 3, I just don't know how I'd find room.
I still think the 1 of anafenza is important, so you can infinite bolster after gaining infinite life, so you can actually kill people after assembling the "old" combo.
And once again, I feel like green god and ballista are good in totally opposite matchups. Do you want to ping x/1's or be resilient to removal/boardwipes?
Rhonas was great in testing against death's shadow. It can usually block it as long as you keep up 3 mana and another creature, and threatens to win on the swingback. Ballista is bad against death's shadow as it just chumps, or gets pushed and doesn't kill anything, just grows their shadow.
Balista is better against aggro, while Rhonas is better against controlish decks. But being coco and chordaable is a big + for Rhonas. I won by chording for Rhonas when no other creature would win the game against death's shadow.
For people saying death's shadow is a hard matchup, you probably cut your voices? I am currently running 4 druids, 3 vizier, and still have 2 voice. Only infinite mana sinks atm is Rhonas and Duskwatch. I feel going wide and tall is enough. I dropped the angel combo for now and now have no misses on coco. Voices have been performing so extremely well that I will keep them.
What does an opponent do if you have voice + Rhonas out? Take 9? Chump? Kill voice and give you 2 tokens? It's difficult to deal with for some decks.
Will test more, as something like 30 games isnt enough, but it's very promising.
Here is my current version. I just liked the druid combo so much that I just kept adding more untill I had 4..
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/abzan-company-devoted-rallier-20/