Magic: The Gathering Modern General
(competitive discussion)
>Playing?
>Brewing?
>Favorite deck?
>Next MTG Purchase?
Do you like the current Modern Metagame?
(picture below)
The current Modern Metagame.
Is there any point to this format anymore? it's just quibbling about banlists and dropping 1000 bucks on a few pieces of cardboard. There is no real purpose to homebrewing for Modern, there's not really any point in playing it because even on the off-chance you win, someone else loses, and more likely than not that one person will be you. Your money is a loss, gone to support the FLGS. The best combinations have already been solved. It's like playing chess against a computer, with a computer.
Sorry but I just don't see the point in Modern anymore. I tried to make a Modern deck on my own but my friend ltierally wanted me to remove the core cards and replace them with Thoughtseize. What the actual fuck? He's even won a few tournaments.
from the last one
>>47224580
No, it's not bait. I am seriously sad because I wanted to get into this format but the more I browse the more it seems like it's already been overdone and there's such a high bar to entry for little reward. Half the fun of MtG is deck customization; if the best decks have already been solved, there's not really any point, in my opinion.
But, feel free to respond with more fishhook images.
>>47224565
You've just described anything competitive ever.
Maybe it's you. Maybe you are the one who doesn't enjoy a competitive format and you want to cast your molimos and nemesis of mortals at the kitchen table.
Nothing wrong with that but don't belittle one way of playing because it's not your personal preference
>>47224565
>Look mommy, i just baited them
Here is your you, go back to EDH general
>>47224565
>Is there any point to this format anymore?
You play it to either participate to events for rewards, or you play it for fun. Or both. Some strategies can only work in Modern and thus offers variety in gameplay.
>it's just quibbling about banlists and dropping 1000 bucks on a few pieces of cardboard.
With the discontinuation of the Modern Pro Tour, this should change. The money issue is part of Magic as a whole, there's nothing we can do but blame ourselves. Look at Standard.
>There is no real purpose to homebrewing for Modern, there's not really any point in playing it because even on the off-chance you win, someone else loses, and more likely than not that one person will be you.
Are you saying brews can't be succesful? What do you think Amulet Bloom was? Innovation exists and CAN have a payoff.
>Your money is a loss, gone to support the FLGS.
If you mean you paid for cards, then you can just resell them. If you mean you scrubbed out of an event, then suck it up. The game can't work if there aren't winners AND losers.
>The best combinations have already been solved. It's like playing chess against a computer, with a computer.
Blatantly false.
>Sorry but I just don't see the point in Modern anymore.
Sounds like the format isn't for you. And you're probably not right for Magic as a whole.
>I tried to make a Modern deck on my own but my friend ltierally wanted me to remove the core cards and replace them with Thoughtseize. What the actual fuck?
Thank him for trying to help you play good cards. You wouldn't bring a boxing glove to a gun fight, would you? Play what's allowed to be played. You can play good cards without copy-pasting (if that's your concern).
>He's even won a few tournaments.
At least your friend isn't total shit.
>>47224579
how is this preforming against established decks?
I've been tempted to build something like this before, but haven't been able to find enough good cards to fuel it.
>>47224960
modern is probably going to go the way of extended, vintage and most recently legacy, but might as win some store credit while these cards rot in our hands
>>47224517
>tfw no storm
Is it really THAT gimped?
>>47224998
skill intensive and WOTC won't print anything for it unlike everything else with k command taisigur and all thato ther recent shit
>>47224517
tfw you crack tier 2
>>47224989
Tron kicked my ass but I did have the hate for it once i knew what it was but didn't pull it.
I railed scapeshift 4-0. 2-1 against Eggs. 3-1 Jeskai Control.
>>47225058
I surmise that this boy didn't make the cut then?
>>47225174
no because it's a shit card
>>47225174
>replying to sieg
Fucking idiot.
>>47225095
Wanna know how I know you're full of shit?
>>47225174
too slow, by the time you have this mana up you need to be casting PIF, and on turn 2 you want goblin or acension
that and you also can't copy it off of acension hurts it as well
>>47224565
>There is no real purpose to homebrewing for Modern
Rogue decks can spike a tournament, but you have to be really good. Deckbuilding is actually really fucking difficult to do, so I'm not surprised a shitter like yourself who's deluded enough to think he's good enough fails to see the merits.
>>47225589
Pretty much this. People who are shit at the game like to think it's because the game is bad, not because they're bad. As it turns out, the best players in the game are also the best deck builders. If you're too much of a whiny baby to play the game and understand why the best decks are as good as they are, then you'll never be in a position to brew something effective.
>>47225631
well from a game design point of view magic the gathering is a horrid game
they just made it because it was first to market, and now it is selling on brand legacy alone along with a resurgence of geek culture in pop culture
mtg is still around effectively because stuff like big bang theory, loot crate, and clickbait exist to advertise how "cool it is" to be quirky
>>47225676
Thought I had you filtered. Oh well, you are now.
>>47225676
>well from a game design point of view magic the gathering is a horrid game
Oh please enlighten us as to why it is just awful
We can wait
>>47225676
It's not quirky. People who play magic just play it.
It's not like all these other pop culture references where people just wear a shirt or just buy a poster.
How many times have they played magic on big bang? I'd wager one time or less
>>47225412
If you knew how he was "full of shit", you would have finished your post.
Dam I love Chinese fakes.
Pls give red something to kill combo. Then skred will be perfect
>>47225865
AFAIK they've never played "magic" on BBT, but they showed them playing an unnamed card game where they just slapped cards down cards and said geeky combinations of words and ended with Sheldon saying "infinite Sheldon I win zimbabwe"
>>47226196
https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=agiSbVMDBSg
>>47226196
>https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=agiSbVMDBSg
there, same tier as big bang theory pop cultuire wise
>>47226319
I can totally see how that brought in droves of people to play magic as a quirky game.
>>47226420
i meant to link this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGzlOFx7K8g
>>47226532
Is this really your supporting argument? You may or may not be trolling, probably just playing devil's advocate for an idea that struck you, but the more reasonable assertion is the first one about brand legacy. Clearly the second is inflammatory as it garnered immediate response on 4chan, but neither support your claim about MtG being a bad game.
>>47224505
Can anyone tell me the odds of finding Avacyn in SOI? I've gone through nearly 30 boosters, including the fat pack.
>>47227209
Odds for any specific mythic are usually about 1:54 to 1:90, depends on the track layout, I'm not sure what it is in SOI.
>>47227346
Is it true that the BN number on the card pack will more likely have a mythic rare if the last number is an odd number?
>>47227209
>>47227346
It's actually about 1 in 140 for any given mythic rare in the set
SOI contains 59 rares & 18 mythics out of 297 possible cards
>>47224998
It has a few totally unwinnable matchups that are also tier 1 (Burn) or popular in tier 2 (Infect, Hatebears, Ad Nauseam). Ignoring meta considerations, it's a powerful deck that can kill on turn 3 regularly when left to its own devices. Burn existing means its a much safer investment than it was back when WOTC banned a Storm card once a year just cause, but it's forever tier 2 at best because of that.
>>47227425
So normal odds would be 1:(6*18), but SOI is weird because of the flip-card slot in packs. It's actually more common, drops from 1:108 down to a lot lower, again you would actually need track data on this as not every rare or mythic appears as common as every other in the same rarity per sheet, and the flip-card slot is filled from their own set of sheets.
>>47227593
Fair enough about the unknowns, still doubt Archangel is more common than 1:108
>>47227209
>Just started MTG
>mfw I got an Avacyn on my first pre-release.
>It was a fun tournament.
>Go home.
>Find out that this shithead narcissist stole my Avacyn.
>mfw I can't do shit about it.
>>47227721
Watch these people more carefully, and watch your cards more carefully, dumbass.
>>47227721
I know this is not going to make you feel better, but given that you're starting out I want you to get into the mindset that you have to start attending prereleases assuming you walk out with nothing of worth. You paid your $30-45 for 3-6 hours of fun and that's it - just pretend that the cards you opened were worthless. You could have just as easily opened garbage as a good card.
Yes, people stole your shit. That's terrible. But you're at the best time to stop/never giving a fuck about "value" when it comes to sealed Magic product. Stop thinking about the value of cards before opening a booster pack; in fact, don't fucking open booster packs. And if you do, understand that you're setting some $100-150 on fire for the feeling of it because you might just open nothing.
You will (probably) trade for cards. The only time "value" matters is at the very moment of the trade. If you discover later that a card increased in value after you traded it away don't fucking think about that. All that matters is that you were satisfied making the trade at the conclusion of that trade and that's all you can control.
Just watch your shit in the future. A habit to get into is to pile out your deck before and after every game to make sure your deck is still 40 or 60 cards.
Just... don't let this ruin your fun of the game. Every player has made legitimately stupid decisions that are a waste of money that they willingly decided to do; you couldn't control this situation. There is so much more relevant shit that is actually ruining the game than shit people.
>>47227721
How did the guy even get in a situatiom where he was able to take your cards? Always carry your cards with you anon.
>>47224517
Are you serious? Jund is on top? Fuck me I'll be the fucking joke of GPLA when I walk in with my deck with no prior training and FNM/GPT experience since my road to GP Singapore last year.
>>47227893
Solid, good advice? On /tg/? Let alone 4chan? What is happening?
>>47227721
Carrying on on >>47227893 's point, I carry my cards into the toilet when I pee. We play a game which is collectible unfortunately. People are looking out for a steal. Literally and figuratively.
Sorry for your loss. Don't worry though she's not too useful in Modern.
Yet.
>>47224960
>You wouldn't bring a boxing glove to a gun fight, would you?
>>47228165
Well, it's good advice. But I don't show up to play Magic in public anymore. So it's not like my experience is going to help anybody in real life.
I mean that's what Wizards is shooting for. They want all the people who can see through their marketing to quit so the each new generation continues the cycle of burning tonnes of money on useless shit.
I bought Intro Decks, I've cracked booster boxes for without using them for Limited, I can probably personally check off every dumb thing you can willingly do in Magic if there was a list.
I mostly feel for the stores. They are left holding the worst situation with the game especially when the online secondary market makes it difficulty for them to compete on singles and sealed product. Wizards could throw them a fucking bone; just give every store a stack of foil Snapcasters for free for them to do what they wish. Wizards has cultivated this stupid culture where players think the store's staff doesn't matter; FNM and Prereleases are surprisingly just breaking even for stores. If players paid for the prerelease packs and gave all the cards back to the store, THAT would be fair short of charging $20 more than what stores are currently charging for prereleases. Because you can't make any fucking money now. How the fuck can any regular store (including a games store) pack 30+ fucking people into the building; you rent a hall and you've lost all your profit. And you need 30+ people to make any sort of money after you take staffing into consideration.
So that's the situation. Everyone thinks the Magic's just fucking falling apart because of thieves and shit. But the real problem is that everyone realizes Wizards' shit stinks and quits resulting in constant communities devoid of experience and small stores can't/don't want to pay rent or rent tournament space or compete with the online market. Walmart doesn't have to host events but they get to sell product; stores have to host events to sell product
>>47225839
And you get no replies, as expected. No one here knows two shits about game design.
>>47224646
It's the format with most rogue decks, what more do you want?
first for uw meme control
>tfw Wizards will never print anything for your deck ever again
>tfw Wizards will never unban anything for your deck ever again
>tfw Wizards thinks you are a mistake
>>47229012
Dude, EVERYTHING outside Standard and Limited, by Wizard's definition, is a "mistake". don't take it too seriously. Two mana shouldn't summon a 4/5 or a 5/6. T3 shouldn't be a time at which you are allowed to reliably kill your opponent. You shouldn't have access to >8 mana turn 3 reliably, and turns 1 and 2 shouldn't be about trading counterspells leading into grindy games for the rest of the game. Who cares, that's why we play Eternal formats. To play Magic the way Wizards DOESN'T want us to.
I wanna make Lantern Control. Anyone here ever play it? Any tips? I usually play hatebears.
>>47229149
People, WotC included, seem to forget that the original design of the game was based around the theory that not everyone would have access to every card. It was ok for some cards to just be better than other cards, because you would only have 1, maybe two moxen.
Vintage most resembles the game as it was designed to be played: decks have a few cards which are miles better than the rest, but you don't see them every game.
>>47229275
Try knowing what's in your deck, and what's in your opponents deck.
>>47229285
>but you don't see them every game
>with every deck having about 20 <=2 cmc tutors and the best cantrips in the game
How's that?
>>47229275
Be prepared to lose because of shit openers a whole bunch (for example lost to Jund last night on the draw with a 6 containing Glimmervoid, Welding Jar, Lantern and something else, t1 ioks my welding jar away, I play glimmervoid lantern, lantern gets popped and I never draw a second land, game was solved from the get go), pack a lot of anti-hate (boarding in Grafdigger's Cage for just 1-2 Ancient Grudges is correct, it's all about reducing the space of relevant cards in your opponent's deck while maintaining the lock), memorize your Pithing Needle targets so you can hit them blind, hope to dodge Burn and 8rack. If you have Academy Ruins in hand or in play but no Lantern then blind mill yourself to get access to more cards except in specific matchups like Scapeshift and Ad Nauseam where they need specific cards in their library before going off to win and you can steal the game by milling them.
>>47229334
Lets unpack this.
1. Black is very poorly positioned right now, and MM makes mystical/vamp pretty bad. Merchant scroll is ok, but it gets Gush as much as it gets anything. Ultimately, unless you build your deck with a bunch of bad cards, you don't get to play your best cards all the time
2. Ponder and brainstorm are restricted. Preordain isn't great. In most games you see maybe half your deck, so you aren't super likely to see an ancestral or time walk every game.
In practice, vintage games all play out very differently depending on how your opener is. If you have a lotus, instead of playing a control deck you may just go hyper aggressive. A more aggressive deck may have an ancestral/dig/ draw which pushes you towards a slower game.
Look at the way Shops individual hands dictate what role they take in a given game, then look at how every modern deck plays roughly the same game every hand. This is what I'm talking about.
>>47229275
Lanter player here.
The most important thing is knowing your opponent deck. That includes the sideboard (you don't want to get caught without an answer to a Stony Silence or a Kataki). You need to know the cards you're looking to deactivate with Needle, if they have a way to go over your Ensnaring Bridge, etc.
Self-milling yourself is almost as important as milling your opponent. By removing cards that you don't need, you're essentially drawing more cards per turn.
>>47229390
>tfw a casual EDH shitter and too afraid to try vintage
>>47229707
Vintage is fun because the deckbuilding is usually centered around giving yourself a way out of any situation. High impact one-ofs are usually worth the slot, and deckbuilding is very personal.
The deck that won vintage champs last year ran only 3 force of will's, and a bunch of one ofs. Everyone who picks the deck up adds the fourth force, but everyone who makes that change thought about it way less than the person who originally built the deck. That's kind of cool
Is it a good idea to trade a promo snappy for 4 snapcasters. I don't care for the promo art
>>47229149
>EVERYTHING outside Standard and Limited, by Wizard's definition, is a "mistake".
>SOI limited
>Avacyn
>>47230175
According to MTGgoldfish, you'd make just under $20 on that trade. Also, you'd be getting a full playset out of the deal which is arguably the real value there.
>>47230294
SOI limited for real is so boring
>>47230175
No, wait for eternal. Those promos will always be promos, the eternal masters reprint will fuck the price of the normal snapcasters, and if the art is different it might be preferable to the old taigo art.
>>47224565
>Is there any point to this format anymore?
Sure. Play and have fun.
>it's just quibbling about banlists
Ignore those people.
>dropping 1000 bucks on a few pieces of cardboard
Not everyone started playing Modern yesterday. Some of us picked up staples for $20-40 a playset.
>There is no real purpose to homebrewing for Modern
Okay. Whatever.
>Your money is a loss, gone to support the FLGS.
Huh? Events are free at my LGS, and I get free packs every other week. I have a whole drawer full of unopened packs that I got for free. The one time I paid for an event there, it was a PTQ and I got a couple boxes for $20.
>The best combinations have already been solved.
That's what they said before Bloom Titan hit the scene.
>I tried to make a Modern deck on my own
Your sucking at mtg is not our problem.
If you suck that badly, consider working on your skills in less expensive formats.
>>47230516
Or maybe he will turn into Skrillex too.
>>47230590
>Events are free at my LGS
I wish I knew where people find these places. I've been to so many stores but none of them do this. I'd gladly buy all my singles, playmats and sleeves from them if I could play for free, wouldn't even care if the prizes sucked.
>>47230814
Promo snappy isnt skrillex, its straight up a basketball player with dreds drawn on. Hes dribbling his spell back from the graveyard to dunk you with a bolt.
>>47228885
sexy
>>47224505
Well, count Boggles as a good matchup from mainboard
>>47228885
I'm not sure how good it is, but damn is that a good looking deck.
You're at the club and this guy smashes your girlfriend's ass - what do?
>>47233791
Cast scapeshift
>>47233791
Ask him where his Eye is.
>>47224517
>burn
>affinity
>tron
>infect
Wow, thanks for killing eldrazi wizards, this sure is better.
>>47233895
It is. It's not perfect, but it is better than
>RG Eldrazi
>UW Eldrazi
>UR Eldrazi
>Colorless Eldrazi
>>47227346
>>47227209
>>47227425
>implying each rare/mythic has the same chance of comin up from a booster
i helped my lgs to open up 60 boxes for the soi release and it is so disgusting obvious that for given the same rarity the chance isnt the same for a lot of cards
>>47233943
>>47233895
Neither format has a viable control archetype, so both are equally shit.
Now that wizards isn't trying to make modern streamable for the protour, do you think we can get some good control unbans?
>>47233986
We just did, what do you want Jace and SDT too?
>>47234043
Jace wouldn't be bad. Either that or reprint a good counterspell.
>>47233986
Control has everything it needs. The reason control seems shit is because combo is shit and everyone plays aggro instead.
>>47234083
So you'd rather see some good combos unbanned? I wouldn't mind that either. Splinter Twin was a mistake.
>>47234083
If you combine Jund, Abzan, Grixis, and Jeskai into one archetype it makes up 20+% of the metagame. That's not bad, it's about as much as the big three aggro decks.
>>47234132
Yes, actually. Combo decks aren't supposed to obey the 4 turn rule, they're supposed to shit on creatures being turned sideways but be fragile enough to fold to the right counterspell at the right time. Wizards disagree with me, however.
>>47224646
play legacy .
>>47234043
>thopter sword and av
>good
Anon...
As a gigantic faggot, what deck should I build? I already play Burn and Taking Turns.
>>47237455
Affinity
>>47234076
>reprint a good counterspell.
I dont understand why people keep memeing "Reprint FoW and Counterspell, its what Modern needs!"
Modern doesn't need FoW for literally anything, and Counterspell would just encourage control decks to be lazy. Why would either of the reprints suddenly make control viable?
>>47237567
So the 0 viable control decks are the result of laziness of the deckbuilders, not the quality of the cards?
>Playing?
Jund
>Brewing?
Tuning Jund
>Favorite deck?
Jund
>Next MTG Purchase?
More Jund cards
>>47237455
Hulk Footsteps
>>47237073
Just rip off the bandaid, it'll hurt less
>>47237567
>I don't know shit about anything, durr
FTFY. If you need to ask why reprinting Counterspell would make control viable, then you really don't know shit about this game and certainly not this format.
I want to get into modern but don't know where to start. What can I make on a budget of $800?
>>47237647
So the 0 viable control decks are the result of laziness of the deckbuilders, not the quality of the cards?
Again with the memes, control decks are a solid tier 2, with the only thing holding them back being a real lack of inevitability or a way to generate card advantage. Consolidating counter magic wouldn't make control viable, it would just make playing against it irritating because all the control player needs is UU up and patience to kneecap your current plan. It wouldn't help them win in most cases, but it would just make countermagic packages mono-build.
>>47237769
>control viable
Name one thing that can't be hosed by countermagic that already exists in the format. The only thing Counterspell would do is create a strictly best counter package, with zero variability.
It wouldn't make it viable, it would make building it lazy.
>>47238660
>Having a hard counter with no conditions or drawbacks wouldn't make control more viable
>Complains about memes, keeps spouting laziness meme
5/10 for leading me on this long, nice bait.
>Edlrazi just switched to Tron lands with 4 temple
>even if they were to have banned temple the cards themselves are good enough people would just use Tron lands
fucking love eldrazi.
>>47238382
You get all 75 for half that price. Party hard.
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/12-05-16-enchanting/
>>47239176
how do i counter Urza's Bullshit in green? if I'm lucky i grab their expedition maps but is there is a nice way short of 4x tectonic edge?
>>47227434
Don't forget the powerful hate. You think Stony silence is a "silver bullet" against affinity? HAH. Eidolon of Rhetoric / rule of law, Thalia, Ethersworn Canonist, Leyline of Sanctity, slaughter games, any graveyard hate. Thalia.
>>47238382
Buy most affinity. Ravager prices are dropping very slowly.
>>47228319
I bring a backpack with me everywhere I play MTG. Super convenient. I can keep some dry snacks and water, multiple decks, my trade binder, my life-keeping notepad, spare pencils, playmat, EVERYTHING. When a round is over, i just scoop everything into the backpack.
>>47239723
>He doesn't think Stony Silence is a silver bullet against Affinity
>>47239927
It is. I'm saying The cards I listed above are just as bad, if not worse, for storm. You have to mainboard lightning bolts just for thalia, which hilariously enough don't hit eidolon of rhetoric.
>>47224517
Jeskai Control is quickly creeping up thanks to Nahiri. I'd expect that to hit tier 1 very soon.
>>47239927
>landing Stony Silence, three Suppression Fields and Kataki after a Wrath
Sometimes I think my life is Christmasland.
>>47239030
>Having a hard counter with no conditions or drawbacks
>What is Mana Leak
>What is Negate
>What is Spell Snare
>What is Cryptic Command
Modern already has the ability to counter literally anything at any time. The only thing Counterspell would do is make the play lines completely braindead because there would only be 1 counter for all stages of the game.
It wouldn't magically give you the ability to win the game vs any other deck in the format, it would just streamline the builds and play lines to "Put Counterspell in deck, cast Counterspell on thing I don't like."
>>47238382
Affinity and Infect are decks that have been around forever so maybe those two. I believe Infect is generally cheaper than affinity, but it depends on the build.
>>47240253
>Modern already has the ability to counter literally anything at any time.
Of the cards you listed, only Cryptic is capable of that and it costs four fucking mana, three of it blue.
Mana Leak is useless if your opponent has mana up.
Negate is useless against creatures.
Spell Snare is useless against anything that costs more or less than 2.
Cancel and its variants (Dissipate, etc) are prohibitively expensive for how little they do.
Counterspell is a 2-mana hard counter with no conditions or drawbacks. There is literally no alternative in Modern.
>>47240368
Spell snare is still good when og counterspell is legal. You can keep 1 less mana up. You also can't have more than 4 counterspell in your deck, meaning you need some redundancy.
>>47240368
>counterspell would just streamline these bad decks
I am not understanding how this is a bad thing, anon
Counterspell reprint would help control sure, but it isnt what it needs to be viable. Good control decks have inevitability, like countertop, jace, or a combo.
>>47240685
Meek/Foundry has some nice inevitability, but is too difficult to start up without strong control options.
>>47240685
It is, actually. With hard, versatile counters, there's plenty of wincons to be had.
>>47240368
>Mana Leak is useless if your opponent has mana up.
If your opponent can pay for a Leak and still cast a threat you're dead regardless of what you counter. Leak is a strictly better Counterspell in the early game, and just as irrelevant as it in the late game.
>Negate is useless against creatures.
There are precious few countable creatures in Modern that don't die to the removal you should also have. The ones that can actually be worth a counter in the late game are easily hit with Cryptic, or the deck it's in is still going to run you over regardless because you don't have a win condition.
>Spell Snare is useless against anything that costs more or less than 2.
"Useless" against everything but the vast majority of targets in Modern, and a guaranteed tempo swing on the draw.
Counterspell won't help you win, and it won't give you a win condition, all it does is facilitate lazy building and mulligans, and arbitrarily kneecap decks for a turn or two with zero skill involved.
>>47240507
>I am not understanding how this is a bad thing, anon
The decks are bad because they have no sense of inevitability vs BGx and Tron, and can't keep up in aggro.format
Adding in the laziest form of permission won't change that, it'll just stifle counter package diversity and make it slightly easier to durdle.
Christ, it's like the people who thought AV was actually going to give Blue decks a chance to go long.
>>47241322
>If your opponent can pay for a Leak and still cast a threat you're dead regardless of what you counter. Leak is a strictly better Counterspell in the early game, and just as irrelevant as it in the late game.
>"Useless" against everything but the vast majority of targets in Modern, and a guaranteed tempo swing on the draw.
Confirmed for not actually playing Modern. Ever heard of a little deck called TRON?
>>47241322
>The decks are bad because they have no sense of inevitability vs BGx and Tron, and can't keep up in aggro.format
>Adding in the laziest form of permission won't change that, it'll just stifle counter package diversity and make it slightly easier to durdle.
While I think a counterspell reprint could help some lists do what they want, this rings with truth. Nahiri is popular right now because she offers inevitable threat in a popular control shell, but she is still not very strong compared to the card advantage BGx has or the mana advantage of Tron. Thoptersword falls into the same category: while it has some strength it isn't what is needed. For control to be a tier 1 deck it needs a strong draw engine or efficient threat factory at less than 6cmc; Sphinx's Revelation is good for stabilization, and while Chandra Flamecaller/Nahiri Harbinger are strong, they are too slow for finishers at a point where the deck should already win.
>>47241469
Do you not Spell Snare sylvan scrying anon?
>>47241670
If he starts with Expedition Map (or starts with all three pieces), Spell Snare is useless. Counterspell would be useful at all stages of the game.
>>47241469
>Ever heard of a little deck called TRON?
You mean that deck people used to play before Eye of Ugin got banned and Jund became 10% of the meta? It folded hard to a held up Negate or Spell Pierce, so you had to actually diversify your counter package rather than just jamming the best one.
Protip: Hold up a Snare/Pierce/Bolt/Path on T1 rather than cantripping, you'll ruin a lot of players days sniping a lot of Bobs/Goyfs/Scoozes. Don't even get me started on Negating a Lili or Dispelling a Kommand.
Spoilers: countermagic isn't what control needs, you just have to not be braindead with the counter suites you pack.
>while Chandra Flamecaller/Nahiri Harbinger are strong, they are too slow for finishers at a point where the deck should already win.
This is a hilarious point Ive been trying to make for weeks. Nahiri and Thopter are "strong," but they're completely worthless outside situations virtually any midrange threat could push through anyways. This is why Legacy control's finishers top out at Mentor: big things don't win better unless you were already going to win. And larger/more elaborate formulas are just easier to hose or disrupt.
Just watch the latest VS Series on SCG's channel, Company vs Mardu ft Nahiri. Nahiri is only even remotely threatening when the board is incidentally shaped around her and the Company player literally bricks so hard it's hilarious.
>>47241801
>you just have to not be braindead with the counter suites you pack.
It has nothing to do with card choices and everything to do with versatility. Counterspell is versatile. It's just better. "Oh, but this card is just as good in one specific instance!" isn't an argument. Counterspell does everything.
>>47229707
>Not playing EDH with all the banned vintage cards
Fuck your rules committee
>>47241891
Now lets consider how counterspell isnt even played in legacy and vintage because there are better options
Fuck you wizards, were not asking for mana drain
>>47241801
>people used to play
>RG tron still tier 1
Dude, we know you're full of shit already, just stop trying so hard.
>>47241801
On the plus side, board clear is stronger than ever in Jeskai (making aggro matchups a cakewalk).
>>47242039
Mana drain would be sick
>Playing?
Jeskai Control
>Brewing?
RG Breachshift
>Favorite deck?
lol8whack
>Next MTG Purchase?
More breaches
>>47242129
Mana Drain would be excessive. Oddly though, FoW would be fine in modern.
>>47242166
Odd nothing, combo isn't consistent enough to warrant maindecking Force
Maybe if Twin were unbanned
>>47242242
>fow a choice might of old krosa - infect player now has to wait 2 more turns for lethal because he had exact damage with might
>>47242062
>Jund is 10% of the meta
Srsly guise Tron is doing grate!
>>47242242
>FoW
>Hosing Twin
Maximum kek anon, /tg/ you never cease to surprise me.
>>47242293
>Casting FoW on an Instant that hits on turn 3
You know Negate and Dispel exist, right?
They also don't require you to -1 yourself to play them.
>>47242348
>Jund is 10% of the meta
Srsly guise -deck that isn't Jund- is doing grate!
>>47240253
>>What is Mana Leak
>>What is Negate
>>What is Spell Snare
>>What is Cryptic Command
>no Deprive.
Am I the only one who likes running Deprive?
>>47242463
deprive is shit and ur shit
>>47242412
what's your 8whack list?
>>47242508
Meant for
>>47242163
>>47240253
>No conditions or drawbacks
>Three of the four cards listed have conditions or drawbacks
You have actual brain damage, don't you?
>>47242508
Simple & cheap af
>>47242508
Hmm when I get stomping grounds for breachshift might throw some a commands in 8whack, usually play singles as a cool down from more complex lists
>>47242613
Nice, I like the wardriver but I don't run him, I went to make it atarka goblins for atarkas command and to add fetches for deck thinning, I run goblin guide also because I have them for burn already
>>47242463
I like Familiar's Ruse in Faeries, and am apparently alone in that.
>>47242657
Hell yeah, I'm liking burn in this format
>>47242661
I might be the only person who thinks Delay(more like Retard amirite)is pretty decent. Delaying something for a two turns (and sometimes causing it to fizzle on arrival, depending on the card) in a format that ends so quickly is often just as good as countering the card outright.
>>47242166
Force of Will would be a 4 of in every single deck in modern just about. It isn't necessarily overpowered (it is) but anything splashing blue will automatically run something as mediocre as Remand. I think it would make control a bit too powerful but it would be entertaining to see.
>>47243003
Is it fun being wrong?
>>47243068
Any deck that runs Remand would swap them out for Force of Will. That's a shit load of decks. They'd get an insane powerboost from that and combo decks would be on suicide watch. It's pretty much a fact.
>>47242657
>add fetches for deck thinning
Opinion immediately disregarded
>>47243546
>Every deck would swap a net +1 play for a net -1 play
Anon, you're a fucking idiot. FoW is as good as it is in Legacy and Vintage because you need to have a Turn 1 answer or seriously face losing the match outright. In Modern that requirement is basically non-existent.
>>47242657
>Deck Thinning
Surefire way to show that you don't know shit. There's been many tests and numbers crunched to show that "thinning the deck" is a meme at best.
>>47243642
>free counter anything for 1 life and a discard that could be an engine for your deck
>not better than remand and would not be an absolute auto include for blue in modern
You're so clueless it's hilarious
>>47224505
>Playing?
Esper Rally. Had no luck today, but I guess that's part of it.
>Brewing?
Still experimenting with Rally.
>Favorite deck?
Soul Sisters.
>Next MTG Purchase?
Probably finishing Bogles or some Sultai beatdown deck.
>Do you like the current Modern Metagame?
Yeah. Jund is pretty rough against Esper Rally but at least the games are more fun than Eldrazi. Also fuck 8whack/gruul aggro.
>>47242945
The reason delay is utter shit is because it only pauses the spell. Unlike remand it doesn't replace itself and therefore is actually card disadvantage, trading one card for a turn or two before they cast their spell for free.
>>47243963
You don't discard for for you exile you fucking imbecile. And FOW is often sided out against fair decks because 2-for-1ing yourself against decks that want to play attrition is really fucking bad. You are so fucking clueless yourself you god damn oxygen thieving retard. Stop breathing my air and kill yourself
>>47244081
Okay, anon. You're totally right. Remand > Force of Will.
Fucking KEK.
>playing?
I play Affinity and Abzan
>brewing?
Not really, i'm too poor to afford Tarmogoyfs and so my Abzan deck is heavier on control hate, such as Voice and Sin Collector. It's good in my meta but not exactly a brew.
>favourite deck?
Affinity
>>47244064
They're going to cast their spell next turn if you Remand it. You're just delaying the inevitable unless you're going to blow another counter spell on it. So really Remand is a shitty Serum Visions that is a panic delay match button.
>>47243963
>"Free" counter
>1 life and exiling a card is free
God damn you're stupid, and the worst part is you don't even realize it. As >>47244081 said, FoW is good because of the meta it's in. In Modern it loses the niche it has to other more traditional counters. It can situationally be good, but it would be far from the best and only counter. Please, take that anon's advice and kill yourself.
>>47244114
Force of will is powerful against unfair decks, would I play FoW against Grishoalbrand? 100%. I would rather die than 2 for 1 myself against Midrange or Control though. It's not a black and white issue, they're both situationally better than each other.
>>47244114
They're completely different spells that serve different purposes. Trying to directly compare them is so stupid it physically hurts me to read the drivel you type. You've never played legacy in your fucking life have you?
>>47244148
The reason remand is good is because it literally time walks your opponent. If they spend turn 3 casting a creature and you remand it you gain an immense tempo advantage. Don't be fucking dense. It's a pretty simple concept to be good at magic.
>>47244149
Did you really need to post and act like you're another person? Double kek. In Modern you have access to very poor counterspells for the most part, if your choices are Negate, Remand, Spell Snare, etc you obviously are going to be able to replace some of these absolutely meme counters with Force of Will in your main board and not only lose nothing but gain shit load of versatility. It's like saying Pact of Negation is shitty because it's situational. Every card in magic is situational you delusional fuck.
If you want to continue Remanding spells only for them to be played next turn and act like paying 1 life and exiling a card to counter anything for no mana, without it going back to their hand is too much then so be it. You'll pretty much be laughed out of your FNM if you ever tried to talk like this.
>>47244187
You could cast a 2 drop and then Force of Will them on their turn instead of saving two mana and delaying their turn a bit. In this case Spell Snare is better than Remand anyway.
>>47244220
Do you understand the concept of a 2 for 1? When you trade 2 of your cards for 1 of your opponents they just won that interaction, it doesn't take many 2 for 1s to be extremely behind in a game of magic. FoW is very good, but it simply isn't important in the modern format, there isn't enough janky shit that needs policing.
>>47244220
>EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME MUST BE A SAMEFAG!
Guess again retard. Your mother should have aborted you.
>>47244220
No, you sad delusional little man, it's not just one person disagreeing with you. Every seasoned magic players disagrees with you and we're talking you how fucking retarded you are. Yes force of will is a good card. But it wouldn't be that good in modern. Most of moderns decks are too fair for force of will to be a spectacular choice. But continue being angry, bad, and wrong, while we play magic the efficient and correct way and understand the proper use of counterspells.
Let me leave your pathetic existence with this quandary: why does literally NO ONE play foil when it's essentially a 15 cent force of will?because 3 for 1ing yourself is inexcusable shit head
>>47244248
Can confirm, not a samefag, can't wait to play against the guy running FoW against a midranged deck, seems pretty fucking bad.
>>47244274
If you're in a blue control shell this is going to be completely irrelevant outside of mirror matches. You're going to have card advantage in blue in modern, almost always. Especially with Ancestral Visions being legalized. Losing a card for FoW is meaningless in that shell, to access its versatility.
>not understanding a resource as basic as card advantage
>>47244329
What about against a deck with discard and lili's? You can't go around discarding your cards for them you fucking retard.
>>47244364
Oh my god, there are matchups where you will sideboard them for other cards? I can't believe this insane idea that you will sometimes need to sideboard against Jund or Memerack and put in the normal modern counter staples for that MU.
>>47244393
What deck in modern do you really feel like FoW would be better against? Enlighten me.
>>47244405
FoW > Remand in
Infect.
Grishoal.
Goblins. (Spell Snare is king here).
Gifts.
Eldrazi,
Tron.
Storm.
It is worse against Burn, Jund, Junk, 8rack, etc. So obviously you would mainboard FoW and side it out in some of the more problematic matchups.
>>47244444
I'm not sure if this post is a joke or just depressing. Either way, it's a waste of good quints.
>>47244393
What deck do you think FOW is going to be good against?
Burn? Cool 2 cards and 1 life to counter a bolt good job!
Jund? Cool 2 cards and 1 life to counter a goyf now get Kommand'd loser
Affinity? 2 cards and 1 life to counter a ravager congrats now you'll get slapped by plating
Zoo? 2 cards and 1 life for a glorified fucking doom blade, good job shit head
FOW is best at blowing out combo decks after they go all in. Those decks aren't heavily represented in modern DUMB. FUCK. HEAD.
>>47244444
>Goblins
>Gifts
>STORM
I hear it's also good against Eggs!
At this point the FoW guy is an obvious troll. No one wants to pitch a snappy in order to counter anything besides something that would otherwise cause you to lose the game. Against fair decks... It doesn't matter at all, FoW is really bad even if you get em.
>>47244565
This reminds me of when everyone here was going on about how Ancestral Visions wasn't even good in Modern and now every single blue deck runs 4x. Like virtually anything competitive, 4chan is absolutely clueless.
>>47244583
I'm not 4chan, i'm a tournament magic player and a judge. I have been playing competitive magic for years. I never said FoW was bad, the reason it is so good in legacy is because of the sheer amount of quick kills. FoW is less important in modern, where games are more likely not to end on the second turn. I'd rather leave my mana up to counter a spell then have to discard valuable spells to exile in order to stop a threat which isn't pivotal. Stop being fucking stupid and read what I am saying, it makes sense I promise.
>>47242538
>Three of the four cards listed have conditions or drawbacks
Yeah, I bet you'd argue that Path and Plow have "drawbacks" too. A condition is meaningless when it doesn't inhibit anything significant, and a drawback is meaningless when it doesn't actually do anything for your opponent.
>>47244583
>I-it's not me who's wrong! It's everyone else!
>Claims Ancestral Vision is a playset in every "blue" deck
>AV in 35th place, appearing in just 9.10% of decks
>Merfolk, the only mono-U deck in the format, runs 0 copies of AV:^)
>>47244653
>noncreature
>2 cmc
>unless they pay 3 mana
Those are drawbacks you fucking tard, you can't hit a rhino with a spell snare or a negate.
>>47244662
>aggro deck runs 0
No shit?
>>47244583
>every single blue deck runs 4x
Oh yeah the Grixis memerange list that SCG has that Reynad clone shilling is stacking Visions while getting blown out by everything with the ability to run graveyard hate.
Clearly AV is tits, 3% of the meta uses them and gets run over routinely.
>>47244701
>Claims every blue deck runs it
>The only mono-U deck in the format doesn't run it
>"YEAH WELL UH AGGRO"
Doesn't make your claim that every blue deck runs it any more true, fuckstick. Also, you have no response for the rest of the post, probably because there is none but to admit you're wrong.
>>47244685
>you can't hit a rhino with a spell snare or a negate
If you're trying to pop a Rhino off the stack without Cryptic up for the bonus cantrip or bounce, you're already dead.
Spending 1U less for 1 less effect doesn't help you, because they're just going to topdeck another threat next turn.
>>47244768
It is run in nearly 10% of decks and it's only been legal for a short while. Saying it's not good in modern doesn't even need a response.
>>47244784
No one said it's not good. We're saying it's not a format defining staple like you're trying to make it out to be, or like you're trying to say FoW would be. Please drown yourself.
>>47244784
And Dispel is run in 23.54% of decks. By your definition I guess that makes it format warping!
>>47244784
10% of decks? Wow, thats's almost a third of the percentage of the meta that's made up of decks that bend control decks over with zero effort.
I really love making control players stare at their suspended AVs as I make a Bob flip then resolve a Painful Truths.
Can you guys go one post without the anger of a 4th grader?
>>47244831
Again, it's been legal for a short while. In a format where everyone just netdecks you won't see it go up for quite awhile. And I didn't say it was format warping. I said it was hilarious that, like Ancestral Vision, everyone is saying that Force of Will wouldn't be an incredible asset to control decks in Modern.
But going by this thread, I guess that's just objectively not true. 2-in-1ing yourself is just far too much for blue to overcome and you might as well forfeit the minute you play FoW. And three turns for three cards is just too slow for such an aggressive meta. Who would ever play Ancestral Vision when Ideas Unbound exists, mirite? :^)
>>47243599
>>47243642
I don't care what tests were done, if I fetch a mountain, there is no chance I will draw that mountain, and that's good enough for me.
>>47244899
>Being proud of being a fucking retard
Only on 4chan
>>47244329
>AV being played in modern
Anon, stop, my sides hurt too much
>>47244899
>taking 4 damage to get a 1-4% chance of not topdecking a land
You're an idiot.
>>47244877
>2-in-1ing yourself is just far too much for blue to overcome and you might as well forfeit the minute you play FoW
2-for-1ing as control is pretty much setting yourself up for the loss, given that entire control shells are built around being resilient to bad trades and perform like shit regardless.
Besides, you're kinda missing the point about FoW. You could literally run almost any other counter in its place, pay mana you weren't using, and counter the thing you were trying to counter without exiling a card. Nothing in Modern demands the options that FoW provides, and you only cast it in Legacy to not die.
>Again, it's been legal for a short while. In a format where everyone just netdecks you won't see it go up for quite awhile
AV has to be the card with the highest shilling-to-performance ratio Ive ever seen from an unbanning.
The thing is in a fuck ton of decks, but it isn't winning anything, because it doesn't solve the problems that decks it fits in have. Does it improve them? Marginally. But thats like saying the GGT unbanning helped Modern Dredge.
>>47244926
Resorting to insults is pretty childish, especially over a collectible card game.
How about you state how I'm wrong?
Literally I am taking a card I don't want to draw out of my deck permanantly, you can argue that the benefit is negligible but you can't argue that there is a benefit
>>47244970
4/20=1%
And he says I'm retarded
>>47244995
I feel like with the standard draw suite it would not be tragic to 2-in-1 yourself to prevent an emergency situation. You won't die on turn 2 in Modern. But you will have games where you just cannot win if something manages to resolve on turn 3.
>>47245011
>How about you state how I'm wrong?
>I mean I know I just said I don't care what the numbers say, but srsly
epic
>>47245049
>decks have 20 cards in them
>you draw your entire deck every game
Yep, you're the retard alright.
>>47245065
>But you will have games where you just cannot win if something manages to resolve on turn 3.
Like.....?
>>47245081
Infect god hand is the most frustrating. Something like a Vapor Snag being Vines of Vastwooded and then them pumping to kill and you sitting there helpless.
For all you idiots still believing in the deck thinning myth, read this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096
the tl;dr is that the effects of "deck thinning" are so negligible that they may as well not exist at all.
>>47245132
>"This is fairly surprising. The overall impact of fetch lands upon the number of extra spells, (as opposed to the true lands the fetch lands removed from the deck,) drawn is not nearly as high as the number life sacrificed for the effect. While the dead draws over the first 16 turns are not surprisingly negligible, over the first 16 turns we cannot realize, on average, a single extra card from our fetch lands. Even if we propagate this data further, the first card we see in the 4/16 case is not realized until around the 36th turn, and at an average cost of 2.8 life. The first card for 8/12 is realized on the 25th turn, but at a cost of 4.3 life."
Deck thinning fags BTFO
>>47245106
If you had the cards in hand to snipe something with FoW and still win, you have the ability to fight through a T3 Vines.
Besides, Forcing an answer through just puts you down a card as they rebuild and kill you anyway.
>>47245186
Infect is a combo deck anyway and that means FoW would be good in that MU, I think. Overall I guess I get what you guys are saying with it not being godlike against a fair deck. I still think it would have a use in sideboards and a 1 or 2 of in the mainboard. In a draw suite control deck.
>>47245238
>Toss two cards to buy a turn at best against Infect
Yeah nah
>>47245279
It's either that or dying normally if you've over extended yourself and your vapor snag/spell snare/etc end up getting Vines.
>>47245238
>Infect is a combo deck anyway and that means FoW would be good in that MU
Infect isn't a combo deck. Combo decks dont have upwards of 12 ways to kill you with the rest of their deck supporting it.
Thats like saying Burn is a combo deck that combos Bolts and Skullcracks together to deal 20 damage.
>>47239723
Luckily, most of that hate is pretty narrow or loses to Empty the Warrens. Affinity hate is narrow, but it's assumed to be such a large part of the meta that it gets played everywhere by everyone. Unless people really wanna beat you, stuff like Rule of Law or Eidolon of Rhetoric is just not common. Most combo decks scoop to cards specifically designed to beat you. That's what Echoing Truth is for. But you have a point. Being the Storm guy at your shop is fine, but once someone else starts playing the deck, it makes sense for everyone else to pack hate. I have another deck in case that happens.
>>47245307
Burn can't kill you on turn 3 with the right "combo". And it is listed as a combo deck on most sites.
>>47245279
>>47245238
>>47245186
Have any of you actually played against Legacy infect?
"It's a combo deck, so Force of Will is good" is a false heuristic which gets repeated a lot. Force of Will's power against combo decks comes from cheap, stack based interaction being the only way to slow down combo decks game plan.
Against decks like Elves and Infect, which both have combo kills, stack interaction is not the only way to interact with those decks. The most efficient way to deal with them is removal.
That being said, Force is still good against Elves and Infect because those decks have a specific spell that you are looking to counter. If they go for a Berzerk/Natural Order/Glimpse, Ill trade 2 cards to not die.
>>47245622
>Berzerk/Natural Order/Glimpse
I love playing Glimpse in Modern Elves.
>>47245712
The point is that it doesn't matter if you want to call a deck a combo deck or not; if there's a spell that you can't let resolve, force of will is good.
I don't really care enough to know exactly what shit cards are played in what shit modern decks.
>>47245767
>I don't care what cards are played in Modern, I just like to argue about the metagame
Kill yourself.
>>47245430
Burn can kill you on turn 3
T1 goblin guide 2 damage
T2 gg/swiftspear spell 9 damage
T3 2gg/swiftspear atarkas command 21 damage
>>47245066
If you fetch 4 times in a 20 land deck you have gotten rid of 40 percent of your lands
That isn't negligible
>>47245811
>I don't understand the specific cards that are being played in a metagame, so you can't make points about general card roles
Sure buddy
>>47245886
It is though. Lets assume its turn 5. You drew 1 card a turn and kept 7. You're about to draw.
If you have fetched 4 times, the chance of drawing a land is 12/45. Chance to draw land: about 26%
If you did not fetch at all, the chance is 16/49. Chance to draw land: about 32%
So you have a difference of about 6 percent. In a game where you drew 4 fetchlands (an unlikely occurrence).
You've also drained 20% of your life, assuming no shocklands.
The games where "deck thinning" matters are games which go very long, and where you draw a lot of fetches. However, the very slight edge you might gain is offset by the life loss, which also adds up.
Go ahead and "deck thin". But understand that the difference between 19/50 and 18/49 is very slim.
>>47246047
Thats ignoring the fact lots of decks are going to give themselves ways to draw more cards. shaving down 2 cards almost every time you want to play a land instead of 1 on top of things like faithless looting are where deck thinning matters.
>>47246088
No. You appear to be thinking like this: when you fetch, it removes 2% of the land from your deck. Therefore, you are 2% less likely to draw a land.
This is false. You are reducing the number of lands in your deck, but you are also reducing the number of cards in your deck. Each land you fetch out will increase your chance of drawing a non-land by a fraction of a percent. If you draw a lot of cards, this fraction of a percent will eventually result in you netting a virtual card: ie, drawing a non-land when you would have drawn a land. If you draw 5 extra cards, you will be maybe 1% to draw an additional non-land. The effect is ultimately not worth the cost.
>>47246157
So you're saying there is an opportunity cost when considering the inclusion of fetchlands? Waow
>>47246266
Yes, and if you include them just to deck thin you're making a mistake. And if you make plays based around deck thinning you'r making a mistake.
>>47224517
>burn is second
ooooooh burn
Oy vey goyim
>>47244507
FoW against Goblins/Eldrazi??? Lolwut??? You realize that FoW is completely useless against those decks in Legacy thanks to Cavern of Souls, right?
>>47246157
Youre just looking as if its good or bad as the only results, but that is not true. Fetch lands gaurentee you the color you need trading off your decksize and life total while also giving you the chance to shuffle your top card away at will when you have them out. The tempo is real and just because its low doesnt mean that it doesnt matter, there are draw spells that make library manipulation easy and worthwhile and fetches are an important part of that. In a perfect vacuum fetches are close to other lands but in use the abilities they have are well worth 1 hp
>>47246524
Force is pretty good against eldrazi. It doesnt have much text against goblins
>>47246524
Why are you saying that to >>47244507? Did you click the wrong post or are you just stupid?
>>47240685
Thopter Sword and Nahiri?
>>47246531
I was never arguing that fetchlands were bad: fetch/dual manabases are strong. I'm just arguing that deck thinning is completely negligible.
>>47228319
I bring a backpack and all my cards into the bathroom during prerelease ever since someone lifted my cards at the start of a prerelease.
I also have alcohol in the bag and get loaded as the day goes on.
>>47226183
>tfw rolling with skred
>tfw getting 2-0d by like 5 tier 4 decks in a row
>tfw finally play against burn and sneak a win
>>47246781
Tier 4 decks beating tier 5 decks seems right to me
>>47246808
Lol talk about a burn
>>47246808
ouch dawg
desu it doesn't help that i'm an awful pilot too
I was thinking of adding a playset of confidants to this and removing the caryatids and toughtseizes. Also will add a fourth inquisition and a second damnation instead of some goyf's.
Or something to that extend. So
+4 confidant
+1 damnation
Would this be a good idea?
>>47246865
Remove the Caryatids & 1 goyf, leave the thoughtseizes
You really need 2 damnations? How aggro is your lgs?
>>47247122
Immediate meta (friends) is:
Merfolk
Junk
Norin Sisters
FNM is:
Burn (Nacatyl)
Storm
affinity
u tron
bogles
kiki chord
delver 2x
And some other stuff.
I wanted to remove the thoughtseizes because it might hurt too much in combination with the confidants.
>>47244662
Actually, taking turns is mono blue too. But it also doesn't run it because you're already drawing like 4 cards every turn.
Alright /tg/, I need your advice. I am going to attend a local GP and grind modern side events for three days straight. I need to decide on the deck asap, so I can properly practice. So far I have three decks I am considering. Which one is the best for this situation?
>Jeskai Nahiri Control
+ a powerful control deck
+ can attack on multiple axes
- it's control, so messing up is really bad, and the fatigue needs to be taken into account
- the games will last long, which can end up in ties and/or fatigue
- it can't steal the game as easily as the other decks, no free wins
>Abzan Company
+ t1 tuned out deck
+ sometimes you just combo out t3 and get a free win
- people will know how to play vs it and will respect the deck in their sideboards
- hated out much more easily than jeskai control
>Dredge (one guy had 70% wr over 100 games at mtgo)
+ it's new, so people won't really know how to play vs it
+ can snowball the game incredibly fast, often killing on t2/t3
+ the decision tree is smaller
- the list is new and unrefined
- sometimes you just awkwardly stumble and do nothing
- gy hate is common and can mess you up
I can bring Dredge and either Jeskai or Company. While it's fine having two decks, so you can hedge around the metagame, it also forces me to practice two decks at once which will lower the quality of my game.
Any advice about the deck choice, as well about the quality of players at side events is welcomed.
>>47229707
Edh should have no ban list. It should be play group spicific, so casuals can casual and spikes can build their 100 card, singleton vintage decks.
>>47248091
Abzan Company is the best deck in Modern.
>>47245811
>>47245767
mfw neither of you realize that you're both retarded and failed the reading comprehension portion of your respective states' standardized tests.
>>47228437
>LGS hosts all their events at a community hall for free
>All events are run entirely by the local MTG community themselves, LGS owner doesn't pay any staff
>LGS generates value without any effort, buys more MTG supplies
And that's how we got advanced status.
>>47228885
>cryptic command full art
are these allowed at sanctioned events, since you'll have to ask a judge for the oracle text?
>>47229285
>Limited most resembles the game as it was designed to be played: decks have a few cards which are miles better than the rest, but you don't see them every game.
fixed that for you
>>47249298
If you don't know the text of Cryptic, you shouldn't really be buying textless Cryptics or really Modern in general.
>have 2 silly combo decks
>want to add control deck to library
>control sucks in memedern
When you just really want to spend a lot of money on a bad deck which is the better choice, cruel control or thopter gift rites UW tron? And by better I mean fun
>>47249431
gift rites is more versatile as you can lock your opp in multiple ways
cruel ultimatum is not -that- good as it seems
