No it wouldnt. Control would just revert back to pre-snappy type control.
That doesnt mean I think snappy should be banned.
Uh, there was no such thing as Pre-Snappy control in Modern. They both came into existence at the same time. Control and midrange blue decks have always had Snapcaster.
That doesnt mean control was never played in any other format prior. Control would still be played without snappy, but people would QQ about the loss of snappy forever.
Quote from Valanarch »
Sam Black got top 8 at PT Philadelphia with Shoal Infect.
He also played the deck way too cautiously. He could have won both his games on tape on turn 2. Shoal breaks the turn 4 rule.
I think Valanarch was also saying that Shoal is a silly card, as proven in Philly.
As for Snapcaster and Control, it's not really relevant what was played outside of Modern. Legacy Control uses Stoneforge, CounterTop/Miracles, and Jace. The Standard control deck that existed before Modern was also based on the Jace/Stoneforge duo. I never played Extended but I'm aware that at least one of the most successful Control decks was Thopter Depths. NONE of these cards are available to Modern Blue decks.
Point being, without a precedent for a Snapcaster-less Control deck in Modern, you can't say that they'd be fine. If you cut Snapcaster, all Blue decks would struggle. And there is hardly a proper control deck as it is. I can't imagine UWR Control would be all that great without Snapcaster, to say nothing of how much it would hurt Twin and Delver decks.
Snapcaster is good, but I don't see the reason to ban him. He's not oppressive, he's vulnerable to a variety of maindeckable cards, and he's very close in power level to Bob, Goyf, Liliana, and their ilk. And I'm a BG/x player. If they banned Snapcaster, I would have a lot less competition from blue decks, and the games wouldn't be nearly a interactive or fun. Personally, I think Snapcaster is what keeps the various blue decks afloat, and I don't want to lose them as opponents.
Now perhaps if the banned Snapcaster but took of something like Ancestral Visions, control might creep up again in some form. But I don't actually know if it'd be that good. Also, Snapcaster is a pet card for a lot of players, a veritable little brother to Jace, TMS. Banning him would enrage a lot of folks for no real reason.
Pod and B/G are much more oppressive than Snapcaster in my opinion. And yet I till don't think a ban is necessary. Let's enjoy the fetchlands and see how they shake up the format for awhile before calling for bans again. Fetchlands will change the format significantly this coming year.
Granted, you didn't say you wanted to ban Snappy, just that Control decks would revert back to pre-snappy control. But... that never existed in Modern, and I doubt it would be that viable. On-curve card advantage is hard to come by in this format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN RGB Jund BGR WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY RUGB Delver GURB
EDH UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR BBB Skithiryx Control BB
The format then was a lot different than it is now. Back then the top decks were 12 Post, Twin (more consistent with good cantrips), Storm, Counter Cat, Jund and Zoo variants. So sure, removal was good but it wasn't as relevant then as it is now. We moved from a mid-range/combo era with little creature interaction besides Twin/Zoo and sometimes Infect. But now the top decks are Affinity, Pod and Twin. All of them rely on creatures to win the game, so decks now pack much more removal than previous. On top of that, we have lost Ponder and Preordain, so even if Shoal were unbanned then it wouldn't be as consistent, would often require backup counter magic, and need some form of removal to get rid of the inevitable creature army your opponents will get. Sure, with a nut draw it can win turn 2/3. But so can Goryo's Vengence. So can normal Infect. But they aren't dominating or format warping decks. They exist, but due to their nature and inconsistency (much like Shoal Infect would likely be, should it be unbanned) they aren't big threats to the format and likely wont lead to degeneracy. Path answers both decks. Mana Leak/Remand answers both decks. There are so many answers its frustrating even thinking Shoal infect could become a top teir deck in modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
The format then was a lot different than it is now. Back then the top decks were 12 Post, Twin (more consistent with good cantrips), Storm, Counter Cat, Jund and Zoo variants. So sure, removal was good but it wasn't as relevant then as it is now. We moved from a mid-range/combo era with little creature interaction besides Twin/Zoo and sometimes Infect. But now the top decks are Affinity, Pod and Twin. All of them rely on creatures to win the game, so decks now pack much more removal than previous. On top of that, we have lost Ponder and Preordain, so even if Shoal were unbanned then it wouldn't be as consistent, would often require backup counter magic, and need some form of removal to get rid of the inevitable creature army your opponents will get. Sure, with a nut draw it can win turn 2/3. But so can Goryo's Vengence. So can normal Infect. But they aren't dominating or format warping decks. They exist, but due to their nature and inconsistency (much like Shoal Infect would likely be, should it be unbanned) they aren't big threats to the format and likely wont lead to degeneracy. Path answers both decks. Mana Leak/Remand answers both decks. There are so many answers its frustrating even thinking Shoal infect could become a top teir deck in modern.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
On the subject of control without Snapcaster, control would still be playable. 1 card does not make a deck type.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
Which match are you referring to here? I'm assuming its his match against Josh Utter-Leyton, in which case i would like to know which video you watched, because he did not have a way to kill t2 in any of the games he lost. In game 3 (off-camera) Josh had a Grim Lavamancer on turn 1 and thus would have been able to stop the t2 kill. In game 4, Josh had a t2 Gaddock Teeg and Sam missed his land drop, and in game 5 Sam never saw his Blazing Shoal.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
Which match are you referring to here? I'm assuming its his match against Josh Utter-Leyton, in which case i would like to know which video you watched, because he did not have a way to kill t2 in any of the games he lost. In game 3 (off-camera) Josh had a Grim Lavamancer on turn 1 and thus would have been able to stop the t2 kill. In game 4, Josh had a t2 Gaddock Teeg and Sam missed his land drop, and in game 5 Sam never saw his Blazing Shoal.
I have not seen the match in some time, but I remember he had the win on turn 2 in one of the games and he held back because he was being over cautious playing around bolt which his opponent didnt have. The 2 games he had shoal in hand he could have won turn 2.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
Which match are you referring to here? I'm assuming its his match against Josh Utter-Leyton, in which case i would like to know which video you watched, because he did not have a way to kill t2 in any of the games he lost. In game 3 (off-camera) Josh had a Grim Lavamancer on turn 1 and thus would have been able to stop the t2 kill. In game 4, Josh had a t2 Gaddock Teeg and Sam missed his land drop, and in game 5 Sam never saw his Blazing Shoal.
I have not seen the match in some time, but I remember he had the win on turn 2 in one of the games and he held back because he was being over cautious playing around bolt which his opponent didnt have. The 2 games he had shoal in hand he could have won turn 2.
My point being, Shoal infect is a deck you play a bit more aggressively to do well with the deck.
The format then was a lot different than it is now. Back then the top decks were 12 Post, Twin (more consistent with good cantrips), Storm, Counter Cat, Jund and Zoo variants. So sure, removal was good but it wasn't as relevant then as it is now. We moved from a mid-range/combo era with little creature interaction besides Twin/Zoo and sometimes Infect. But now the top decks are Affinity, Pod and Twin. All of them rely on creatures to win the game, so decks now pack much more removal than previous. On top of that, we have lost Ponder and Preordain, so even if Shoal were unbanned then it wouldn't be as consistent, would often require backup counter magic, and need some form of removal to get rid of the inevitable creature army your opponents will get. Sure, with a nut draw it can win turn 2/3. But so can Goryo's Vengence. So can normal Infect. But they aren't dominating or format warping decks. They exist, but due to their nature and inconsistency (much like Shoal Infect would likely be, should it be unbanned) they aren't big threats to the format and likely wont lead to degeneracy. Path answers both decks. Mana Leak/Remand answers both decks. There are so many answers its frustrating even thinking Shoal infect could become a top teir deck in modern.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
On the subject of control without Snapcaster, control would still be playable. 1 card does not make a deck type.
The format then was a lot different than it is now. Back then the top decks were 12 Post, Twin (more consistent with good cantrips), Storm, Counter Cat, Jund and Zoo variants. So sure, removal was good but it wasn't as relevant then as it is now. We moved from a mid-range/combo era with little creature interaction besides Twin/Zoo and sometimes Infect. But now the top decks are Affinity, Pod and Twin. All of them rely on creatures to win the game, so decks now pack much more removal than previous. On top of that, we have lost Ponder and Preordain, so even if Shoal were unbanned then it wouldn't be as consistent, would often require backup counter magic, and need some form of removal to get rid of the inevitable creature army your opponents will get. Sure, with a nut draw it can win turn 2/3. But so can Goryo's Vengence. So can normal Infect. But they aren't dominating or format warping decks. They exist, but due to their nature and inconsistency (much like Shoal Infect would likely be, should it be unbanned) they aren't big threats to the format and likely wont lead to degeneracy. Path answers both decks. Mana Leak/Remand answers both decks. There are so many answers its frustrating even thinking Shoal infect could become a top teir deck in modern.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
On the subject of control without Snapcaster, control would still be playable. 1 card does not make a deck type.
Magic players get spoiled and cant see a deck without certain cards and forever complain they dont have said card to make a deck play a certain way. Like I said, top level control was played prior to Snappy being printed in multiple formats. Snappy is not 'needed' to play top tier control. Its just one card in a deck of 60.
Yeah its a pointless unban. People will play the deck and its pretty random whether it wins or loses any given game based on draws. No real play there.
The format then was a lot different than it is now. Back then the top decks were 12 Post, Twin (more consistent with good cantrips), Storm, Counter Cat, Jund and Zoo variants. So sure, removal was good but it wasn't as relevant then as it is now. We moved from a mid-range/combo era with little creature interaction besides Twin/Zoo and sometimes Infect. But now the top decks are Affinity, Pod and Twin. All of them rely on creatures to win the game, so decks now pack much more removal than previous. On top of that, we have lost Ponder and Preordain, so even if Shoal were unbanned then it wouldn't be as consistent, would often require backup counter magic, and need some form of removal to get rid of the inevitable creature army your opponents will get. Sure, with a nut draw it can win turn 2/3. But so can Goryo's Vengence. So can normal Infect. But they aren't dominating or format warping decks. They exist, but due to their nature and inconsistency (much like Shoal Infect would likely be, should it be unbanned) they aren't big threats to the format and likely wont lead to degeneracy. Path answers both decks. Mana Leak/Remand answers both decks. There are so many answers its frustrating even thinking Shoal infect could become a top teir deck in modern.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
On the subject of control without Snapcaster, control would still be playable. 1 card does not make a deck type.
Magic players get spoiled and cant see a deck without certain cards and forever complain they dont have said card to make a deck play a certain way. Like I said, top level control was played prior to Snappy being printed in multiple formats. Snappy is not 'needed' to play top tier control. Its just one card in a deck of 60.
1 card certainly can be the difference between tiers 1 and 2. What would you replace Snapcaster with?
The format then was a lot different than it is now. Back then the top decks were 12 Post, Twin (more consistent with good cantrips), Storm, Counter Cat, Jund and Zoo variants. So sure, removal was good but it wasn't as relevant then as it is now. We moved from a mid-range/combo era with little creature interaction besides Twin/Zoo and sometimes Infect. But now the top decks are Affinity, Pod and Twin. All of them rely on creatures to win the game, so decks now pack much more removal than previous. On top of that, we have lost Ponder and Preordain, so even if Shoal were unbanned then it wouldn't be as consistent, would often require backup counter magic, and need some form of removal to get rid of the inevitable creature army your opponents will get. Sure, with a nut draw it can win turn 2/3. But so can Goryo's Vengence. So can normal Infect. But they aren't dominating or format warping decks. They exist, but due to their nature and inconsistency (much like Shoal Infect would likely be, should it be unbanned) they aren't big threats to the format and likely wont lead to degeneracy. Path answers both decks. Mana Leak/Remand answers both decks. There are so many answers its frustrating even thinking Shoal infect could become a top teir deck in modern.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
On the subject of control without Snapcaster, control would still be playable. 1 card does not make a deck type.
Magic players get spoiled and cant see a deck without certain cards and forever complain they dont have said card to make a deck play a certain way. Like I said, top level control was played prior to Snappy being printed in multiple formats. Snappy is not 'needed' to play top tier control. Its just one card in a deck of 60.
1 card certainly can be the difference between tiers 1 and 2. What would you replace Snapcaster with?
You should maybe look at control decks pre Snapcaster in Standard.
It really is a moot point until/if they ban Snapcaster. Something I dont see happening at the moment.
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
On the subject of control without Snapcaster, control would still be playable. 1 card does not make a deck type.
Magic players get spoiled and cant see a deck without certain cards and forever complain they dont have said card to make a deck play a certain way. Like I said, top level control was played prior to Snappy being printed in multiple formats. Snappy is not 'needed' to play top tier control. Its just one card in a deck of 60.
1 card certainly can be the difference between tiers 1 and 2. What would you replace Snapcaster with?
You should maybe look at control decks pre Snapcaster in Standard.
It really is a moot point until/if they ban Snapcaster. Something I dont see happening at the moment.
I am not looking at Standard decks to show me how to play Modern. Besides, most of the Standard Control decks played Snapcaster, Jace, or Ancestral Vision.
@ Bocephus, you're really not presenting a very strong or tangible argument about Control being functional in Modern without Snapcaster. Telling us to reference Standard is pretty useless, since standard isn't Modern. Yet I already did that anyway, pointing out that the most powerful and recent U/W control decks prior to Snapcaster had Stoneforge/Jace. Then they had Snapcaster/Resto. Most recently they weren't all that powerful, only featuring Supreme Verdict, Jace AOT, and Sphinx's Rev. But I digress. Standard-playable control decks have nothing to do with the viability of a Modern archetype.
The loss of Snapcaster would easily be the difference between Tier 1 and 2 to a lot of decks. And honestly, U/W control variants are already below Tier 1. Let's not kid ourselves that they'd be "fine" without the format's best blue card. Let's think of what would happen to U/W Miracles if we cut Top from Legacy. Or Brainstorm.
Point is, Snapcaster is a lynchpin in most Blue strategies, and losing him would easily knock them down a peg or two. BG/x would easily outperform Blue decks once they lost Snappy. And you're not actually presenting any valid argument to the contrary. You're just pointing in the air and going, "look, evidence." Let's actually see that evidence though. Give us an example of a successful Modern Blue Control deck that functioned without Snapcaster.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MODERN RGB Jund BGR WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY RUGB Delver GURB
EDH UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR BBB Skithiryx Control BB
Without solid and cheap draw/library manipulation in modern Control needs something like Snap. It gives Control another resource at the extra cost of 1U. With out this Control has no real way to put pressure on the board or to get around dead draws. Snap is good for the format, with out him Control would be hard pressed to be tier 1.5 let alone tier one.
Without solid and cheap draw/library manipulation in modern Control needs something like Snap. It gives Control another resource at the extra cost of 1U. With out this Control has no real way to put pressure on the board or to get around dead draws. Snap is good for the format, with out him Control would be hard pressed to be tier 1.5 let alone tier one.
With a card like Snap you also have to consider what it would do for other decks in the format beyond just control. Any free spell like Snap has potential to be abused in combo, and as a Storm player I would seriously consider playing 1-2 of it in the main. It deals with problem creatures without restricting your mana on your combo turn, can be used to fix your mana (such as tapping 2 islands to pay for it by untapping 2 Steam Vents afterwards), and in conjunction with Pyromancer Ascension or Goblin Electromancer would act as a ritual as well. Would that be enough to push storm over the top? Probably not, but this is what you have to consider with a card like snap.
Lol, I was actually referring to Snapcaster, and how he should be in talks of being banned. Snap would be an interesting reprint, low powered free spells are always fun.
Lol, I was actually referring to Snapcaster, and how he should be in talks of being banned. Snap would be an interesting reprint, low powered free spells are always fun.
Ah, my bad. In that case I agree, control kind of needs Snapcaster in this format to remain viable, at least anywhere close to tier 1
Jace Beleran is still an amazing card advantage machine. But people got spoiled about JTMS and refuse to use Jace Beleran.
People refuse to use an amazing card advantage machine because there exists a banned card that happens to have the same first name that is better than it. Are you saying that people should be running Jace Beleren, but decide not to because a banned card is stronger than it? That can't possibly be what you mean...? Seriously, please correct me.
Jace Beleran is still an amazing card advantage machine. But people got spoiled about JTMS and refuse to use Jace Beleran.
See, I don't buy stuff like this any more. It fails two tests for me. First, it fails the theoretical test. You can't play Jace effectively against BGx decks (IoK and AD rip him to pieces), Affinity and Burn (way too fast), Twin (Jace is too fair), and Pod (Jace is too easy to ignore). It's not a bad card in the right deck (see Time Walk), but it just doesn't have the power to flat out replace Snapcaster Mage, the real card advantage engine of blue-based control.
Second, it fails the test of time. This format has too many events, too many players, and too much hype for people to not be trying cards like this. Just looking through control lists in this forum, we can see that people have tried him and found him way worse than other options. We also see him totally absent from the literally thousands of decklists across Modern's history. This isn't just a bunch of players being lemmings; there is tremendous incentive to innovate a few slots in your Ux control deck. Look at Keranos! New card, didn't get too much buzz at first, but now it crops up in all sorts of Ux decks. That is a good card. Baby Jace? Contextually good, but no replacement at all for snapcaster.
When I look back at past standards, the only control decks that look viable today are those that ran banned cards. Everything else would just get run over by the power level of the format's staples and staple decks.
Jace Beleran is still an amazing card advantage machine. But people got spoiled about JTMS and refuse to use Jace Beleran.
See, I don't buy stuff like this any more. It fails two tests for me. First, it fails the theoretical test. You can't play Jace effectively against BGx decks (IoK and AD rip him to pieces), Affinity and Burn (way too fast), Twin (Jace is too fair), and Pod (Jace is too easy to ignore). It's not a bad card in the right deck (see Time Walk), but it just doesn't have the power to flat out replace Snapcaster Mage, the real card advantage engine of blue-based control.
Second, it fails the test of time. This format has too many events, too many players, and too much hype for people to not be trying cards like this. Just looking through control lists in this forum, we can see that people have tried him and found him way worse than other options. We also see him totally absent from the literally thousands of decklists across Modern's history. This isn't just a bunch of players being lemmings; there is tremendous incentive to innovate a few slots in your Ux control deck. Look at Keranos! New card, didn't get too much buzz at first, but now it crops up in all sorts of Ux decks. That is a good card. Baby Jace? Contextually good, but no replacement at all for snapcaster.
When I look back at past standards, the only control decks that look viable today are those that ran banned cards. Everything else would just get run over by the power level of the format's staples and staple decks.
I disagree. Control is about slowing down those fast decks. The only reason you dont see some cards played from the past is because the player base has been spoiled and/or dont remember about certain cards.
Funny how LotV is 3 mana and doesnt get tore up by those cards, yet you think Beleran would.
Quote from TolarianAcadamy13 »
People refuse to use an amazing card advantage machine because there exists a banned card that happens to have the same first name that is better than it. Are you saying that people should be running Jace Beleren, but decide not to because a banned card is stronger than it? That can't possibly be what you mean...? Seriously, please correct me.
The best thing people could do is forget about the ban cards and work with what we have. Beleran was ran up until JTMS was printed. Now that JTMS is gone from the format everyone complains and moans about the loss of JTMS, but refuses to play Beleran again.
I disagree. Control is about slowing down those fast decks. The only reason you dont see some cards played from the past is because the player base has been spoiled and/or dont remember about certain cards.
Funny how LotV is 3 mana and doesnt get tore up by those cards, yet you think Beleran would.
Lilly wins games (like Goyf), so it's easy to ignore the AD/IoK vulnerability. Especially when you run 5-7 discard spells of your own. Especially when you are in the best color shell in the format. Baby Jace though? He absolutely does not win games, and his colors are severely underpowered compared to those of Lilly. That makes his vulnerability becomes a huge issue. I'm not going to go into more depth explaining how Baby Jace and Lilly don't really compare; if people can't figure that out, then I can't do too much to help them.
There is this belief in Modern circles that the format is still format incognito, and that things like Baby Jace are just waiting to be broken open. That is mostly a myth. It's perpetuated by people who are either dissatisfied with the current metagame, nostalgic about old cards, bitter that their strategies aren't viable, and/or unrealistically committed to brewing. Yes, there is room for innovation (see Keranos, see RUG Twin evolving out of UR Twin, see BG Rock and BGw Souls evolving out of Jund). But a lot of cards have been tried and found wanting. Similarly, a lot of cards are just irreplaceable in the current Modern metagame, and their removal would be crippling for decks that use them. Snapcaster is one such card. Trying to replace Snapcaster with Baby Jace would be like trying to replace Abrupt Decay with Sultai Charm. All those cards are good, but those in the first category are irreplaceable staples that cannot be supplanted by those in the second.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think Valanarch was also saying that Shoal is a silly card, as proven in Philly.
As for Snapcaster and Control, it's not really relevant what was played outside of Modern. Legacy Control uses Stoneforge, CounterTop/Miracles, and Jace. The Standard control deck that existed before Modern was also based on the Jace/Stoneforge duo. I never played Extended but I'm aware that at least one of the most successful Control decks was Thopter Depths. NONE of these cards are available to Modern Blue decks.
Point being, without a precedent for a Snapcaster-less Control deck in Modern, you can't say that they'd be fine. If you cut Snapcaster, all Blue decks would struggle. And there is hardly a proper control deck as it is. I can't imagine UWR Control would be all that great without Snapcaster, to say nothing of how much it would hurt Twin and Delver decks.
Snapcaster is good, but I don't see the reason to ban him. He's not oppressive, he's vulnerable to a variety of maindeckable cards, and he's very close in power level to Bob, Goyf, Liliana, and their ilk. And I'm a BG/x player. If they banned Snapcaster, I would have a lot less competition from blue decks, and the games wouldn't be nearly a interactive or fun. Personally, I think Snapcaster is what keeps the various blue decks afloat, and I don't want to lose them as opponents.
Now perhaps if the banned Snapcaster but took of something like Ancestral Visions, control might creep up again in some form. But I don't actually know if it'd be that good. Also, Snapcaster is a pet card for a lot of players, a veritable little brother to Jace, TMS. Banning him would enrage a lot of folks for no real reason.
Pod and B/G are much more oppressive than Snapcaster in my opinion. And yet I till don't think a ban is necessary. Let's enjoy the fetchlands and see how they shake up the format for awhile before calling for bans again. Fetchlands will change the format significantly this coming year.
Granted, you didn't say you wanted to ban Snappy, just that Control decks would revert back to pre-snappy control. But... that never existed in Modern, and I doubt it would be that viable. On-curve card advantage is hard to come by in this format.
RGB Jund BGR
WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY
RUGB Delver GURB
EDH
UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU
RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR
BBB Skithiryx Control BB
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
I usually agree with you, but if you go back and watch the video of the top 8 Sam didnt need P&P to have turn 2 wins in hand both games. The only reason he lost was because he was being ultra conservative with a deck you need to take chances with. He also played Pact main for protection.
On the subject of control without Snapcaster, control would still be playable. 1 card does not make a deck type.
Which match are you referring to here? I'm assuming its his match against Josh Utter-Leyton, in which case i would like to know which video you watched, because he did not have a way to kill t2 in any of the games he lost. In game 3 (off-camera) Josh had a Grim Lavamancer on turn 1 and thus would have been able to stop the t2 kill. In game 4, Josh had a t2 Gaddock Teeg and Sam missed his land drop, and in game 5 Sam never saw his Blazing Shoal.
I have not seen the match in some time, but I remember he had the win on turn 2 in one of the games and he held back because he was being over cautious playing around bolt which his opponent didnt have. The 2 games he had shoal in hand he could have won turn 2.
I have not seen the match in some time, but I remember he had the win on turn 2 in one of the games and he held back because he was being over cautious playing around bolt which his opponent didnt have. The 2 games he had shoal in hand he could have won turn 2.
My point being, Shoal infect is a deck you play a bit more aggressively to do well with the deck.
Playable? Probably? Playable above tier 2? Doubtful.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
1 card is not the difference between T1 and T2.
Magic players get spoiled and cant see a deck without certain cards and forever complain they dont have said card to make a deck play a certain way. Like I said, top level control was played prior to Snappy being printed in multiple formats. Snappy is not 'needed' to play top tier control. Its just one card in a deck of 60.
1 card certainly can be the difference between tiers 1 and 2. What would you replace Snapcaster with?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You should maybe look at control decks pre Snapcaster in Standard.
It really is a moot point until/if they ban Snapcaster. Something I dont see happening at the moment.
I am not looking at Standard decks to show me how to play Modern. Besides, most of the Standard Control decks played Snapcaster, Jace, or Ancestral Vision.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
The loss of Snapcaster would easily be the difference between Tier 1 and 2 to a lot of decks. And honestly, U/W control variants are already below Tier 1. Let's not kid ourselves that they'd be "fine" without the format's best blue card. Let's think of what would happen to U/W Miracles if we cut Top from Legacy. Or Brainstorm.
Point is, Snapcaster is a lynchpin in most Blue strategies, and losing him would easily knock them down a peg or two. BG/x would easily outperform Blue decks once they lost Snappy. And you're not actually presenting any valid argument to the contrary. You're just pointing in the air and going, "look, evidence." Let's actually see that evidence though. Give us an example of a successful Modern Blue Control deck that functioned without Snapcaster.
RGB Jund BGR
WGB Junk/Abzan Company WGB
LEGACY
RUGB Delver GURB
EDH
UW Geist of Saint Traft Aggro-Control WU
RUG Riku of Two Reflections Combo GUR
BBB Skithiryx Control BB
Show me two lists that are viable in this format and don't use Snapcaster, AV, Depths, or Jace.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
With a card like Snap you also have to consider what it would do for other decks in the format beyond just control. Any free spell like Snap has potential to be abused in combo, and as a Storm player I would seriously consider playing 1-2 of it in the main. It deals with problem creatures without restricting your mana on your combo turn, can be used to fix your mana (such as tapping 2 islands to pay for it by untapping 2 Steam Vents afterwards), and in conjunction with Pyromancer Ascension or Goblin Electromancer would act as a ritual as well. Would that be enough to push storm over the top? Probably not, but this is what you have to consider with a card like snap.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
Ah, my bad. In that case I agree, control kind of needs Snapcaster in this format to remain viable, at least anywhere close to tier 1
Any Jace or JTMS?
Gogo Baby Jace and Architect!
See, I don't buy stuff like this any more. It fails two tests for me. First, it fails the theoretical test. You can't play Jace effectively against BGx decks (IoK and AD rip him to pieces), Affinity and Burn (way too fast), Twin (Jace is too fair), and Pod (Jace is too easy to ignore). It's not a bad card in the right deck (see Time Walk), but it just doesn't have the power to flat out replace Snapcaster Mage, the real card advantage engine of blue-based control.
Second, it fails the test of time. This format has too many events, too many players, and too much hype for people to not be trying cards like this. Just looking through control lists in this forum, we can see that people have tried him and found him way worse than other options. We also see him totally absent from the literally thousands of decklists across Modern's history. This isn't just a bunch of players being lemmings; there is tremendous incentive to innovate a few slots in your Ux control deck. Look at Keranos! New card, didn't get too much buzz at first, but now it crops up in all sorts of Ux decks. That is a good card. Baby Jace? Contextually good, but no replacement at all for snapcaster.
When I look back at past standards, the only control decks that look viable today are those that ran banned cards. Everything else would just get run over by the power level of the format's staples and staple decks.
I disagree. Control is about slowing down those fast decks. The only reason you dont see some cards played from the past is because the player base has been spoiled and/or dont remember about certain cards.
Funny how LotV is 3 mana and doesnt get tore up by those cards, yet you think Beleran would.
The best thing people could do is forget about the ban cards and work with what we have. Beleran was ran up until JTMS was printed. Now that JTMS is gone from the format everyone complains and moans about the loss of JTMS, but refuses to play Beleran again.
Lilly wins games (like Goyf), so it's easy to ignore the AD/IoK vulnerability. Especially when you run 5-7 discard spells of your own. Especially when you are in the best color shell in the format. Baby Jace though? He absolutely does not win games, and his colors are severely underpowered compared to those of Lilly. That makes his vulnerability becomes a huge issue. I'm not going to go into more depth explaining how Baby Jace and Lilly don't really compare; if people can't figure that out, then I can't do too much to help them.
There is this belief in Modern circles that the format is still format incognito, and that things like Baby Jace are just waiting to be broken open. That is mostly a myth. It's perpetuated by people who are either dissatisfied with the current metagame, nostalgic about old cards, bitter that their strategies aren't viable, and/or unrealistically committed to brewing. Yes, there is room for innovation (see Keranos, see RUG Twin evolving out of UR Twin, see BG Rock and BGw Souls evolving out of Jund). But a lot of cards have been tried and found wanting. Similarly, a lot of cards are just irreplaceable in the current Modern metagame, and their removal would be crippling for decks that use them. Snapcaster is one such card. Trying to replace Snapcaster with Baby Jace would be like trying to replace Abrupt Decay with Sultai Charm. All those cards are good, but those in the first category are irreplaceable staples that cannot be supplanted by those in the second.