MTG Salvation

Quote from Ember_Twilight »

The problem with them is there usually isn't enough cards in the GY to cast them reliably. You obviously can't exile the Vengevines and exiling a Faithless Looting is bad too, since you're going to want it to filter and discard later. Also, unlike GDS, you don't have a bunch of cantrips like Serum Visions and Thoughtscour to dump cards in the GY. So you're stuck with high CC cards in your hand with cards in the yard you can't exile. That just sux.

I think there are more interesting choices like Bombat Courier, Blisterpod, Bloodsoaked Champion, Wild Cantor, Dryad Militant, Glitterfang, Hope of Ghirapur, Flameblade Adept, Fourth Bridge Prowler, Fume Spitter, Gnarlwood Dryad, Heap Doll, Hex Parasite, Permeating Mass, Plagued Rusalka, Sludge Crawler, Thoughtpicker Witch, etc.

I really think the deck ought to try to go wide and be a little disruptive, then swing big on turn 3.

I did some math (go check out the Dredgevine thread in Developing Competitive) and essentially if you run no more than 3 Delve cards that require you to Delve no more than 5 cards on average you will have enough cards to cast the creature for 1 mana. I agree that the more Delve cards you play, the more of a problem it is, but that is a problem you can mitigate.

Honestly in that list of creatures the only one I would maybe consider is Gnarlwood Dryad. Okay fine, maybe Flameblade Adept too. The rest of those cards are garbage. The deck wants to be low to the ground and fast. You want to be recurring Vengevines on Turn to as often as you can manage. By Turn 3 they will have had a chance to play a blockers, or heaven forbid maybe even a Lingering Souls. If you can get even a chunk of damage in quick you can spend the other turns trying to go wide, but you want the smash hard and fast as soon as possible.

Plus it's hard to go wide with a bunch of *****ty 1 mana creatures. That's why I think Julian Grace-Martin's list with Goblin Guide and Monastery Swiftspear is the best plan right now. It lets you get in fast, and be aggressive with really cheap creatures that can do a lot of damage.

Quote from Skitzafreak »

Quote from Ember_Twilight »

The problem with them is there usually isn't enough cards in the GY to cast them reliably. You obviously can't exile the Vengevines and exiling a Faithless Looting is bad too, since you're going to want it to filter and discard later. Also, unlike GDS, you don't have a bunch of cantrips like Serum Visions and Thoughtscour to dump cards in the GY. So you're stuck with high CC cards in your hand with cards in the yard you can't exile. That just sux.

I think there are more interesting choices like Bombat Courier, Blisterpod, Bloodsoaked Champion, Wild Cantor, Dryad Militant, Glitterfang, Hope of Ghirapur, Flameblade Adept, Fourth Bridge Prowler, Fume Spitter, Gnarlwood Dryad, Heap Doll, Hex Parasite, Permeating Mass, Plagued Rusalka, Sludge Crawler, Thoughtpicker Witch, etc.

I really think the deck ought to try to go wide and be a little disruptive, then swing big on turn 3.

I did some math (go check out the Dredgevine thread in Developing Competitive) and essentially if you run no more than 3 Delve cards that require you to Delve no more than 5 cards on average you will have enough cards to cast the creature for 1 mana. I agree that the more Delve cards you play, the more of a problem it is, but that is a problem you can mitigate.

Honestly in that list of creatures the only one I would maybe consider is Gnarlwood Dryad. Okay fine, maybe Flameblade Adept too. The rest of those cards are garbage. The deck wants to be low to the ground and fast. You want to be recurring Vengevines on Turn to as often as you can manage. By Turn 3 they will have had a chance to play a blockers, or heaven forbid maybe even a Lingering Souls. If you can get even a chunk of damage in quick you can spend the other turns trying to go wide, but you want the smash hard and fast as soon as possible.

Plus it's hard to go wide with a bunch of *****ty 1 mana creatures. That's why I think Julian Grace-Martin's list with Goblin Guide and Monastery Swiftspear is the best plan right now. It lets you get in fast, and be aggressive with really cheap creatures that can do a lot of damage.

Bomat Courier helps you discard cards. Blisterpod accelerates Faithless Looting flashbacks or makes Cathartic Reunion cheaper. Bloosoaked Champion can be discarded and brought back. Wild Cantor helps you cast multiple creatures in a turn early since it's basically free. Glitterfang going back to your hand every turn is an interesting interaction with Vengevines. Dryad Militant might be a bit of a non-bo, but it hoses GDS and Storm. Hope of Ghirapur can buy you another turn to go off. Fourth Bridge Prowler kills all the X/1 creatures in the format. GDS and Tron players are not going to want to attack into a Permeating Mass. I see a lot of interesting interactions with these cards in addition to the two you liked that ought to be explored.

Innovation for a player or among his friends has a lower chance of being shared with other players. Yes, I agree with this. How Wizards is approaching data sharing is probably one of the most hated choices that they've done in recent times...and that's saying a lot.

*I, for one, really hope that Titanshift is not seen as the "best" deck or best of 2 because it's what I'm currently trying to grind with for PPTQs. I have noticed a shift toward players playing it more at PPTQs and preparing for it more. A month ago, I was usually 1 of 2-3 players on it and players were gearing up for GDS and E Tron. I guess things change and I may have to change my deck choice. I'm looking at Knightfall right now as my #2.

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

Innovation for a player or among his friends has a lower chance of being shared with other players. Yes, I agree with this. How Wizards is approaching data sharing is probably one of the most hated choices that they've done in recent times...and that's saying a lot.

I feel like the change in the MTGO Data we get to see would have been better recieved if it hadn't of happened after the last 12 months of Standard. Myself, and a lot of other people say the changes to the data we get to see less as a, "We want to keep the metagame unsolved longer so it's more fun," and more of a, "We are horrible at developing balanced cards so bu obfuscating the data on the metagame, it'll be harder for you players to see and complain when we develop a Standard format that is complex broken to *****."

Unfortunately the change hits the eternal formats the hardest, because for formats like Modern and Legacy we want to be able to see innovation. The formats are already essentially 'solved' so seeing cool new rogue decks pop up that could be new contenders is what makes playing the format fun. But we don't get that anymore :\

Quote from h0lydiva »

I think those big mana decks can just be attacked and controlled. Yes, I'm aware that the kind of decks that will attack them, some people don't like, but that's the nature of the matchup cycle. You don't keep them in check with midrange and control, you keep them in check by murdering them or comboing them out if possible on turn 3. That's the way it is.

And Eldrazi Tron is different, because it can't easily be attacked, not through narrow specific ways. I think it's its own clunkiness and abundance of close matchups that will keep them in check. A decent amount of the time it gets unbeatable draws, and it can get different unbeatable draws vs different decks. League I played yesterday with Bloo, round 4 I lose to T2 TKS, T3 TKS, T4 TKS, then next game chalice on 1 and chalice on 2, ok, gg mate. And round 5 another Eldrazi Tron with just regular draws, dies to 7/8s twice.

That's the thing with E Tron, its nut draws don't happen often enough for it to be dominant I believe, and aside from those they are a normal deck. Unlike what happened with Eye Eldrazi decks, where it felt like most of their hands were nut draws (even if that's impossible by definition).

EDIT: Also yeah, Spanish girl playing Kiln Fiends kind of narrows it down to me pretty nicely

Yep. I think one of the main problems or obstacles that players here have is that they have to change their deck CHOICE and maybe play something that they hate playing to beat these types of matchups. If someone is not willing to play a deck that destroys another deck (ie. Affinity vs. E Tron), then how can they continue to complain about E Tron? It Boggles my mind.

And yes, there are always nut draws for decks. It's part of the reason I loved and still do love playing Grishoalbrand more than any current deck in any current format. I played against an E Tron opponent with Amulet Titan months ago who went turn 2 Thought-Knot Seer, grasping my Summoner's Pact. The next turn, I transmuted Tolaria West for a Summoner's Pact, had all the pieces of double Amulet of Vigor and Azusa, and attacked her with a 10/6 Double Strike, Trample Titan. Do you know how good that felt for her Thought-Knot Seer to have to chump? My nut draw beat her nut draw. Yesterday, I opened with a hand of 2 Amulet of Vigor, Selesnya Sanctuary, Simic Growth Chamber, Azusa, Lost but Seeking, Summoner's Pact, and Cavern of Souls. I don't see many decks that have no interaction on turns 1 or 2 beating this type of hand. It happens, even if Amulet Titan has been very inconsistent for me overall.

For what it's worth, that hand was a turn 2, pair of 8/6 Tramplers attacking, one having double Strike (nearly had another with Double Strike with a Simian Spirit Guide in hand, but needed exactly W.

(I guess the point you were trying to make is that the nut draw from a Tier 1 deck can be tilting.)

Quote from Ember_Twilight »

Bomat Courier helps you discard cards. Blisterpod accelerates Faithless Looting flashbacks or makes Cathartic Reunion cheaper. Bloosoaked Champion can be discarded and brought back. Wild Cantor helps you cast multiple creatures in a turn early since it's basically free. Glitterfang going back to your hand every turn is an interesting interaction with Vengevines. Dryad Militant might be a bit of a non-bo, but it hoses GDS and Storm. Hope of Ghirapur can buy you another turn to go off. Fourth Bridge Prowler kills all the X/1 creatures in the format. GDS and Tron players are not going to want to attack into a Permeating Mass. I see a lot of interesting interactions with these cards in addition to the two you liked that ought to be explored.

The deck is about discarding specific cards, not just blinding One with Nothing-ing your hand, so Bomat Courier isn't at all useful.

Blisterpod can make mana, sure, but you're wasting the slot on what is otherwise a really *****ty one-drop. You can often get to points with the deck where you need decent top decks, and Blisterpod is not one of them.

If you want to run Bloodsoaked Champion I'd sooner run Bloodghast. At least cast you get back for free and can have Haste in the mid to late game.

Wild Cantor seems good but in most situations you want your first creature you cast to be an Insolent Neonate so you can discard a Vengevine you may have stuck in hand. Cantor is a bit of a non-bo in that area. I mean sure afterwards you can use it for mana or something, but it seems suboptimal.

I'll give you that 2 Glitterfang essentially lets you recur your Vengevines indefinitely, which is interesting. But I still don't feel they are that good. It's more a cute interaction than an actual good one.

Dryad Militant is definitely a non-bo. And if you want an anti-graveyard card for GDS, you have Leyline of the Void in your sideboard.

Hope of Ghirapur needs to hit your opponent to do anything. And it isn't like you really care about much of your opponent's interaction anyway. You will hopefully have your opponent dead before they can really do anything.

Not even going to bother commenting on the last two you mentioned. They're less interesting, and more "why do you want to put draft chaff in a Modern deck? This isn't Lantern Control"

Quote from StubbsMcAwesome »

I just can't buy into this idea that big mana decks are terrorizing tier 1. E-tron has close to a 50-50 MU against GDS, the most played deck. It's a dog against affinity, and titanshift isn't much better there. Titanshift is still weak to combo and storm seems to be keeping things in check there. Of course they're both really good decks, but I don't think they're warping things, and I DEFINITELY don't things are anywhere close to clear enough to be saying they're the strongest decks in the format right now.

I agree, big mana isn't going to be a threat to the meta as long as Burn, Affinity, Storm, and Ad Nauseum are around. I am not sure how E tron matches up to those, but Titanshift has a very hard time against those decks. Affinity is solidly beatable especially with the Black splash people were getting excited about a few months ago. And burn matters a lot on the dice roll and drawing removal. But storm is actively bad. Also, GDS is an unfavored matchup. Their discard plus clock plus Stubborn Denial makes winning pretty challenging.

Random side note. Does anyone remember that RUG delver list with Probe, Hooting mandrills, and the blue Shoal? That was such a garbage matchup for Titanshift that it felt unwinnable. Now, there's probably no data about it as neither were popular decks, but it was atrocious.

i dont agree. i was at gp sao paolo, and all i saw was big mana decks vs decks trying to race with a combo finish or disruption (grixis shadow). Maybe im biased and i just thought that big mana decks were warping the meta at the gp, but The thing with these big mana decks is that there is no real answer to them

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

Quote from h0lydiva »

I think those big mana decks can just be attacked and controlled. Yes, I'm aware that the kind of decks that will attack them, some people don't like, but that's the nature of the matchup cycle. You don't keep them in check with midrange and control, you keep them in check by murdering them or comboing them out if possible on turn 3. That's the way it is.

Yep. I think one of the main problems or obstacles that players here have is that they have to change their deck CHOICE and maybe play something that they hate playing to beat these types of matchups. If someone is not willing to play a deck that destroys another deck (ie. Affinity vs. E Tron), then how can they continue to complain about E Tron? It Boggles my mind.

We have to keep in mind that not every player is a PPTQ grinder or an online player renting cards like you both. Ideally, you'd change decks and be done with it, but I doubt most players are willing and/or able to change decks on the fly, just to beat a matchup or improve their winrate. Complaining is, albeit ineffective, much easier.

Quote from Sabertooth »

i dont agree. i was at gp sao paolo, and all i saw was big mana decks vs decks trying to race with a combo finish or disruption (grixis shadow). Maybe im biased and i just thought that big mana decks were warping the meta at the gp, but The thing with these big mana decks is that there is no real answer to them

Except there are answers: all those decks have bad matchups like any other. ETron and RG Shift are just Tier 1 decks, maybe some don't like that, but they aren't a problem. Modern is really doing fine, I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but I highly doubt we'll get a competitive diversity ban next January, at least based off the information we have (deck with ~20% GP Top8s).

maybe i didnt express myself right. Of ocurse, there are answers (maybe not for eldratron) but the thing is that they seem not good enough to keep them in check. If you look at the meta at the moment, the decks are trying to race them more than hate them, and thats not really cool, cause these big mana decks can adjust to stop the race and win on the "late game" (for example the days when scapeshift played a lot of anger of the gods maindeck to stop dredge enough to combo them out)

Quote from Sabertooth »

maybe i didnt express myself right. Of ocurse, there are answers (maybe not for eldratron) but the thing is that they seem not good enough to keep them in check. If you look at the meta at the moment, the decks are trying to race them more than hate them, and thats not really cool, cause these big mana decks can adjust to stop the race and win on the "late game" (for example the days when scapeshift played a lot of anger of the gods maindeck to stop dredge enough to combo them out)

So wait. You argument is that there are no answers for big mana decks. Only there are answers, and those answers are fast aggressive strategies that take advantage of big mana deck's weak point of needing to set up said big mana. And that isn't good because then the big mana decks will metagame, and play ways to try and get around these aggressive decks, which in turn will give midrange or control decks the space to have better match ups and win against big mana decks. And then big mana will move away from any-aggro cards, and the aggressive decks will get back in and it'll continue to cycle.

Basically your complaint is "the metagame exists and isn't stagnant and boring." Okay then.

they dont need to move away from anti aggro cards, cause midrange and control cant beat them anyway

edit to elaborate a little more: the decks that can beat big mana decks are getting destroyed by death shadow, and the decks that can beat death's shadow have bad matchup against big mana decks, so i think that the meta is warped by these 2 strategies

Quote from Sabertooth »

they dont need to move away from anti aggro cards, cause midrange and control cant beat them anyway

edit to elaborate a little more: the decks that can beat big mana decks are getting destroyed by death shadow, and the decks that can beat death's shadow have bad matchup against big mana decks, so i think that the meta is warped by these 2 strategies

What you're describing is the check and balance nature of a meta. Not just the modern meta, any meta. A beats B beats C beats A, or in this case, aggro beats big mana beats midrange beats aggro.

Big mana decks can dilute their strategy to hedge against their bad MU (aggro), but it also hurts their advantage over their good MU's. This is all a natural part of meta-gaming/deck creation and not really a "problem" IMO.

I know we went through this before, but I still can't agree with the way some people throw the term "big mana" around.

Scapeshift is pretty clearly a combo deck with a backup gameplan of hard casting "big mana" Primeval Titans, which in turn can feed Valakut triggers to grind the opponent down. TitanShift gains some resilience to combo hate with their alternate win con. But the deck usually inst-wins by ramping to 7 lands then casting 4-man Scapeshift... they need a lot of lands but only use 4 mana.

Eldrazi Tron is a midrange deck that can sometimes go big and sometimes have dead "big mana" cards in hand. Eldrazi Tron trades some consistency compared to say Bant Eldrazi for the ability to go over the top of other midrange decks in grindy games.

Gx Tron is probably the only true "big mana" deck because it can't do anything without the 7-mana Urzatron combo online.

I guess I just don't see how lumping unrelated decks under the term "big mana" adds anything to the discussion.

Quote from The Ceaseless Hunger »

I guess I just don't see how lumping unrelated decks under the term "big mana" adds anything to the discussion.

It doesn't add anything.

At the end of the day I see it like this:

Timmy is playing against Joey, who is playing Eldrazi Tron
Joey on turn 3 is able to play a Reality Smasher off of having 2 Eldrazi Temple.
Timmy notes that even though it is turn 3, Joey played something that costs 5 mana. Because the turn in which he played the card is lower than the the amount of mana to cast the card, Joey is deemed to be playing a 'big mana' deck.
Later on Timmy thinks about the game with Joey. Upon remembering how Joey played a 5 mana thing on Turn 3, Timmy believes the deck Joey was playing must be completely broken and must be fixed via something like Eldrazi Temple being banned.
Timmy, however, doesn't remember that Joey lost to everyone else in the room that day.

That's basically how I see the circle jerk that is hatred for 'big mana' decks.

Elves is designed to make 3 mana on turn 2 then a billion mana on turn 3. Sometimes it makes over 10 mana on turn two with heritage Druid and nettle sentinel. Does that make it broken or a 'big mana' deck?

You have to define big mana some way other than making more than x mana on turn x.

Quote from spike4972 »

Elves is designed to make 3 mana on turn 2 then a billion mana on turn 3. Sometimes it makes over 10 mana on turn two with heritage Druid and nettle sentinel. Does that make it broken or a 'big mana' deck?

You have to define big mana some way other than making more than x mana on turn x.

But that's the beauty of it. If you make up a term like big mana and don't define it then it can never be refuted. It's like using linear without saying what it means.

Right - Tron, Eldrazi Tron, Scapshift and Elves are all basically the same deck right? Same strategy and angle of attack, no? So let's just collectively call them "big mana", that should be super clear and helpful to anyone reading the thread.

Or, if someone has an opinion about a particular archetype, like Titan Shift, they could just call it Titan Shift. Nah, that's too easy, forget I suggested it.

Quote from The Ceaseless Hunger »

Right - Tron, Eldrazi Tron, Scapshift and Elves are all basically the same deck right? Same strategy and angle of attack, no? So let's just collectively call them "big mana", that should be super clear and helpful to anyone reading the thread.

Or, if someone has an opinion about a particular archetype, like Titan Shift, they could just call it Titan Shift. Nah, that's too easy, forget I suggested it.

It boils down to this. When people complain about “big mana” the complaint is about lands and the decks that abuse them. Each of these decks (Tron, EldraziTron and TitanShift) accelerate threats using land drops. Tron/E-Tron use normal land drops to get ahead on resources and TitanShift has to do so by devoting deck slots to ramp cards.

Elves cannot be lumped into a “big mana” group because their attempt at mana generation comes down to building a board state of creatures and maintaining it. The amount of creature removal in the format makes this sort of strategy easy to deal with when it becomes rampant.

“Big mana” or lands, are a more difficult issue, since land interaction is either too slow to be effective, or such a half measure that it barely puts a speed bump in the “big mana” game plan. The safety valve for big mana isn’t “jam some more removal spells” but is instead, play a different deck, which is what gets people rather salty about those decks.

Personally, I think Tron, E-Tron and TitanShift variants are annoying, but they deserve a place in Modern and aren’t really a problem in the format.

Then call those decks out by name or call them 'lands' decks or 'land matters' decks. But big mana is a bad name that is not descriptive. Especially when all three of those decks are doing such radically different things.

Quote from spike4972 »

Then call those decks out by name or call them 'lands' decks or 'land matters' decks. But big mana is a bad name that is not descriptive. Especially when all three of those decks are doing such radically different things.

I think if the biggest point of contention right now is the semantics of archetype names, modern is probably in a pretty good spot.

Quote from spike4972 »

Then call those decks out by name or call them 'lands' decks or 'land matters' decks. But big mana is a bad name that is not descriptive. Especially when all three of those decks are doing such radically different things.

It's easy to lump them together because they all want to either have a lot of lands or produce a lot of mana. Valakut needs 6+ lands to do anything and Tron/ETron has lands that tap for 2-3 mana. Both create mana and use lands in a way that is very difficult to effectively interact with. Add to that the fact they are casting huge and powerful spells consistently 2-3 turns ahead of curve, and you have a recipe for why people lump them together.

We group semi-unlike things together all the time. Words like "midrange" and "control" are not really descriptive either, but we use them to put together somewhat similar strategies that rely on individual card value or attempted disruption. If you actually look at some of the lists labeled "control" for example, you see what is essentially a midrange burn deck running Geists and Quellers that wants to tap out on turn 3 for a threat. Names aren't perfect, but they exist because someone somewhere decided to group all of X or Y type of decks together for the sake of making conversation easier.

When people say big mana they are referring to decks that use Lands as weapons primarily. Lands are notoriously difficult to interact with in Modern.

Eldrazi Tron does so slightly less than the others, but falls along the same axis.