The purpose? I was saying opt is a more powerful magic card than scour. I stand by that.i can't speak for other modern archetypes but Scour is a crutch we lean on, not a tool we utilize. So even not 'in a vacuum' my statement is still correct, no matter how you analyze it. We play scour because we have to, and scry 1 is superior to mill 2. That's the truth. But yes, scour will still see more play than opt, I never said it wouldn't.
Well seeing as how you're arguing against points I'm not making I have to disagree with you there.
The purpose? I was saying opt is a more powerful magic card than scour. I stand by that.i can't speak for other modern archetypes but Scour is a crutch we lean on, not a tool we utilize. So even not 'in a vacuum' my statement is still correct, no matter how you analyze it. We play scour because we have to, and scry 1 is superior to mill 2. That's the truth. But yes, scour will still see more play than opt, I never said it wouldn't.
Vehemently disagree! Scour is indeed a tool we utilize, and one of the strongest ones we have at our disposal. Probe, too, was a tool, and a better one than Scour; with Probe gone, we just revert to the next-strongest tool, which happens to be Scour. You could make the argument that all tools are crutches, but then you're getting a big philosophical...
I wrote 3000 words this morning on Opt and Modern's other cantrips. Scour is what I would call a "velocity cantrip;" its goal is not to provide card selection, but to provide velocity. It does this more efficiently than any other spell in Modern and therefore stands in a class of its own. Comparing it to selection cantrips is dishonest since the card simply does something different, so there's no way Scour can be "strictly worse;" it's literally played for other reasons.
Is that not a point you made? I'm a bit lost when you say I'm arguing against points you haven't made. I noted that Scour will see more play than Opt not to counter an imaginary argument you made, but to support my argument against your assertion that Opt is a better card---don't "better cards" see more play? Honestly I feel like this is actually a straw man, or at least intended to dismiss the validity of my points without fairly assessing them.
Serum Visions is the format's best "selection cantrip," even though its delayed selection is worse than immediate selection (hence Preordain, an immediate-selection Visions, being better). Sleight and Opt are immediate selection cantrips that see fewer cards than Visions and therefore do an overall worse job selecting.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Have to agree that opt is better than sleight here, simply because you can cast opt in response to delver triggers for some nice card selection. Of course, Traverse is better than both of those cards. Opt is strictly better than thoughtscour but we can't not run it unfortunately. I don't think I'll be playing with opt.
Heres my entire post for reference. You didnt like that I used the word 'strictly'- got it, but trying to tell me a cantrip that offers card selection is worse than one that doesnt because of this imaginary term in velocity? interesting. Frankly i'm not sure how anything else you've said applies to my 'argument', which was really more of a quick summation of my opinion on opts playability here and less of an arguement, as you claim. I don't really care to discuss magic theory with you, particularly if it doesnt even pertain to this deck.
Have to agree that opt is better than sleight here, simply because you can cast opt in response to delver triggers for some nice card selection. Of course, Traverse is better than both of those cards. Opt is strictly better than thoughtscour but we can't not run it unfortunately. I don't think I'll be playing with opt.
Heres my entire post for reference. You didnt like that I used the word 'strictly'- got it, but trying to tell me a cantrip that offers card selection is worse than one that doesnt because of this imaginary term in velocity? interesting. Frankly i'm not sure how anything else you've said applies to my 'argument', which was really more of a quick summation of my opinion on opts playability here and less of an arguement, as you claim. I don't really care to discuss magic theory with you, particularly if it doesnt even pertain to this deck.
That's fine! I'd also rather not discuss theory with you; I like discussing theory in general, but it seems like you have some kind of vendetta against me and take most of what I say very personally (I don't ever mean to offend).
I may still quote you and answer points I disagree with, as I think my insight is sometimes valuable to the other readers here. Just know that my future posts quoting you are not directed at you, and don't respond to them if you aren't interested in a productive discussion. That way, the thread remains free of clutter/bickering and full of strategic discussion, meaning everyone wins.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Vendetta? I wonder which one of us takes things too personally...hmm...
Don't @ me if you can't refute the actual claim I'm making. If someone agrees with my point overall (i.e. That we are going to play scour over opt) but wants to tell me I'm somehow wrong because of the way I said it? That's just annoying dude. How do you not see that?
In the years I've been following the thread, over had 7(!) users PM me to continue discussion of the deck there because they felt like this place was hostile. Frankly if your concern is generating positive discussion, then you should try to Being less dismissive. You shoot people down like you made this deck. Go back to page on every and check out the post at the bottom. Oh yeah, that's me, telling you about this new tech called simic charm. Everyone that has been posting here built this thing. You should try to hearing people out more.
Vendetta? I wonder which one of us takes things too personally...hmm...
Don't @ me if you can't refute the actual claim I'm making. If someone agrees with my point overall (i.e. That we are going to play scour over opt) but wants to tell me I'm somehow wrong because of the way I said it? That's just annoying dude. How do you not see that?
In the years I've been following the thread, over had 7(!) users PM me to continue discussion of the deck there because they felt like this place was hostile. Frankly if your concern is generating positive discussion, then you should try to Being less dismissive. You shoot people down like you made this deck. Go back to page on every and check out the post at the bottom. Oh yeah, that's me, telling you about this new tech called simic charm. Everyone that has been posting here built this thing. You should try to hearing people out more.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
So Jordan I've read your argument for Sleight of Hand being better than Opt in your article on Modern Nexus.
Obviously we're not talking specifically about RUG Delver, but in general.
I don't get it.
On the effect of the card itself: like you say yourself in the article, if the top 2 cards of your library are similarly good for the situation, Sleight is slightly better, 'cause you can actually pick the best one. Fair enough. However, like you seem to accept yourself, if both the top cards are good, with Opt you can have both, with Sleight you can't. So what is actually better? Being able to have immediately the best of the two cards, or being able to have both? I'd rather have both cards. Considering Opt can be cast EOT, you're basically also having both the good cards at the same time.
It seems to me you don't value the instant speed enough. You say Opt is better in Jeskai only, but I think it's actually better in any deck that doesn't care about having sorceries in the graveyard. Being able to hold mana for counterspells or other answers is huge.
It appears you're essentially comparing the two cards in topdeck mode, when you're are empty handed. But that's not the most common circumstance. What about the difference between having a hand with Sleight and a bunch of other cards versus one with Opt? If you're not in topdeck mode, you can definitely take advantage of the instant speed, stay mana open and avoid suboptimal plays. While with Sleight you need to cast it in your turn, often forcing you into suboptimal plays. The hand with Opt is more versatile than the one with Sleight.
The only thing I see Sleight of Hand doing better is being a sorcery in decks with Tarmogoyf or Traverse like this one. But apart from that, I think Opt wins overall if you consider pros and cons. Sleight being a marginally better topdeck when you are hellbent doens't compensate it being worse in basically every single other context.
Let's consider card selection.
Considering the top 2 cards of your library there are 4 cases:
Both are good
Both are bad
The first is good the second is bad
The first is bad the second is good
Case 1) Opt makes you keep both card sleight makes you choose the best among them. Opt is slightly better
Case 2) Both cards make you keep only one. Sleight make you chose the best. Sleight is slightly better
Case 3) Best mode for sleight since makes you keep only the good one while opt makes you keep also the bad one. (I don't consider shuffle effects that may occur since as you don't know the second card they are random anyway)
Case 4) Both cards make you keep only the best. No differences here.
Imho considering pure card selection sleight is better (and this is true both if you have card in hand and if you are hellbent). Now it's true that in many decks instant speed selection is better than sorcery speed so this balances the things. They're very close as power level and one has to choose depending on the needs of the deck one is playing.
Edit: Surely everybody saw the change in moon effects but I underline it anyway (From IMA release notes).
Magus of the Moon
2R
Creature — Human Wizard
2/2
Nonbasic lands are Mountains.
Nonbasic lands lose any other land types and abilities they had. They gain the land type Mountain and gain the ability "T: Add R to your mana pool."
Magus of the Moon's effect doesn't affect names or supertypes. It won't turn any land into a basic land or remove the legendary supertype from a legendary land, and the lands won't be named Mountain.
If a nonbasic land has an ability that applies "as [this land] enters the battlefield" or that causes it to enter the battlefield tapped or with counters, the land will lose that ability before it applies. This is a change from previous rules.
If a nonbasic land has an ability that triggers "when" it enters the battlefield, it will lose that ability before it triggers.
@TheAller basically what Mikefon said. The odds of the next card down being bad are the same (when we need something specific, even higher) than the odds of it being good. In scenarios where we don't need something specific, it doesn't matter as much that we get less selection. So basically Opt is win-more (lose-more?) in these examples.
It might help too to think about cantrips from a standpoint of choices---the cantrip that gives you more choices is better. Opt gives you one choice (top or bottom); Sleight gives you two (card A or card B). I'm no math whiz so may have goofed up the fetchland examples, but I broke down how many choices each cantrip gives players. This chart also illustrates how insanely broken Ponder and Brainstorm are compared to the other cantrips.
Most players cast selection cantrips for the choice they provide, and we almost always are willing/able/incentivized to make that choice at sorcery speed. Sleight giving us a full twice as many choices as Opt makes up for its speed in my book in many decks. In this one since we care about sorceries; in Storm since they don't care about instants; in Shadow since they're comfortable spending main phase mana on their cantrips; etc. That's why I see Opt primarily making waves in Weissman-style decks, the closest Modern analogs to which are Jeskai shells.
Sometimes, such cantrips are cast primarily for their velocity aspect, but that's why Scour is likely to continue seeing more play than Opt will---it does velocity better than any other cantrip. In Counter-Cat, we've settled on Sleight for these reasons and were testing Opt in the Scour slot. We only really ant two instant-speed cantrips. "Mill 2" does more for us than "scry 1" though and we have been unimpressed with the new card.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
I just can't understand where does "12" in brainstorm come from. That number is highly dependant on the number of card you have in hand and I think it could be even higher; that makes Brainstorm a completely absurd card (Don't know why isn't banned in legacy). I can't figure out the count w/ fetch too (I'd say for ponder a fetch gives you just 2 more choice once you have decided how to set up the cards but maybe I'm wrong).
But in any case it's useless to wander in the math's maze: you got the point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
Here's the math I did. Like I said, that area is really not my forte. I found that the number of decisions was the same with 1 card in hand as it was with 2 cards in hand and 3 cards in hand when resolving Brainstorm, so I assumed it was the same down the road, as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be!). "12" refers to cards 1 and 2.
1 card in hand: 12 possible decisions.
4 cards total (1 in hand + 3 from Brainstorm)
keep 12, lib:
34
43
keep 13, lib:
24
42
keep 14, lib:
23
32
keep 23, lib:
14
41
keep 24, lib:
13
31
keep 34, lib:
12
21
2 cards in hand: 12 possible decisions.
5 cards total
keep 123, lib:
45
54
keep 134, lib:
25
52
keep 145, lib:
23
32
keep 234, lib:
15
51
keep 245, lib:
13
31
keep 345, lib:
12
21
3 cards in hand: 12 possible decisions.
6 cards total
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding why Opt is only 1 choice in your list, when Sleight of Hand is 2. Both facilitate 2 separate outcomes. Sleight just provides a more informed choice. Opt is choosing between a known card and an unknown card. Sleight is choosing between 2 known choices.
In both examples, Card A and B are the top 2 cards of the library.
Sleight of Hand
A goes into hand. B goes to bottom of library.
Card B goes into hand. Card goes to bottom of library.
Opt
Card A goes into hand. Card B is drawn at next draw.
Card A goes to the bottom of library. Card B goes into hand.
Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding why Opt is only 1 choice in your list, when Sleight of Hand is 2. Both facilitate 2 separate outcomes. Sleight just provides a more informed choice. Opt is choosing between a known card and an unknown card. Sleight is choosing between 2 known choices.
In both examples, Card A and B are the top 2 cards of the library.
Sleight of Hand
A goes into hand. B goes to bottom of library.
Card B goes into hand. Card goes to bottom of library.
Opt
Card A goes into hand. Card B is drawn at next draw.
Card A goes to the bottom of library. Card B goes into hand.
Is my reasoning off here?
Nope, I'm the one who was way off! Thanks for explaining this to me like a 3 year old. I am deeply regretting rattling off that chart now 😂 You're right, Sleight offers a more informed choice but does not offer more choices. It does give you 2x the information though.
Edit -- I'm wrong about SV/Preo too.
Top top:
AB
BA
Top bottom:
A top B bottom
B top A bottom
Bottom bottom:
AB
BA
Realistically, when scrying bottom bottom, the order of the cards doesn't matter at all. So Serum offers pilots five functional options to choose from, not four as I previously asserted.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
(...) Most players cast selection cantrips for the choice they provide, and we almost always are willing/able/incentivized to make that choice at sorcery speed (...)
I guess this is where our disagreement really finds place. I really don't agree with that sentence and I regard the ability to cast cantrips at instant speed as incredibly powerful. But thinking about it, I believe this mostly derives from the different decks we favor playing. Although I play pretty much any type of deck, I had 90% of my good tournament finishes in Modern with Jeskai decks of different types. On the other hand you tend to play decks with a different playstyle such as this one or CounterCat. So we have a different mindset about how to use cantrips and sequence spells. For me, having to cast a Serum Visions or a Sleight of Hand when I have 4 mana and I'm holding a Cryptic is really painful. But staying mana open for the Cryptic and keep the Serum in hand is also bad. In fact, I don't want to be in that situation at all. I want to play my spells accordingly to what my opponent does and always trying to maximize the use of my lands. I also like to respond with cantrips to some of my opponent's plays to find answers for those plays. So maybe when I play RUG Delver I still keep a little bit of that more reactive, instant-speed based playstyle I have with Jeskai. Maybe it's wrong, but sometimes, I won't cast that Goyf and hold mana for Leak instead.
So Opt doesn't make the cut here 'cause we need sorceries in the graveyard, but other than that, personally I would play it 'cause it suits my playstyle more even here. I can hold mana for Leak and Opt EOT. I don't know if playing RUG that way is always wrong. Maybe it is, we're supposed to be proactive. But I still feel sometimes if I don't have Shoal it's just wrong to tap out.
Getting back to your sentence, I don't know, I still don't see why "most players" would want to cast cantrips at sorcery speed. Unless again, they're in topdeck mode. But if I have a hand full of cards, I like to be able to play my cantrips whenever I want according to the situation, instead of having to sequence my spells and whole gameplan in a way or another just because I need to cast cantrips that could in fact just be suboptimal plays depending on the context.
I think the best answer to all of this is, unfortunately, "it depends."
I absolutely see where you are coming from. Often it is best to not slam your Goyf and instead hold up Mana Leak (particularly on the draw against BGx). There have definitely been turns on which I wanted to cast Visions and hold up mana for counters, but couldn't do both. Those are some of the hardest decisions we have to make.
I very much enjoy being able to hold up Scour and counterspells, so I see where you are coming from with wanting to cantrip on the opponent's endstep. However, I think I know what Ashton means by players wanting to cast cantrips at sorcery speed. Cantrips show you more cards. Seeing more cards means you have more options. We like our options. If I have excess mana, I will cantrip at sorcery speed so that I have more options on how to interact. If your opponent plays a spell, you counter it, and then you cantrip and find a counter you would have preferred to use, you should have used the cantrip sooner. This is of course somewhat moot because you can cantrip in response (I very much enjoy Scouring with spells on the stack to find more cards), but that is the sort of thing he means.
A better example occurs when we involve sorcery-speed plays. You have five mana available. You have an Opt, and a Mana Leak in hand. You can either pass and hold up your stuff, or you can cantrip, hope to find a threat, play it if you do, and still hold up Leak. Now, that is fairly close to topdecking, so let's add some more cards. You can also have a Delver and want to cantrip to find a bigger threat. Or you could have a bunch of Bolt effects, or a Vapor Snag, etc. We really don't have that many "types" of cards (cantrip, threat, counter, removal/burn, and land) so it is difficult to come up with a hand that doesn't have a bunch of redundant cards.
I just thought of another way to explain it that might be better. Mishra's Bauble provides a delayed draw trigger. It essentially cantrips, but not immediately. If you had the choice to draw your card immediately, you would usually take it (exclusions that come to mind include discard effects and Delver/fetch scrying). That is because it gives you your option sooner. Even if you have something to do for your turn, you might draw a better play. If cantripping now doesn't prevent that play you already have (you have enough mana), there is unlikely to be any downside to finding out if the mystery card is in fact a better play.
I think the point is that by cantripping sooner, you have your options sooner. That isn't always relevant, but sometimes it is. Even if you have a full grip, if you don't need to hold up that mana, cantrip sooner, because you might find a better play that you should make now. Due to that, the instant-speed is less important than it might seem (I should note that I find it very important due to the fact that being an instant gives us an extra pseudo-option in that we can cast it now or later). In the scenarios that you want to cast an instant on your main phase, the card being an instant does not matter, and a sorcery would have been just as good. In such a case, all else being equal, you would rather cast Sleight than Opt because, at sorcery speed, it is a slightly better card.
Full disclosure: I am arguing on behalf of the upside of Sleight of Hand (or rather the lack of upside of Opt being an instant), but, having done never played it or Opt in this deck, I would probably start with Opt because I have a feeling that the percentage points gained by the instant speed outweigh those gained by the extra info of Sleight. That of course doesn't include the fact that we do sometimes have trouble getting sorceries in the graveyard, but that is less relevant if you are not cutting sorceries for Opt (those who never played Sleight may not feel a difference in sorcery count between pre and post Opt Delver iterations).
^mnesci does a good job of explaining what I meant. I find often when I'm holding up, say, 2 mana for a Leak, even if opponents do nothing and I have a Scour, I want to just go to my turn to get in more attacks. Casting Scour opens me up to getting my threat killed in response. If I have a third mana handy and a cantrip, I will often prefer to use that cantrip on my main phase so that I have more options (I might draw Denial, and then I can use the second extra mana to play Delver or something and increase my board presence while continuing to represent interaction and just save the Leak for another turn cycle).
I've said it already, but I think it bears repeating. I too must fully disclose: I do not like Sleight of Hand in this deck. I do like it in Counter-Cat, and we tested Opt there and found it significantly worse. Whether Opt fits into this deck is not something I have explored via reps nor intend to in the near future. I'm just sharing my experience with Opt vs. Sleight, which translates to some degree from Counter-Cat to RUG, but should by no means be taken as gospel.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
As another believer in Traverse, I agree that I like it more than Opt. It is definitely better at helping us hit land drops, probably better at increasing threat density, and might be able to compete in terms of finding interaction (Scour puts helpful cards in the yard, tutor for Snapcaster Mage to cast them). I think a version of Delver running Opt would look very different than a lot of the more recent builds on here.
A while ago (starting at the top of page 161), we discussed Into the Roil as a catch-all for the mainboard, and compared it to cards like Vapor Snag and Echoing Truth.
I just saw a new spoiler, and thought it was very interesting.
Perilous Voyage (1U)
Instant
Return target nonland permanent you don't control to its owner's hand. If its CMC was 2 or less, scry 2.
This is another Echoing Truth-esque card, but the part that is interesting to me is that it gives you the option to scry 2. I bring up Into the Roil because of the kicker to draw a card. How many cards is "scry 2" worth? If Perilous Voyage said "draw 1," I would probably throw it in as a one-off. It would be a catch-all that can potentially cycle by bouncing a cheap dude (or, even better, cycle while bouncing a cheap dude I actually wanted to bounce). That seems pretty good at 2 mana.
Scrying is a lot like drawing when you look at it in terms of EV and Percentage Points. If we scry away 2 cards we don't want, we sort of drew 2 cards deep towards what we did want. There are of course situations in which the scry is useless (we want both, in the order they were, and the information of what is on top of the deck doesn't help us).
I have no idea if this card is any good. Some notable things include scrying having synergy in our deck (Delver mostly, but also cantrips in general), and that this can't bounce our own creatures to save them from removal. I just think it is really interesting in theory, and could very well be great for us.
Id still rather play echoing truth 'cause it can save your permanents and destroys tokens. In any case I think that this card is quite close in power level. A bit more narrow, but when you manage to bounce and scry it's good. It should be calculated how often you can scry and how often you can't save your permanent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
I dont think that any one of them is really strictly better than another. They all seem to have an argument to be played, but I am not sure that one clearly stands out from the rest. What we have to determine is which one is the best in the most often situations. I read something about MTG Quartile or something like that were it evaluated cards individually based upon the 4 different main board states in MTG. Can we use that to determine the superior spell possibly?
Question why is this discussion taking place on here instead of Reddit? Isnt reddit a little easier to make separate topics within a RUG Delver Subreddit?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well seeing as how you're arguing against points I'm not making I have to disagree with you there.
I wrote 3000 words this morning on Opt and Modern's other cantrips. Scour is what I would call a "velocity cantrip;" its goal is not to provide card selection, but to provide velocity. It does this more efficiently than any other spell in Modern and therefore stands in a class of its own. Comparing it to selection cantrips is dishonest since the card simply does something different, so there's no way Scour can be "strictly worse;" it's literally played for other reasons.
Is that not a point you made? I'm a bit lost when you say I'm arguing against points you haven't made. I noted that Scour will see more play than Opt not to counter an imaginary argument you made, but to support my argument against your assertion that Opt is a better card---don't "better cards" see more play? Honestly I feel like this is actually a straw man, or at least intended to dismiss the validity of my points without fairly assessing them.
Serum Visions is the format's best "selection cantrip," even though its delayed selection is worse than immediate selection (hence Preordain, an immediate-selection Visions, being better). Sleight and Opt are immediate selection cantrips that see fewer cards than Visions and therefore do an overall worse job selecting.
You can read my piece here: http://modernnexus.com/opting-in-modern-cantrips/
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Heres my entire post for reference. You didnt like that I used the word 'strictly'- got it, but trying to tell me a cantrip that offers card selection is worse than one that doesnt because of this imaginary term in velocity? interesting. Frankly i'm not sure how anything else you've said applies to my 'argument', which was really more of a quick summation of my opinion on opts playability here and less of an arguement, as you claim. I don't really care to discuss magic theory with you, particularly if it doesnt even pertain to this deck.
I may still quote you and answer points I disagree with, as I think my insight is sometimes valuable to the other readers here. Just know that my future posts quoting you are not directed at you, and don't respond to them if you aren't interested in a productive discussion. That way, the thread remains free of clutter/bickering and full of strategic discussion, meaning everyone wins.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Don't @ me if you can't refute the actual claim I'm making. If someone agrees with my point overall (i.e. That we are going to play scour over opt) but wants to tell me I'm somehow wrong because of the way I said it? That's just annoying dude. How do you not see that?
In the years I've been following the thread, over had 7(!) users PM me to continue discussion of the deck there because they felt like this place was hostile. Frankly if your concern is generating positive discussion, then you should try to Being less dismissive. You shoot people down like you made this deck. Go back to page on every and check out the post at the bottom. Oh yeah, that's me, telling you about this new tech called simic charm. Everyone that has been posting here built this thing. You should try to hearing people out more.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Let's consider card selection.
Considering the top 2 cards of your library there are 4 cases:
- Both are good
- Both are bad
- The first is good the second is bad
- The first is bad the second is good
Case 1) Opt makes you keep both card sleight makes you choose the best among them. Opt is slightly betterCase 2) Both cards make you keep only one. Sleight make you chose the best. Sleight is slightly better
Case 3) Best mode for sleight since makes you keep only the good one while opt makes you keep also the bad one. (I don't consider shuffle effects that may occur since as you don't know the second card they are random anyway)
Case 4) Both cards make you keep only the best. No differences here.
Imho considering pure card selection sleight is better (and this is true both if you have card in hand and if you are hellbent). Now it's true that in many decks instant speed selection is better than sorcery speed so this balances the things. They're very close as power level and one has to choose depending on the needs of the deck one is playing.
Edit: Surely everybody saw the change in moon effects but I underline it anyway (From IMA release notes).
Modern:
It might help too to think about cantrips from a standpoint of choices---the cantrip that gives you more choices is better. Opt gives you one choice (top or bottom); Sleight gives you two (card A or card B). I'm no math whiz so may have goofed up the fetchland examples, but I broke down how many choices each cantrip gives players. This chart also illustrates how insanely broken Ponder and Brainstorm are compared to the other cantrips.
Scour - 0
Opt - 1
Sleight - 2
Serum - 3
Preordain - 3
Ponder - 7
Brainstorm - 12
Ponder w/ fetchland - 25 over two turns (x3 + 3 + 1?)
Brainstorm w/ fetchland - 39 over two turns (x3 + 3?)
Most players cast selection cantrips for the choice they provide, and we almost always are willing/able/incentivized to make that choice at sorcery speed. Sleight giving us a full twice as many choices as Opt makes up for its speed in my book in many decks. In this one since we care about sorceries; in Storm since they don't care about instants; in Shadow since they're comfortable spending main phase mana on their cantrips; etc. That's why I see Opt primarily making waves in Weissman-style decks, the closest Modern analogs to which are Jeskai shells.
Sometimes, such cantrips are cast primarily for their velocity aspect, but that's why Scour is likely to continue seeing more play than Opt will---it does velocity better than any other cantrip. In Counter-Cat, we've settled on Sleight for these reasons and were testing Opt in the Scour slot. We only really ant two instant-speed cantrips. "Mill 2" does more for us than "scry 1" though and we have been unimpressed with the new card.
Hope this helps!
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I just can't understand where does "12" in brainstorm come from. That number is highly dependant on the number of card you have in hand and I think it could be even higher; that makes Brainstorm a completely absurd card (Don't know why isn't banned in legacy). I can't figure out the count w/ fetch too (I'd say for ponder a fetch gives you just 2 more choice once you have decided how to set up the cards but maybe I'm wrong).
But in any case it's useless to wander in the math's maze: you got the point.
Modern:
1 card in hand: 12 possible decisions.
4 cards total (1 in hand + 3 from Brainstorm)
keep 12, lib:
34
43
keep 13, lib:
24
42
keep 14, lib:
23
32
keep 23, lib:
14
41
keep 24, lib:
13
31
keep 34, lib:
12
21
2 cards in hand: 12 possible decisions.
5 cards total
keep 123, lib:
45
54
keep 134, lib:
25
52
keep 145, lib:
23
32
keep 234, lib:
15
51
keep 245, lib:
13
31
keep 345, lib:
12
21
3 cards in hand: 12 possible decisions.
6 cards total
keep 1234, lib:
56
65
keep 1235, lib:
46
64
keep 1236, lib:
45
54
keep 1345, lib:
26
62
keep 1356, lib:
24
42
keep 1456, lib:
23
32
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Draw Card 1:
1. Put Card 2 on Bottom
2. Keep Card 2 on Top
Draw Card 2:
3. Put Card 1 on Bottom
4. Keep Card 1 on Top
Opt - 1
Sleight - 2
Serum/Preo - 4
Ponder - 7
The number of choices practically doubles each time.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
In both examples, Card A and B are the top 2 cards of the library.
Sleight of Hand
Opt
Is my reasoning off here?
Edit -- I'm wrong about SV/Preo too.
Top top:
AB
BA
Top bottom:
A top B bottom
B top A bottom
Bottom bottom:
AB
BA
Realistically, when scrying bottom bottom, the order of the cards doesn't matter at all. So Serum offers pilots five functional options to choose from, not four as I previously asserted.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
I think the best answer to all of this is, unfortunately, "it depends."
I absolutely see where you are coming from. Often it is best to not slam your Goyf and instead hold up Mana Leak (particularly on the draw against BGx). There have definitely been turns on which I wanted to cast Visions and hold up mana for counters, but couldn't do both. Those are some of the hardest decisions we have to make.
I very much enjoy being able to hold up Scour and counterspells, so I see where you are coming from with wanting to cantrip on the opponent's endstep. However, I think I know what Ashton means by players wanting to cast cantrips at sorcery speed. Cantrips show you more cards. Seeing more cards means you have more options. We like our options. If I have excess mana, I will cantrip at sorcery speed so that I have more options on how to interact. If your opponent plays a spell, you counter it, and then you cantrip and find a counter you would have preferred to use, you should have used the cantrip sooner. This is of course somewhat moot because you can cantrip in response (I very much enjoy Scouring with spells on the stack to find more cards), but that is the sort of thing he means.
A better example occurs when we involve sorcery-speed plays. You have five mana available. You have an Opt, and a Mana Leak in hand. You can either pass and hold up your stuff, or you can cantrip, hope to find a threat, play it if you do, and still hold up Leak. Now, that is fairly close to topdecking, so let's add some more cards. You can also have a Delver and want to cantrip to find a bigger threat. Or you could have a bunch of Bolt effects, or a Vapor Snag, etc. We really don't have that many "types" of cards (cantrip, threat, counter, removal/burn, and land) so it is difficult to come up with a hand that doesn't have a bunch of redundant cards.
I just thought of another way to explain it that might be better. Mishra's Bauble provides a delayed draw trigger. It essentially cantrips, but not immediately. If you had the choice to draw your card immediately, you would usually take it (exclusions that come to mind include discard effects and Delver/fetch scrying). That is because it gives you your option sooner. Even if you have something to do for your turn, you might draw a better play. If cantripping now doesn't prevent that play you already have (you have enough mana), there is unlikely to be any downside to finding out if the mystery card is in fact a better play.
I think the point is that by cantripping sooner, you have your options sooner. That isn't always relevant, but sometimes it is. Even if you have a full grip, if you don't need to hold up that mana, cantrip sooner, because you might find a better play that you should make now. Due to that, the instant-speed is less important than it might seem (I should note that I find it very important due to the fact that being an instant gives us an extra pseudo-option in that we can cast it now or later). In the scenarios that you want to cast an instant on your main phase, the card being an instant does not matter, and a sorcery would have been just as good. In such a case, all else being equal, you would rather cast Sleight than Opt because, at sorcery speed, it is a slightly better card.
Full disclosure: I am arguing on behalf of the upside of Sleight of Hand (or rather the lack of upside of Opt being an instant), but, having done never played it or Opt in this deck, I would probably start with Opt because I have a feeling that the percentage points gained by the instant speed outweigh those gained by the extra info of Sleight. That of course doesn't include the fact that we do sometimes have trouble getting sorceries in the graveyard, but that is less relevant if you are not cutting sorceries for Opt (those who never played Sleight may not feel a difference in sorcery count between pre and post Opt Delver iterations).
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
I've said it already, but I think it bears repeating. I too must fully disclose: I do not like Sleight of Hand in this deck. I do like it in Counter-Cat, and we tested Opt there and found it significantly worse. Whether Opt fits into this deck is not something I have explored via reps nor intend to in the near future. I'm just sharing my experience with Opt vs. Sleight, which translates to some degree from Counter-Cat to RUG, but should by no means be taken as gospel.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
A while ago (starting at the top of page 161), we discussed Into the Roil as a catch-all for the mainboard, and compared it to cards like Vapor Snag and Echoing Truth.
I just saw a new spoiler, and thought it was very interesting.
Perilous Voyage (1U)
Instant
Return target nonland permanent you don't control to its owner's hand. If its CMC was 2 or less, scry 2.
This is another Echoing Truth-esque card, but the part that is interesting to me is that it gives you the option to scry 2. I bring up Into the Roil because of the kicker to draw a card. How many cards is "scry 2" worth? If Perilous Voyage said "draw 1," I would probably throw it in as a one-off. It would be a catch-all that can potentially cycle by bouncing a cheap dude (or, even better, cycle while bouncing a cheap dude I actually wanted to bounce). That seems pretty good at 2 mana.
Scrying is a lot like drawing when you look at it in terms of EV and Percentage Points. If we scry away 2 cards we don't want, we sort of drew 2 cards deep towards what we did want. There are of course situations in which the scry is useless (we want both, in the order they were, and the information of what is on top of the deck doesn't help us).
I remember reading a lot about how many cards scrying was worth a while ago. I think it was around when they changed the mulligan rule, but I could be totally wrong. One such discussion I found via google: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/537w5x/how_much_is_scry_worth_in_terms_of_card_draw/
I have no idea if this card is any good. Some notable things include scrying having synergy in our deck (Delver mostly, but also cantrips in general), and that this can't bounce our own creatures to save them from removal. I just think it is really interesting in theory, and could very well be great for us.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
Modern: