Its usually 4 path, 2-4 verdict, 2-4 snaps, and 0-X others, detention sphere, blessed alliance, etc. They do play wall of omens, and gideon jura/trials,
I think people are looking at it wrong, trying to slot it into their decks. This card is an engine all by itself, and you probably will have to reconfigure the deck to utilize this engine consistently.
I would think that you cut at least 1 Revelation, along with 2-3 Think Twice to run 3-4 copies of this card. If this is the gameplan going long, you're far less likely to loop Revelations and draw your entire deck, which makes you shift from Draw-Go towards Prison on the Control spectrum. All of a sudden cards that work well with locking up positional advantage without actually burying your opponent in a sudden avalanche of cards become much better. UW Control is already setup to do this with Crucible and Planeswalkers (v. creature decks), but there's no Counterbalance-style card to lock-out combo decks. Well, Runed Halo does a good impression but has so many holes in it.
One net positive of running more positional advantage permanents is that you can cut down on spot removal. I always thought 6 spells was excessive and would be glad to go back to 4 with replacements for the other 2 copies turning into something that is better in non-creature machups. Even UW Control went back down to 4, something i tried to replicate recently by using first Gideon of the Trials and then Runed Halo.
I agree that the deck needs to be reconfigured a bit for Azcanta, but not to the point of changing the fundamental strategy of the deck. I don't think it's necessary to become a prison style deck, as you mentioned. Not really too sure why you think that actually, seems like you stated it without expanding on the reason you arrived at that conclusion. I don't think planes walkers and enchantments like counterbalance/halo are anymore necessary than ever.
Adding a single card engine to the deck doesn't play out any differently than, in my experience, than playing with a card like Rev. As I've said, it seems to me that the only real difference in deck design is that rev can be replaced and that it's possible we may need assurances for the inevitable situations where GQ style lands take out our azcanta. This can be accomplished by playing more copies or maybe through other means (spreading seas for example, though I don't think that particular route is optimal for this deck, but there are certainly options out there).
My main point is azcanta seems to be a fine engine for draw go strategies, look at the world championship for example. Obviously standard is a different beast but azcanta is nearly singlehandedly carrying multiple drawgo style control archetypes through the tournament.
I think people are looking at it wrong, trying to slot it into their decks. This card is an engine all by itself, and you probably will have to reconfigure the deck to utilize this engine consistently.
I would think that you cut at least 1 Revelation, along with 2-3 Think Twice to run 3-4 copies of this card. If this is the gameplan going long, you're far less likely to loop Revelations and draw your entire deck, which makes you shift from Draw-Go towards Prison on the Control spectrum. All of a sudden cards that work well with locking up positional advantage without actually burying your opponent in a sudden avalanche of cards become much better. UW Control is already setup to do this with Crucible and Planeswalkers (v. creature decks), but there's no Counterbalance-style card to lock-out combo decks. Well, Runed Halo does a good impression but has so many holes in it.
One net positive of running more positional advantage permanents is that you can cut down on spot removal. I always thought 6 spells was excessive and would be glad to go back to 4 with replacements for the other 2 copies turning into something that is better in non-creature machups. Even UW Control went back down to 4, something i tried to replicate recently by using first Gideon of the Trials and then Runed Halo.
I agree that the deck needs to be reconfigured a bit for Azcanta, but not to the point of changing the fundamental strategy of the deck. I don't think it's necessary to become a prison style deck, as you mentioned. Not really too sure why you think that actually, seems like you stated it without expanding on the reason you arrived at that conclusion. I don't think planes walkers and enchantments like counterbalance/halo are anymore necessary than ever.
Adding a single card engine to the deck doesn't play out any differently than, in my experience, than playing with a card like Rev. As I've said, it seems to me that the only real difference in deck design is that rev can be replaced and that it's possible we may need assurances for the inevitable situations where GQ style lands take out our azcanta. This can be accomplished by playing more copies or maybe through other means (spreading seas for example, though I don't think that particular route is optimal for this deck, but there are certainly options out there).
My main point is azcanta seems to be a fine engine for draw go strategies, look at the world championship for example. Obviously standard is a different beast but azcanta is nearly singlehandedly carrying multiple drawgo style control archetypes through the tournament.
If you're going to play Azcanta, UB is a much better shell than Esper imho. You get to play Field of Ruin/Tec Edge, better mana so your aggressive MU's are better (which negates some of the downside of Azcanta), and you can fill the GY faster (and white matters less if you're going to replace the "engine" card of the deck). (Plus, you still get to play Architects + Scour the Lab and Azcanta actually helps that plan as well)
UW is the tap-out shell and UB is the draw-go shell. I'm sleeving up UB this monday to see how it goes. Just on the off-chance has anyone tested Hostage Taker if you've tested UB shells out? (Answering artifact out of UB is quite nice (I was thinking 1 EE + 1 Hostage Taker))
Could you post your U/B list?
My initial thoughts are that hostage taker is probably not good enough for modern, but hitting artifacts could be relevant.
I feel like people are moving in the same direction I have with Azcanta. It's powerful but awkward in esper. It incentivizes you to reduce your other cantrips since once azcanta is active you don't want any more draw spells, but now you have an engine vulnerable to a relatively unanswerable commonly played trump (ghost quarter/tec edge) not to mention spreading seas, blood moons, abrupt decays, etc. It's also vulnerable to grave hate if you're using it as your primary engine (i.e. over revelation).
I've been floating on a one-of because I figure it can't do any harm replacing 1 TT for 1 Azcanta. This is also allowing me to keep testing the card to firm up what I think about it. Awkward really is the word here. When it flips and sticks its so good in the deck because we have oodles of mana and almost all of our cards are instant/sorcery so it really does turn the corner quickly and effectively lock the game down (hand full of cryptics and paths etc). The problem is it doesn't always work, so you can't rely on it, so you can't just trim away your other draw spells and "count on" a flipped azcanta as your engine.
That probably means that despite being amazing when it works its not for this deck because its too much redundancy. Stupid as it sounds you are probably better off just having the think twice in that slot more often than not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
@Aegean- I wouldn't mind seeing a blue black list either. I think you lose your best answers to 2 of 3 best decks without white (verdict for shadow and path for Eldrazi) but being a better azcanta deck overall could just be better, who knows.
@Badmcfadden - I agree in the sense that it can't be your only source of card advantage, but it being your only engine is fine. Your going to win a lot of games that you can't deal with a ghost quarter simply by being able to bin 6-12 useless cards over the course of the game. I tested a version with 4 Think Twice and 4 Esper charm, between that kind of draw and searches redundancy I was able to win a few games where I couldn't flip azcanta.
I also think we aren't used to having to protect our lands, so there could be a card out there that just does exactly what we are looking for. Spreading Seas is great in that regard for example. Or how about the stifle bird nimble obstructionist ? Sun Titan? Obviously some of these aren't great for draw go, but the point is they exist so there are probably other options we haven't thought about in a long time. I also think it's perfectly reasonably to exchange an azcanta + an activation for a GQ if we have 2-3 more copies of azcanta we can find or have 1 in our hand already.
@Aegean- I wouldn't mind seeing a blue black list either. I think you lose your best answers to 2 of 3 best decks without white (verdict for shadow and path for Eldrazi) but being a better azcanta deck overall could just be better, who knows.
@Badmcfadden - I agree in the sense that it can't be your only source of card advantage, but it being your only engine is fine. Your going to win a lot of games that you can't deal with a ghost quarter simply by being able to bin 6-12 useless cards over the course of the game. I tested a version with 4 Think Twice and 4 Esper charm, between that kind of draw and searches redundancy I was able to win a few games where I couldn't flip azcanta.
I also think we aren't used to having to protect our lands, so there could be a card out there that just does exactly what we are looking for. Spreading Seas is great in that regard for example. Or how about the stifle bird nimble obstructionist ? Sun Titan? Obviously some of these aren't great for draw go, but the point is they exist so there are probably other options we haven't thought about in a long time. I also think it's perfectly reasonably to exchange an azcanta + an activation for a GQ if we have 2-3 more copies of azcanta we can find or have 1 in our hand already.
I put a Spellbomb in the main over an architect to be able to run Hostage Taker in the SB. Still not sure if I want a Kalitas in the SB...I probably do? The mana may need some work - likely want -1 fetch another UB dual? (I was thinking Fetid Pools or another Tarpit, but that then becomes more tapped lands than I'd like) I could also see replacing 1 Opt instead of 1 Architects for the Spellbomb in the main. Little tweaks that need playtesting to iron out.
@jayjay As for answers to Eldrazi, I think UB is probably more diversified there - yes, Path is more efficient, but it also gets hit by Chalice. Victim of Night/GftT hit everything path does (sans Ballista) without getting hit by Chalice on 1 and not ramping them. My main worry with this deck is that we're a little too dependent on the GY, but Scour is just by far the best raw draw spell to be played that that concession has to be made. I wish Fact or Fiction was legal :/
Damnation is still a card, eldrazi aren't usually countering it.
Squelch is probably the best type of card for us, but not being able to cycle it empty is unfortunate.
Obstructionist only costs 1 more than Squelch, can't be countered, can be cycled empty (I assume that to mean without a target) and is infinitely more flexible than squelch.
Damnation is a fine card against everything except Shadow decks, and push only hits half their creatures. I guess that's only one match though. I didn't consider the other removal options in black for the Drazi match fairly I suppose, but Path is so good there, they run like 2 basics and it also deals with Reshaper cleanly. I guess Hero's downfall makes up for some of the slack though since it can also hit a random Karn. Hmm, UB could be interesting. Still not too sure about trying to get fancy with Scour the Laboratory mainly because I don't want to run Architects of Will. I suppose running 3-4 Azcanta makes it much more likely to have card type Enchantment in the graveyard. I think this is getting a little off topic, Aegraen if you want to start a thread for UB Scour/Azcanta i'd love to have more discussion about this. I have some ideas, and I think we could develop the deck a bit, at least to the point where I think I'd be willing to give it a spin on MTGO.
"only" costs one more. Obviously, 3 cmc counterspells vs 2 cmc counterspells are night and day, and while it is a little different with something like this, I'd usually rather have squelch than obstructionist.
We can't really make much use of the 3/1 body, and the uncounterable is kind of medium. Paying 1 more mana for the ability to cycle it whenever we want isn't the best tradeoff.
Obviously, path is the best kill spell in the format for a deck like this, but between damnation, push, dismember, downfall, murderous cut, etc, you likely do have some answers for more everything. Major excludes would be something like ulamog, but that might just be the tradeoff for only playing 2 colors.
Obstructionist only costs 1 more than Squelch, can't be countered, can be cycled empty (I assume that to mean without a target) and is infinitely more flexible than squelch.
Damnation is a fine card against everything except Shadow decks, and push only hits half their creatures. I guess that's only one match though. I didn't consider the other removal options in black for the Drazi match fairly I suppose, but Path is so good there, they run like 2 basics and it also deals with Reshaper cleanly. I guess Hero's downfall makes up for some of the slack though since it can also hit a random Karn. Hmm, UB could be interesting. Still not too sure about trying to get fancy with Scour the Laboratory mainly because I don't want to run Architects of Will. I suppose running 3-4 Azcanta makes it much more likely to have card type Enchantment in the graveyard. I think this is getting a little off topic, Aegraen if you want to start a thread for UB Scour/Azcanta i'd love to have more discussion about this. I have some ideas, and I think we could develop the deck a bit, at least to the point where I think I'd be willing to give it a spin on MTGO.
Sure. I've been playing Will/Scour Esper build for months now and it's performed very well. It's an easy transition to UB. The deck might need 1 more source of CA so possibly -1 Dissolve +1 TT or something. I definitely need to find time to playtest.
"only" costs one more. Obviously, 3 cmc counterspells vs 2 cmc counterspells are night and day, and while it is a little different with something like this, I'd usually rather have squelch than obstructionist.
We can't really make much use of the 3/1 body, and the uncounterable is kind of medium. Paying 1 more mana for the ability to cycle it whenever we want isn't the best tradeoff.
The uncounterable nature of the card is definitely not medium, it's the highest upside of the card imo. If you're relying on the stifle to carry you through the match, such as in storm, it makes no difference that it costs 1 more, but it makes a huge difference that it is uncounterable. And in the matches where you don't need the stifle effect, well it's no contest because Squelch can't even be cycled. Let alone flashed in as a blocker or a clock.
You're also overlooking the fact that Squelch is strictly activated abilities whereas Obstructionist hits triggers too, so it's almost always going to find a spot in the game where cycling it for 3 mana is going to be very good. Obviously not a 4-of type of card, but it could have it's moments. Could you image if it was 2 mana for that ability? I don't think I'd ever play a deck without 4 of them, so yes, the difference between 2 and 3 is huge. But not given the flexibility of the 2 cards in question.
I agree that the deck needs to be reconfigured a bit for Azcanta, but not to the point of changing the fundamental strategy of the deck. I don't think it's necessary to become a prison style deck, as you mentioned. Not really too sure why you think that actually, seems like you stated it without expanding on the reason you arrived at that conclusion. I don't think planes walkers and enchantments like counterbalance/halo are anymore necessary than ever.
Adding a single card engine to the deck doesn't play out any differently than, in my experience, than playing with a card like Rev. As I've said, it seems to me that the only real difference in deck design is that rev can be replaced and that it's possible we may need assurances for the inevitable situations where GQ style lands take out our azcanta. This can be accomplished by playing more copies or maybe through other means (spreading seas for example, though I don't think that particular route is optimal for this deck, but there are certainly options out there).
My main point is azcanta seems to be a fine engine for draw go strategies, look at the world championship for example. Obviously standard is a different beast but azcanta is nearly singlehandedly carrying multiple drawgo style control archetypes through the tournament.
I thought I spelled it out pretty well, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to repeat.
Azcanta rewards positional advantage permanents. Casting Impulse each turn opens up the possibility of soft-locks, similar to what we saw with Dragonloard Ojutai in Standard. Once you untap with a planeswalkers on turn 5 and this thing flips, it becomes less likely with every passing turn that your opponent will draw out of it before the planeswalker ultimates. Same could apply to Crucible of Worlds locks. The search helps setup and protect these board states, which will shift any (successful) list over time towards this end of the spectrum. People do things like cut sweepers for Tasigur in their Draw-Go decks, so there's no saying you have to build your decks a certain way, but when there's an obvious path of least resistance a successful archetype will tend to evolve in that direction. That's assuming the deck has exposure and there are articles and tournament results available.
Azcanta disincentivises low-impact, one-for-one disruption and/or Divination effects. This isn't as intuitive, but Azcanta is highly mana-inefficient in terms of material (card) advantage. Phyrexian Arena effect exists that will give you a card for less mana each turn, and they're hardly playable cards. Similar to the way that Mystical Tutor gives you the option of a 5-mana Path to Exile, a 6-mana counterspell, or a 7-mana Divination, when you're burning 3 mana each turn on a dig effect you need the answers you're finding to have huge impacts on the board. You'll feel it when you're staring down lethal in 2 turns and you begin wondering exactly you could get off an activation that would justify sinking half your available mana each turn into.
"only" costs one more. Obviously, 3 cmc counterspells vs 2 cmc counterspells are night and day, and while it is a little different with something like this, I'd usually rather have squelch than obstructionist.
We can't really make much use of the 3/1 body, and the uncounterable is kind of medium. Paying 1 more mana for the ability to cycle it whenever we want isn't the best tradeoff.
The uncounterable nature of the card is definitely not medium, it's the highest upside of the card imo. If you're relying on the stifle to carry you through the match, such as in storm, it makes no difference that it costs 1 more, but it makes a huge difference that it is uncounterable. And in the matches where you don't need the stifle effect, well it's no contest because Squelch can't even be cycled. Let alone flashed in as a blocker or a clock.
You're also overlooking the fact that Squelch is strictly activated abilities whereas Obstructionist hits triggers too, so it's almost always going to find a spot in the game where cycling it for 3 mana is going to be very good. Obviously not a 4-of type of card, but it could have it's moments. Could you image if it was 2 mana for that ability? I don't think I'd ever play a deck without 4 of them, so yes, the difference between 2 and 3 is huge. But not given the flexibility of the 2 cards in question.
I'm not counting on stifle to carry me through any matches though. Sure, its a nice tool, but its not like an uncounterable stifle beats remand. They can just remand their grapeshot and recast it. Occasionally you'll get them if they don't have the mana to recast it, but thats very unlikely.
I've played a decent amount of obstructionist in modern, and I really did want to like it, but its just not that good. While yes, obstructionist is more broad, its not actually worth the extra mana. Being able to hit a fetchland on t2 vs t3 is kind of significant. That being said, I would not play either card.
If obstructionist cost 2 to cycle, I still am not convinced it would be so good as to never play less than 4. Playable in some decks, perhaps, but I would not just try to cram 4 in here.
I agree that the deck needs to be reconfigured a bit for Azcanta, but not to the point of changing the fundamental strategy of the deck. I don't think it's necessary to become a prison style deck, as you mentioned. Not really too sure why you think that actually, seems like you stated it without expanding on the reason you arrived at that conclusion. I don't think planes walkers and enchantments like counterbalance/halo are anymore necessary than ever.
Adding a single card engine to the deck doesn't play out any differently than, in my experience, than playing with a card like Rev. As I've said, it seems to me that the only real difference in deck design is that rev can be replaced and that it's possible we may need assurances for the inevitable situations where GQ style lands take out our azcanta. This can be accomplished by playing more copies or maybe through other means (spreading seas for example, though I don't think that particular route is optimal for this deck, but there are certainly options out there).
My main point is azcanta seems to be a fine engine for draw go strategies, look at the world championship for example. Obviously standard is a different beast but azcanta is nearly singlehandedly carrying multiple drawgo style control archetypes through the tournament.
I thought I spelled it out pretty well, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to repeat.
Azcanta rewards positional advantage permanents. Casting Impulse each turn opens up the possibility of soft-locks, similar to what we saw with Dragonloard Ojutai in Standard. Once you untap with a planeswalkers on turn 5 and this thing flips, it becomes less likely with every passing turn that your opponent will draw out of it before the planeswalker ultimates. Same could apply to Crucible of Worlds locks. The search helps setup and protect these board states, which will shift any (successful) list over time towards this end of the spectrum. People do things like cut sweepers for Tasigur in their Draw-Go decks, so there's no saying you have to build your decks a certain way, but when there's an obvious path of least resistance a successful archetype will tend to evolve in that direction. That's assuming the deck has exposure and there are articles and tournament results available.
Azcanta disincentivises low-impact, one-for-one disruption and/or Divination effects. This isn't as intuitive, but Azcanta is highly mana-inefficient in terms of material (card) advantage. Phyrexian Arena effect exists that will give you a card for less mana each turn, and they're hardly playable cards. Similar to the way that Mystical Tutor gives you the option of a 5-mana Path to Exile, a 6-mana counterspell, or a 7-mana Divination, when you're burning 3 mana each turn on a dig effect you need the answers you're finding to have huge impacts on the board. You'll feel it when you're staring down lethal in 2 turns and you begin wondering exactly you could get off an activation that would justify sinking half your available mana each turn into.
UW doesn't technically only run 4 removal spells right? They're typically on some number of Detention Sphere as well if I remember correctly.
I said spot removal, by which I meant cards which only kill creatures and are dead in most all of the spell-based matchups.
On the contrary, I think Azcanta incentivizes cheap interaction. If you can impulse + interact each turn the chances of your opponent winning the game is dramatically lowered. Cards like Path, Push, Logic Knot, etc. go up in value, not down. High-impact spells tend to be expensive. Sweepers can recoup tempo, but a lock piece like Chalice cannot. I don't think Azcanta is going to push the decks it is in towards prison (they'll never be as good as Lantern or Chalice decks and as such, they'll be little reason to do this), but it is going to push the control decks it is in to play more cheap interaction. You're also still going to need some other CA spell whether that is Esper Charm, Glimmer, Scour the Lab, etc. as Azcanta gets worse in multiples and is vulnerable to LD where the instant-speed CA isn't (plus you just need a critical number of cards that +CA). In other words, it's going to replace cards like Sphinx's Rev, and more decks will be playing more 1 and 2 mana interaction. I wouldn't ever play 4 wraths MB in an Azcanta deck, but I could definitely see these decks cut one for another path or push or blessed alliance, etc. Even a card like Deprive goes up in value because Azcanta is essentially rampant growth so it's actually tempo-neutral in conjunction and does the thing for 2 mana.
There's also the flipside that GY-hate is going to be better against your decks that are packing Snaps, Azcanta, Think Twice, etc., but I think it's worth it.
Azcanta rewards positional advantage permanents. Casting Impulse each turn opens up the possibility of soft-locks, similar to what we saw with Dragonloard Ojutai in Standard. Once you untap with a planeswalkers on turn 5 and this thing flips, it becomes less likely with every passing turn that your opponent will draw out of it before the planeswalker ultimates. Same could apply to Crucible of Worlds locks.
Same applies to every win condition you could have in play at the time it flips - from Goblin Guide all the way up to and Including the Azcanta itself. Every turn you get to impulse, the less likely they are to win. That's how card advantage works. In no way does that follow that it works better with soft-locks. Soft locks work better with a card advantage engine, absolutely, but the reverse does't have to be true as well.
Azcanta disincentivises low-impact, one-for-one disruption and/or Divination effects. This isn't as intuitive, but Azcanta is highly mana-inefficient in terms of material (card) advantage. Phyrexian Arena effect exists that will give you a card for less mana each turn, and they're hardly playable cards. Similar to the way that Mystical Tutor gives you the option of a 5-mana Path to Exile, a 6-mana counterspell, or a 7-mana Divination, when you're burning 3 mana each turn on a dig effect you need the answers you're finding to have huge impacts on the board. You'll feel it when you're staring down lethal in 2 turns and you begin wondering exactly you could get off an activation that would justify sinking half your available mana each turn into.
You don't need huge impacts on the board since you're able to pull off multiple effecient answers in a turn. Unless you sat on your thumbs and did actual nothing before you flipped azcanta, the opponent shouldnt have more than a few threats on the board, which means 2 turns of drawing answers plus whatever you would normally draw or have should put you even and then way ahead.
On the contrary, I think Azcanta incentivizes cheap interaction. If you can impulse + interact each turn the chances of your opponent winning the game is dramatically lowered. Cards like Path, Push, Logic Knot, etc. go up in value, not down. High-impact spells tend to be expensive. Sweepers can recoup tempo, but a lock piece like Chalice cannot. I don't think Azcanta is going to push the decks it is in towards prison (they'll never be as good as Lantern or Chalice decks and as such, they'll be little reason to do this), but it is going to push the control decks it is in to play more cheap interaction. You're also still going to need some other CA spell whether that is Esper Charm, Glimmer, Scour the Lab, etc. as Azcanta gets worse in multiples and is vulnerable to LD where the instant-speed CA isn't (plus you just need a critical number of cards that +CA). In other words, it's going to replace cards like Sphinx's Rev, and more decks will be playing more 1 and 2 mana interaction. I wouldn't ever play 4 wraths MB in an Azcanta deck, but I could definitely see these decks cut one for another path or push or blessed alliance, etc. Even a card like Deprive goes up in value because Azcanta is essentially rampant growth so it's actually tempo-neutral in conjunction and does the thing for 2 mana.
"Prison" doesn't mean just Lantern or Chalice; I said multiple times that it rewards decks that can establish board presence and soft-locks. UW Control or Esper Planeswalkers would be on the prison side of the spectrum.
Sweepers are an example of a high-impact card that causes swings in positional advantage.
You're never going to live the dream with repeatable dig spells of answering every threat your opponent plays. It's the same trap as Mystical Teachings. 3 mana to draw a card is a worse rate than Think Twice; the mana is justified by the difference in card quality between a random card and whatever you manage to find. Read: it should consistently be worth multiple cards and impact the board.
Same applies to every win condition you could have in play at the time it flips - from Goblin Guide all the way up to and Including the Azcanta itself. Every turn you get to impulse, the less likely they are to win. That's how card advantage works. In no way does that follow that it works better with soft-locks. Soft locks work better with a card advantage engine, absolutely, but the reverse does't have to be true as well.
You don't need huge impacts on the board since you're able to pull off multiple effecient answers in a turn. Unless you sat on your thumbs and did actual nothing before you flipped azcanta, the opponent shouldnt have more than a few threats on the board, which means 2 turns of drawing answers plus whatever you would normally draw or have should put you even and then way ahead.
See, that's the Magical Christmas Land from where all bad Control decks originate:
"Assuming I don't draw terrible, I should only be behind by maybe a card or 2. If I just draw 2 extra cards then I should be at parity, and every Divination after than will put me further and further ahead!"
Then reality hits you realize that between answers not lining up, higher land densities, and your opponent having a 10% likelihood of the "nut draw" that you don't even have access to, you have to move mountains with a Control deck for it to be competitive. You have to build your deck to catch up, not keep up. All the torrential Gearhulk decks in standard are a perfect example; they're great except for the games where they fall behind. A single removal spell makes your turn 6 Gearhulk an expensive card draw spell that doesn't get you out of the hole you're in. They've been great for their debut weekends but never greater than Tier 2, going long.
Note that the successful Search for Azcanta deck in Standard are the UW Approach decks with 5 sweepers and 3 massive lifegain spells that literally just win 2 turns after resolving. That's exactly what I'm saying Search promotes.
Cipher - What you're saying still doesn't make sense. It seems like you are saying that the card advantage ability of a Mana producing land that can be activated at instant speed and is Mana intensive lends itself to being played in conjunction with expensive sorcery speed threats rather than cheap interactive instant speed cards. Which doesn't seem right in any case, but I'd also like to point out that there wasn't a single approach deck at worlds and that the best players in the world decided that UB drawgo with no sweepers or planeswalkers was the best shell for Azcanta, and that Azcanta enabled the archetype, putting 2 copies of the archetype in the Top 4.
I agree that the deck needs to be reconfigured a bit for Azcanta, but not to the point of changing the fundamental strategy of the deck. I don't think it's necessary to become a prison style deck, as you mentioned. Not really too sure why you think that actually, seems like you stated it without expanding on the reason you arrived at that conclusion. I don't think planes walkers and enchantments like counterbalance/halo are anymore necessary than ever.
Adding a single card engine to the deck doesn't play out any differently than, in my experience, than playing with a card like Rev. As I've said, it seems to me that the only real difference in deck design is that rev can be replaced and that it's possible we may need assurances for the inevitable situations where GQ style lands take out our azcanta. This can be accomplished by playing more copies or maybe through other means (spreading seas for example, though I don't think that particular route is optimal for this deck, but there are certainly options out there).
My main point is azcanta seems to be a fine engine for draw go strategies, look at the world championship for example. Obviously standard is a different beast but azcanta is nearly singlehandedly carrying multiple drawgo style control archetypes through the tournament.
If you're going to play Azcanta, UB is a much better shell than Esper imho. You get to play Field of Ruin/Tec Edge, better mana so your aggressive MU's are better (which negates some of the downside of Azcanta), and you can fill the GY faster (and white matters less if you're going to replace the "engine" card of the deck). (Plus, you still get to play Architects + Scour the Lab and Azcanta actually helps that plan as well)
UW is the tap-out shell and UB is the draw-go shell. I'm sleeving up UB this monday to see how it goes. Just on the off-chance has anyone tested Hostage Taker if you've tested UB shells out? (Answering artifact out of UB is quite nice (I was thinking 1 EE + 1 Hostage Taker))
My initial thoughts are that hostage taker is probably not good enough for modern, but hitting artifacts could be relevant.
I've been floating on a one-of because I figure it can't do any harm replacing 1 TT for 1 Azcanta. This is also allowing me to keep testing the card to firm up what I think about it. Awkward really is the word here. When it flips and sticks its so good in the deck because we have oodles of mana and almost all of our cards are instant/sorcery so it really does turn the corner quickly and effectively lock the game down (hand full of cryptics and paths etc). The problem is it doesn't always work, so you can't rely on it, so you can't just trim away your other draw spells and "count on" a flipped azcanta as your engine.
That probably means that despite being amazing when it works its not for this deck because its too much redundancy. Stupid as it sounds you are probably better off just having the think twice in that slot more often than not.
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
@Badmcfadden - I agree in the sense that it can't be your only source of card advantage, but it being your only engine is fine. Your going to win a lot of games that you can't deal with a ghost quarter simply by being able to bin 6-12 useless cards over the course of the game. I tested a version with 4 Think Twice and 4 Esper charm, between that kind of draw and searches redundancy I was able to win a few games where I couldn't flip azcanta.
I also think we aren't used to having to protect our lands, so there could be a card out there that just does exactly what we are looking for. Spreading Seas is great in that regard for example. Or how about the stifle bird nimble obstructionist ? Sun Titan? Obviously some of these aren't great for draw go, but the point is they exist so there are probably other options we haven't thought about in a long time. I also think it's perfectly reasonably to exchange an azcanta + an activation for a GQ if we have 2-3 more copies of azcanta we can find or have 1 in our hand already.
4 Darkslick Shores
1 Sunken Ruins
1 Watery Grave
1 Drowned Catacomb
2 Creeping Tar Pit
4 Polluted Delta
2 Flooded Strand
1 Bloodstained Mire
2 Tectonic Edge
1 Field of Ruin
3 Island
2 Swamp
Removal:
4 Fatal Push
2 Victim of Night
1 Go for the Throat
1 Hero's Downfall
2 Damnation
1 Negate
3 Logic Knot
1 Dissolve
3 Cryptic Command
PW:
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
Card Draw:
1 Nihil Spellbomb
4 Opt
3 Scour the Laboratory
3 Architects of Will
Engine:
2 Search for Azcanta
Value:
3 Snapcaster Mage
1 Torrential Gearhulk
1 Surgical Extraction
1 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Hostage Taker
1 Engineered Explosives
1 Night of Souls' Betrayal
3 Collective Brutality
2 Thoughtseize
2 Ceremonious Rejection
1 Disdainful Stroke
1 Flashfreeze
1 Dispel
I put a Spellbomb in the main over an architect to be able to run Hostage Taker in the SB. Still not sure if I want a Kalitas in the SB...I probably do? The mana may need some work - likely want -1 fetch another UB dual? (I was thinking Fetid Pools or another Tarpit, but that then becomes more tapped lands than I'd like) I could also see replacing 1 Opt instead of 1 Architects for the Spellbomb in the main. Little tweaks that need playtesting to iron out.
@jayjay As for answers to Eldrazi, I think UB is probably more diversified there - yes, Path is more efficient, but it also gets hit by Chalice. Victim of Night/GftT hit everything path does (sans Ballista) without getting hit by Chalice on 1 and not ramping them. My main worry with this deck is that we're a little too dependent on the GY, but Scour is just by far the best raw draw spell to be played that that concession has to be made. I wish Fact or Fiction was legal :/
Squelch is probably the best type of card for us, but not being able to cycle it empty is unfortunate.
Damnation is a fine card against everything except Shadow decks, and push only hits half their creatures. I guess that's only one match though. I didn't consider the other removal options in black for the Drazi match fairly I suppose, but Path is so good there, they run like 2 basics and it also deals with Reshaper cleanly. I guess Hero's downfall makes up for some of the slack though since it can also hit a random Karn. Hmm, UB could be interesting. Still not too sure about trying to get fancy with Scour the Laboratory mainly because I don't want to run Architects of Will. I suppose running 3-4 Azcanta makes it much more likely to have card type Enchantment in the graveyard. I think this is getting a little off topic, Aegraen if you want to start a thread for UB Scour/Azcanta i'd love to have more discussion about this. I have some ideas, and I think we could develop the deck a bit, at least to the point where I think I'd be willing to give it a spin on MTGO.
We can't really make much use of the 3/1 body, and the uncounterable is kind of medium. Paying 1 more mana for the ability to cycle it whenever we want isn't the best tradeoff.
Obviously, path is the best kill spell in the format for a deck like this, but between damnation, push, dismember, downfall, murderous cut, etc, you likely do have some answers for more everything. Major excludes would be something like ulamog, but that might just be the tradeoff for only playing 2 colors.
Sure. I've been playing Will/Scour Esper build for months now and it's performed very well. It's an easy transition to UB. The deck might need 1 more source of CA so possibly -1 Dissolve +1 TT or something. I definitely need to find time to playtest.
Edit: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/deck-creation-modern/784298-ub-azcanta-laboratory-draw-go
The uncounterable nature of the card is definitely not medium, it's the highest upside of the card imo. If you're relying on the stifle to carry you through the match, such as in storm, it makes no difference that it costs 1 more, but it makes a huge difference that it is uncounterable. And in the matches where you don't need the stifle effect, well it's no contest because Squelch can't even be cycled. Let alone flashed in as a blocker or a clock.
You're also overlooking the fact that Squelch is strictly activated abilities whereas Obstructionist hits triggers too, so it's almost always going to find a spot in the game where cycling it for 3 mana is going to be very good. Obviously not a 4-of type of card, but it could have it's moments. Could you image if it was 2 mana for that ability? I don't think I'd ever play a deck without 4 of them, so yes, the difference between 2 and 3 is huge. But not given the flexibility of the 2 cards in question.
Azcanta rewards positional advantage permanents. Casting Impulse each turn opens up the possibility of soft-locks, similar to what we saw with Dragonloard Ojutai in Standard. Once you untap with a planeswalkers on turn 5 and this thing flips, it becomes less likely with every passing turn that your opponent will draw out of it before the planeswalker ultimates. Same could apply to Crucible of Worlds locks. The search helps setup and protect these board states, which will shift any (successful) list over time towards this end of the spectrum. People do things like cut sweepers for Tasigur in their Draw-Go decks, so there's no saying you have to build your decks a certain way, but when there's an obvious path of least resistance a successful archetype will tend to evolve in that direction. That's assuming the deck has exposure and there are articles and tournament results available.
Azcanta disincentivises low-impact, one-for-one disruption and/or Divination effects. This isn't as intuitive, but Azcanta is highly mana-inefficient in terms of material (card) advantage. Phyrexian Arena effect exists that will give you a card for less mana each turn, and they're hardly playable cards. Similar to the way that Mystical Tutor gives you the option of a 5-mana Path to Exile, a 6-mana counterspell, or a 7-mana Divination, when you're burning 3 mana each turn on a dig effect you need the answers you're finding to have huge impacts on the board. You'll feel it when you're staring down lethal in 2 turns and you begin wondering exactly you could get off an activation that would justify sinking half your available mana each turn into.
I said spot removal, by which I meant cards which only kill creatures and are dead in most all of the spell-based matchups.
I'm not counting on stifle to carry me through any matches though. Sure, its a nice tool, but its not like an uncounterable stifle beats remand. They can just remand their grapeshot and recast it. Occasionally you'll get them if they don't have the mana to recast it, but thats very unlikely.
I've played a decent amount of obstructionist in modern, and I really did want to like it, but its just not that good. While yes, obstructionist is more broad, its not actually worth the extra mana. Being able to hit a fetchland on t2 vs t3 is kind of significant. That being said, I would not play either card.
If obstructionist cost 2 to cycle, I still am not convinced it would be so good as to never play less than 4. Playable in some decks, perhaps, but I would not just try to cram 4 in here.
On the contrary, I think Azcanta incentivizes cheap interaction. If you can impulse + interact each turn the chances of your opponent winning the game is dramatically lowered. Cards like Path, Push, Logic Knot, etc. go up in value, not down. High-impact spells tend to be expensive. Sweepers can recoup tempo, but a lock piece like Chalice cannot. I don't think Azcanta is going to push the decks it is in towards prison (they'll never be as good as Lantern or Chalice decks and as such, they'll be little reason to do this), but it is going to push the control decks it is in to play more cheap interaction. You're also still going to need some other CA spell whether that is Esper Charm, Glimmer, Scour the Lab, etc. as Azcanta gets worse in multiples and is vulnerable to LD where the instant-speed CA isn't (plus you just need a critical number of cards that +CA). In other words, it's going to replace cards like Sphinx's Rev, and more decks will be playing more 1 and 2 mana interaction. I wouldn't ever play 4 wraths MB in an Azcanta deck, but I could definitely see these decks cut one for another path or push or blessed alliance, etc. Even a card like Deprive goes up in value because Azcanta is essentially rampant growth so it's actually tempo-neutral in conjunction and does the thing for 2 mana.
There's also the flipside that GY-hate is going to be better against your decks that are packing Snaps, Azcanta, Think Twice, etc., but I think it's worth it.
Same applies to every win condition you could have in play at the time it flips - from Goblin Guide all the way up to and Including the Azcanta itself. Every turn you get to impulse, the less likely they are to win. That's how card advantage works. In no way does that follow that it works better with soft-locks. Soft locks work better with a card advantage engine, absolutely, but the reverse does't have to be true as well.
You don't need huge impacts on the board since you're able to pull off multiple effecient answers in a turn. Unless you sat on your thumbs and did actual nothing before you flipped azcanta, the opponent shouldnt have more than a few threats on the board, which means 2 turns of drawing answers plus whatever you would normally draw or have should put you even and then way ahead.
Sweepers are an example of a high-impact card that causes swings in positional advantage.
You're never going to live the dream with repeatable dig spells of answering every threat your opponent plays. It's the same trap as Mystical Teachings. 3 mana to draw a card is a worse rate than Think Twice; the mana is justified by the difference in card quality between a random card and whatever you manage to find. Read: it should consistently be worth multiple cards and impact the board.
See, that's the Magical Christmas Land from where all bad Control decks originate:
"Assuming I don't draw terrible, I should only be behind by maybe a card or 2. If I just draw 2 extra cards then I should be at parity, and every Divination after than will put me further and further ahead!"
Then reality hits you realize that between answers not lining up, higher land densities, and your opponent having a 10% likelihood of the "nut draw" that you don't even have access to, you have to move mountains with a Control deck for it to be competitive. You have to build your deck to catch up, not keep up. All the torrential Gearhulk decks in standard are a perfect example; they're great except for the games where they fall behind. A single removal spell makes your turn 6 Gearhulk an expensive card draw spell that doesn't get you out of the hole you're in. They've been great for their debut weekends but never greater than Tier 2, going long.
Note that the successful Search for Azcanta deck in Standard are the UW Approach decks with 5 sweepers and 3 massive lifegain spells that literally just win 2 turns after resolving. That's exactly what I'm saying Search promotes.
@Robo_Memer on Twitter, Twitch, Reddit, and YouTube
Feel free to PM me about Affinity decks in any format!
Yes, exactly. Kill.and counter everything. Some we're running up to 12 counterspells and 10 spot removal spells main.