It is 4 mana not 1. It seems like an interesting one-of in the board for attrition/control to win against graveyard hate and otherwise generate value while setting up for the win (e.g., copying a dig spell). I think it's test worthy.
Whoops, missed that. I doubt it's playable at that cost.
I think remand is a very interesting card and changes in value when against such an aggressive opponent. On the play remand can be amazing, and one of your best ways to win in the face of turn 2 eidolon. On the draw it can still be useful at bottlenecking a crucial volley turn but it's nowhere near as potent. I would keep it in on the play against burn, 1 for its ability to interact with turn 2 eidolon, and 2 for its ability to raise the percentage of non gifts hands with the potential to kill. On the draw I would cut it and leave sleights to have the highest possible chance of having a bolt In hand by turn 2. It could very well be wrong but I like cutting some or all sleight of hands against burn for the action spells like empty and pieces of the puzzle. Pieces is a grind tool but it is also a great tool at building up a medium storm for an empty the warrens. This supplements gifts to create more opening hands with enough action to storm early and it provides a storm engine that doesn't care about graveyard hate. I really like maximizing the empty plan in post board burn games since they put too much pressure on us to rely solely on the more powerful gifts engine.
So. Opt is officially getting reprinted in Ixalan. How does this affect us (if at all)? Does it replace Sleight of Hand? I'm probably going to test a list with Opt in place of Sleight when I'm done with my work for the day to see how it pans out, but I'm curious as to what other people think.
Choosing between Opt and Sleight is not going to be easy, they both have pros and cons. It's going to be though to pick between a bit more of info (given by sleight that lets you see 2 cards simultaneously) and the instant speed of opt.
Probably opt is going to replace peek in the fetchless version i guess
Choosing between Opt and Sleight is not going to be easy, they both have pros and cons. It's going to be though to pick between a bit more of info (given by sleight that lets you see 2 cards simultaneously) and the instant speed of opt.
Probably opt is going to replace peek in the fetchless version i guess
That's pretty much what I was feeling. Going to give a version with Opt in place of Sleight a shot, but I have a feeling it will have a better home in UW/Esper Control than in the fetchland version of storm.
My first instinct is to cut the Remands and Peer through Depths. Maybe even go for a fetchless mana base to maximize the incidenta scry values.
At most i would cut a single cantrip and play eleven cantrips total.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
From when I tested Opt in old Ascension storm Sleight of Hand still felt much better. The instant speed stuff just isn't that relevant and this isn't preordain. It's not strictly better but I feel Sleight of Hand is still better. Although I'm still going to play both.
Here's my quick list:
8 Reducers
12 Rituals
2 Past in Flames
4 Gifts Ungiven
3 Grapeshot
4 Serum Visions
4 Sleight of Hand
1 Noxious Revival
4 Opt
18 Lands
However I'm not sold on that list. In part 18 lands may be too many. With 12 Cantrips I think we can safely run 17 lands if we wanted to. It would slightly hurt the control matchups where we really need to hit our 4th land drop but it would be a net positive. I do really like Peer Through Depths so maybe some number of Opt should be peers but that's too much fine tuning for right now.
I think opt is another argument for running fetchless. As always this is conditional on not running Moons. I'm still not sold on it but I'll probably test it some more. Although I really dislike playing the Cascade Bluffs so maybe only 17 lands is the way to go.
I've been playing Caleb Scherer's fetchless list and I'm pretty sure Opt straight replaces Peek. Looking at the opponents hand is decent, and sometimes great. But I think digging to a reducer on turn one is better
Opt is super good, and it definelty doesn't replace sleight of hand. With all these 1 mana cantrips you can double cantrip turn 2 a lot which almost garentees a turn 4 kill!
Opt is super good, and it definelty doesn't replace sleight of hand. With all these 1 mana cantrips you can double cantrip turn 2 a lot which almost garentees a turn 4 kill!
I'm not so sure. a double-cantrip turn 2 means your turn 3 would have to be reducer, EoT ritual, manamorphose, gifts if you want a turn 4 kill. Even with 3 cantrips that's a pretty tight line, and if your opponent has any response to the ritual you're screwed.
Opt is certainly a very powerful card for what we want to do and I think we need to run it, but we'll need to test and see what it's best at replacing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
@Charm Master. I think you missed something. A turn three kill assuming you untap with two lands in play is: Ritual, Ritual, Manamorphose, Reducer, Gifts. If you play a reducer on 3 and manage to untap the next turn all you need is one ritual have the kill.
Professional players are playing peek right now because 1 mana cantrips are so good, and this is 100 times better than that. I finished round one of play testing with opt and the consistency boost was notable. I am with out a doubt going to be playing a list with 12 one mana cantrips once this card is legal! I think others will find the same results when they try this. I will be developing my list with it this weekend.
I see the point but probably peer is not what we should cut. Going up to 11 1-mana cantrips makes it easier to find lands and cost reducers, so i'll cut 1 land (down to 17 once opt will be legal), 1 goblin and 1 remand. Noxious also add redundancy but i see the reason to run peer instead (i just run 1 atm but as you pointed out it's amazing, i hope i can find a place for a second one).
1) Take more than 2 creatures out in any given MU.
2) Not play fetchlands in this deck
Both things seem atrocious for me tbh and I firmly think they are severe mistakes which can only shrink your winning %
I see your point, but in the defense of Caleb Scherer's sb guide against Grixis DS, he says that since they'll more than likely be removing the bears anyways via Push, Terminate, and K-command on the goblin, it is best to eliminate the effectiveness their removal so that we might give them more dead cards in their hand and deck and become a Midrange deck that has "mini" storm-offs: Grapeshot as removal for their guys, and EtW for the final blow. That is essentially how I understood it. Personally haven't started playing the deck in paper yet, but I'm going to be playing it soon, and while I can't personally agree nor say it's a mistake to take out all the bears from the DS matchup, I will be playing the version with fetches and remands though, because I think Blood Moon out of the board is just too strong for the current meta, and the only reason I decided not to play without fetches. I trust Caleb Scherer's sideboard guide since he's had so much success with the deck as it is, though. I really look forward to playing it in paper though, and I'll hopefully be getting some reps in at my LGS as often as possible.
Those arguments about ''blanking'' their removal are invalid just because your main plan post board is empty, and to be able to cast a winning empty you need a creature (that might die on the process, we don't care, we just want mana and storm from it). In fact, the way you should beat DS after board is essentially, after having waited until you have 4 or more lands in play (maybe even 3): creature, ritual, they kill it, empty for 8 at least (usually 10 or 12). I don't care if they kill it, I got my mana in resp and even better, I got storm from their removal!. I NEED the creatures to beat them, I don't mind if they die, they did their job. If you don't play or find creatures, your rituals will always be very bad and it will be very easy for them to know which cards to discard and/or to counter with stubborn denial. You make their decisions super obvious, and that's terrible. The games I usually lose are the ones in which I'm unable to put a creature into play.
Obviously if you just go t2 creature pass, they kill it, t3 creature pass, they kill it, don't expect to win many games. In this MU it's extremely impotant the timing for your spells.
PD: Took a look at that guide and found too many things I don't agree with. I wouldn't recommend it.
Just offering my opinion on the matter, I didn't intend on upsetting you or making you think I was attacking you. Just wanted to give my two cents on the "no bears" post board. I do understand your take on how we should board against GDS, and I'll take your advice for when I start playing and experience the match-up in person. I'll do both and see which I like best and go from there.
I didn't get upset man, no worries, my apologies if my tone sounded like that. I am here to discuss opinions and impressions, and everything I say is my personal opinion ofc. But those points about taking out all the dorks and playing without fetchlands... ugh. I just think you'd be playing a straight worse deck in both cases...
Reasons why I hate texting, difficult to read emotions. To me, taking out the bears makes sense since it gives them dead cards post board. I agree that it worsens our deck in that we won't be able to storm as efficiently, but the intent of that is to give us smaller storms for the post board games, and that makes sense to me. I guess it really just boils down to playstyles and what suits players most effectively and what not, but it could be worth trying out either means of boarding out in the GDS matchup just to try it out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Whoops, missed that. I doubt it's playable at that cost.
RBW Mardu Pyro
X Eldrazi
Pauper:
X Affinity
G Stompy
Edit: Ninja'd
UBRGDredge
Under Construction
WUBAd Nauseam
Probably opt is going to replace peek in the fetchless version i guess
That's pretty much what I was feeling. Going to give a version with Opt in place of Sleight a shot, but I have a feeling it will have a better home in UW/Esper Control than in the fetchland version of storm.
UBRGDredge
Under Construction
WUBAd Nauseam
At most i would cut a single cantrip and play eleven cantrips total.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Could it replace sleight or serum?
Here's my quick list:
8 Reducers
12 Rituals
2 Past in Flames
4 Gifts Ungiven
3 Grapeshot
4 Serum Visions
4 Sleight of Hand
1 Noxious Revival
4 Opt
18 Lands
However I'm not sold on that list. In part 18 lands may be too many. With 12 Cantrips I think we can safely run 17 lands if we wanted to. It would slightly hurt the control matchups where we really need to hit our 4th land drop but it would be a net positive. I do really like Peer Through Depths so maybe some number of Opt should be peers but that's too much fine tuning for right now.
I think opt is another argument for running fetchless. As always this is conditional on not running Moons. I'm still not sold on it but I'll probably test it some more. Although I really dislike playing the Cascade Bluffs so maybe only 17 lands is the way to go.
Modern
I'm not so sure. a double-cantrip turn 2 means your turn 3 would have to be reducer, EoT ritual, manamorphose, gifts if you want a turn 4 kill. Even with 3 cantrips that's a pretty tight line, and if your opponent has any response to the ritual you're screwed.
Opt is certainly a very powerful card for what we want to do and I think we need to run it, but we'll need to test and see what it's best at replacing.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/5qv1yk/mrfrenchys_gifts_storm_guide/
With respect to peek, it allows you to play with perfect info, and I think this is often an underestimated advantage.
I see your point, but in the defense of Caleb Scherer's sb guide against Grixis DS, he says that since they'll more than likely be removing the bears anyways via Push, Terminate, and K-command on the goblin, it is best to eliminate the effectiveness their removal so that we might give them more dead cards in their hand and deck and become a Midrange deck that has "mini" storm-offs: Grapeshot as removal for their guys, and EtW for the final blow. That is essentially how I understood it. Personally haven't started playing the deck in paper yet, but I'm going to be playing it soon, and while I can't personally agree nor say it's a mistake to take out all the bears from the DS matchup, I will be playing the version with fetches and remands though, because I think Blood Moon out of the board is just too strong for the current meta, and the only reason I decided not to play without fetches. I trust Caleb Scherer's sideboard guide since he's had so much success with the deck as it is, though. I really look forward to playing it in paper though, and I'll hopefully be getting some reps in at my LGS as often as possible.
Just offering my opinion on the matter, I didn't intend on upsetting you or making you think I was attacking you. Just wanted to give my two cents on the "no bears" post board. I do understand your take on how we should board against GDS, and I'll take your advice for when I start playing and experience the match-up in person. I'll do both and see which I like best and go from there.
Reasons why I hate texting, difficult to read emotions. To me, taking out the bears makes sense since it gives them dead cards post board. I agree that it worsens our deck in that we won't be able to storm as efficiently, but the intent of that is to give us smaller storms for the post board games, and that makes sense to me. I guess it really just boils down to playstyles and what suits players most effectively and what not, but it could be worth trying out either means of boarding out in the GDS matchup just to try it out.