I'm not really advocating for Counterspell, but Logic Knot already exists and doesn't see much play. Sure, you don't have to pay the Delve costs for Counterspell, but is it really THAT much better than Logic Knot? I think only the esper control deck really plays Logic Knot right now.
Is there really a need to ask that question? Its still not a hard counter. If the opponent has more spare mana than you have cards you are willing to delve, its basically a failed Leak, except you've also emptied your GY. Knot has a natural tension with Snapcaster, and then also with every Delve spell that a control deck may wish to play, such as angler, murderous cut and tasigur.
Logic Knot has another added disadvantage of being soft to GY hate, which people may board in against Snapcasters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
you might be ok with that but there are plenty of decks that do belong and add to the game that wouldn't be around if there was counterspell... the bar is very high as it is...
And the same is true for Thoughtseize, Lightning Bolt, and Path to Exile. How about we ban them all?
The sad thing is I know many players that would like it if those cards were gone. The worse part it that now, it's not even certain they will stay. What if Wizards decides too many decks play Lightning bolt and it warps the format around needing 3 toughness? A few months ago I would have scoffed at the idea. Not anymore. This is precisely why I'm turning all of my tax money set aside for magic (and we're talking gofy set money here) into Force of Will. It's not incredibly popular yet, but I feel it's going to pick up steam and they already proved they aren't against aggressive reprints with Vingolf Series.
"From the perspective of the average player's bank account, Modern is a bad place to be. It combines the most expensive aspects of Standard (rotations), with the most expensive aspect of Legacy (high-cost). It's a format that is really difficult to recommend to new players without a lot of disposable income."
I come from a tabletop wargaming background, if you know anything about that, you know I dont value money.
That said, the above quote doesnt give me the warm and fuzzies about the future of the formats growth.
... Do you need me to send food...? or like blankets or shoes or something...? I know how table top gaming is man. You can get help.
Every deck can play Cavern. I guess you didn't play during Innistrad. Even reanimator decks were running Cavern. Delver and Snapcaster decks got destroyed and the meta was dominated by the Gx midrange decks.
Are you aware that Cavern only works for the creature type you name as you play it, and for any other purpose it will produce 1 colorless and not make the spell un-counterable?
Counterspell being printed will not result in Jund and Zoo decks suddenly running caverns. Tribal decks already run them. Vexing Shusher becoming staple? Sure. But nobody who was not running Caverns before would suddenly run them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Counterspell can take care of any card (beside those which can't be countered). It's true that Thoughtseize is all cath discard too and so is Path to Exile all catch removal but they at least have a drawback by losing a life or giving land to the opponent while Counterspell has no drawback. For 2 mana you can deal with everything without paying anything for it. To make it equal with other card we would then need discard like Thoughtseize but without life loss and all in removal without providing a land to an opponent.
With that said argument that Counterspell trades with (almost) everything in the format is completely legit and it make it questionable reprint for me.
We have Thoughtseize without a "drawback" in Distress, and no one plays it. The life loss is not so much a downside as it is like the spell costing 1+forced phyrexian, except you don't lose the life if the spell is countered.
There is also the inherent downside to counters, in that you have to risk not optimally using your resources in hopes that the opponent presents a good trade. And unlike with TS, you don't know their hand, so a smart opponent can either force a counter suboptimally, or sneak 1-2cmc cards under it and still advance the board state.
TS also protects against ETB Triggers, something Counterspell can't touch. On top of that, there are more "Can't be countered" spells and lands than there are Wilt Leafs.
I can't say for certain that Counterspell would be fine for the format, but I think it is certainly being overplayed in comparison to a card like Thoughtseize, which is insanely powerful, and only weak right now because of the aggressive meta... a meta in which I don't think Counterspell would be all that fantastic either, as trading UU for something like a Goblin Guide or 1cmc pump spell is just not very good.
Counterspell can take care of any card (beside those which can't be countered). It's true that Thoughtseize is all cath discard too and so is Path to Exile all catch removal but they at least have a drawback by losing a life or giving land to the opponent while Counterspell has no drawback. For 2 mana you can deal with everything without paying anything for it. To make it equal with other card we would then need discard like Thoughtseize but without life loss and all in removal without providing a land to an opponent.
With that said argument that Counterspell trades with (almost) everything in the format is completely legit and it make it questionable reprint for me.
We have Thoughtseize without a "drawback" in Distress, and no one plays it. The life loss is not a downside, it is like the spell costing 1+forced phyrexian, except you don't lose the life if the spell is countered.
There is also the inherent downside to counters, in that you have to risk not optimally using your resources in hopes that the opponent presents a good trade. And unlike with TS, you don't know their hand, so a smart opponent can either force a counter suboptimally, or sneak 1-2cmc cards under it and still advance the board state.
TS also protects against ETB Triggers, something Counterspell can't touch. On top of that, there are more "Can't be countered" spells and lands than there are Wilt Leafs.
I can't say for certain that Counterspell would be fine for the format, but I think it is certainly being overplayed in comparison to a card like Thoughtseize, which is insanely powerful, and only weak right now because of the aggressive meta... a meta in which I don't think Counterspell would be all that fantastic either, as trading UU for something like a Goblin Guide or 1cmc pump spell is just not very good.
Did you really just say "the life loss is not a downside"? What are you going to say next, that Steam Vents doesn't have a downside, you're just paying 1 phyrexian mana? Sure, whatever helps you win an argument. "Downside" is used to describe any sort of disadvantage you're taking on, or advantage you're giving in exchange for casting something otherwise too powerful or efficient. It may come in the form of symmetry (Undoing), ramping the opponent (path) or even giving them life (willows). Please don't try to rename it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
This comparison was in response to the idea that, if Thoughtseize was more like Counterspell in it not having a downside, it would be too strong. My point is, if you wanted to trade that 2 life for 1 more cmc, then you could with Distress, and I think most agree that this would be a downgrade.
You have the option to run Thoughtseize without a "downside" and have it cost what Counterspell does. Of course losing life, or paying mana, is a downside. Every use of any resource is a downside. But Thoughtseize's cost is fair, B+2 life is fair, if not undercosted for its effect.
I'm not sure why you think I am trying to win an argument when this was my first post in the thread. Just offering my perspective on how I evaluate the cards with comparison to TS and Counterspell.
Counterspell is a worse Mana Leak for the first few turns and most Modern games are decided early.
Why do you think that control decks will get better with it?
Control lacks good finishers and card advantage engines.
If they print too strong counterspells, every creature deck will start running 3-4 Cavern of Souls (do you remember the Innistrad Standard?) and Control will be bad again...
How every deck would play Caverns? Many decks can't even afford it due to mana base and because they don't rely on creatures of the same type. Cavern of Souls is playable only in decks that run higher amount of creatures with the same creature type (tribal deck) and control already has good game against these decks are can be easily tuned to make it so by running sweepers and other removal, Snapcasters to make even more removal and so on. Furthermore counters are bad against creature deck anyway and you should board them out and bring in more removal (especially in the form of board wipes) instead which makes Cavern of Souls bad.
Counterspells are strong against combo, midrange and control but definitely against creature based decks. With printing good counters you will do nothing but good for aggor decks and push midrange decks even further to the bottom. With that said you don't make anything good but only make things even worse.
Ummm, I dunno about that. First, aggro decks in modern dont need any help, quite the opposite.
Midrange decks would indeed be hard hit by the printing of a UU hard counter, but I would contend that they're currently doing better than Control, and they DO have a lot of value tools to grind with, so control should be able to fight back anyway.
Now that I think on it, snap in this context would then look OP. Oh dear.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Ah so you're trying to say the kife loss isn't a draw back? Have fun casting Thoughtseize against Burn or Zoo or similar deck then. Did you ever ask yourself why IoK is great against Burn but Thoughtseize isn't? I agree life loss isn't so important when you play against slower deck like control or midrange but against fast aggro deck you can't afford to lose life.
I also don't know how do you mean that Thoughtseize protects you from etb trigger abilities while Counterspell doesn't. I mean this isn't true. If creature with etb ability is counters this ability won't trigger unless it requires just casting not play but only a few creatures (Eldrazi) are of that kind.
I would accept Counterspell with drawback but being able to counter anything (ok there are some exceptions but they are not that common) without drawback (Thoughseize or Path to Exile both have it) is too much.
Okay, it is clear that my "downside" comment has been a magnet away from the entire point of my post. Lets ignore that going forward.
If being able to trade a card 1-1 with your opponent for 2 mana without a downside is too strong, then why does no one play Distress?
Thoughtseize does not do what counterspell does. It lets you look at your opponents hand and take away any one card, and it lets you do this on your terms. This is vastly different than passing your turn with no action or perfect information in attempt to trade a card 1-1 without gaining the advantage of perfect information. If the response is that this is fair because Thoughtseize makes you lose 2 life, I would again point you to Distress.
Now, this isn't to ignore that Counterspells in general have the upside over targeted discard of having your opponent use resources on the spell you are getting rid of, and I'm not ignorant to this nor am I trying to skirt it or make the claim that TS is strictly better than Counterspell. I just disagree with the notion that the only reason TS is okay and Counterspell isn't, is the life loss of TS.
That thoughtseize costs 2 life instead of BB makes the card better. As would a card that read: "U: Counter Target Spell. Lose 2 Life". So, its downside really has nothing to do with its power level in comparison to Counterspell, or whether Counterspell would be too powerful in this format.
Also, yes, you are correct with ETB Triggers, I had meant to say Casting Triggers, such as Ulamog's exile trigger. My mistake. But TS does protect against this, where Counterspell does not.
I just find it interesting more than anything. I'd consider myself fairly neutral as to whether Counterspell should be in the format, I just like the discussion and perhaps learning more as to why Reactive may be considered at its core to be more potent/dangerous than Proactive, especially when I often see the opposite cited.
Both have an equal cost, neither has a downside, they both trade 1-1 with any card. One is considered by some to be too powerful for the format, the other sees virtually no play that I am aware of. I think this direction would Bring to Light why one is more dangerous than the other, because now a downside has nothing to do with the equation. The spells are nearly perfect proactive/reactive reflections of each other, and yet their power levels are considered to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.
We are playing standard with a bigger carpool, and between the twin banning and the mission statement article just released, they plan on artificially rotating the format
This is frustrating, the decks we have in tier 1 and tier 2 cost almost as much as a legacy deck did at one point, but they're not safe
I can't recommend a player in standard getting into the format anymore
Modern Masters needs to be released on a more daily basis as well, staples can't sustain these prices, they're too high and they're climbing way too high to be affordable. And when they reprint, let's not make ******* comet storm a mythic rare we find in a 10 dollar pack, ok, Wizards?
Look at these prices though, soon enough, is modern going to be like legacy where we can barely find an LGS with players playing modern?
The big difference between modern and standard is that modern cards still retain value after "Rotation" especially if you are playing a value deck rather then a combo deck. Although it's frustrating if Twin is your favorite deck, at least you can hop on the train of another deck. With standard you have to rebuy in all over again.
Standard decks go from being worth hundreds to being worthless. I understand the frustration but it isn't remotely the same thing for people like me who avoid standard like the plague because it is a money pit.
So this is a bit ominous. The head of magic design thinks that the pro tour is the main reason why modern is broken, and the lack of pro tours as opposed to better answers being teh reason why legacy is able to police itself.
Is he right? (I don't think so. It might contribute a little, but the lack of effective generic answers in modern is definitely the premier cause.)
I don't think he is. Let's suppose the Pro Tour didn't happen. The Eldrazi deck still would have been made. Maybe it would have taken people a little longer (it might not have shown its stuff until the upcoming Grand Prix), but it still would have happened.
This is really just a case of deflecting blame (intentionally or not), and also possibly trying to turn people against the Modern Pro Tour so they don't have their incompetence in managing the format shown on such a large stage again.
Ugh, Maros post (and I love the guy) is an embarrassment. Like only these pro's could possibly think up that deck. Like only because pro's play it, we have this eldrazi filth of a meta.
Get a grip Wizards, its not rocket science here. You print broken cards, this is not news to anyone, and you dont test for Modern.
This has ZERO to do with pro tour focus (meaning those uber elite pro's just break the format, has nothing to do with the cards!) what a joke.
Yeah, his answer is really bad. We all know the deck was on MTGO before the PT. Not the same lists but close enough to dominate. PT just put a spotlight on and accelerated things. The player base can and is able to compete with pro teams deck building ability. It's not for nothing that they stopped publishing all the results from online a while back. They are trying to artificially slow down the meta breaking. Thing is, with modern, it shouldn't make a difference as the meta is supposed to be more stable. His view show how stubborn they are. It's just a bold face lie.
The big difference between modern and standard is that modern cards still retain value after "Rotation" especially if you are playing a value deck rather then a combo deck. Although it's frustrating if Twin is your favorite deck, at least you can hop on the train of another deck. With standard you have to rebuy in all over again.
Standard decks go from being worth hundreds to being worthless. I understand the frustration but it isn't remotely the same thing for people like me who avoid standard like the plague because it is a money pit.
Cards that are banned don't retain their value (look at Splinter Twin) but it's true that unless they got banned will keep their value because they won't rotate out as they do in Standard and some of them has use in Legacy which contribute to their price. You can transform into other deck if your deck is banned (that's not always an option but in many cases you can use staples in other decks unless you played very unique deck and its cards don't see play in other decks). With Twin gone you can still make any URx deck without investing a lot of money, you could do the same if you played Pod and made BGx deck. This is what I like about Modern and the reason I don't like Standard. There's no point in buying into a deck and purchasing a lot of money to do so and when it rotates out its cards lose most of it value.
In the current format you really can't invest into a URx deck. Unless you want to have a bad time. URx non-eldrazi decks became irrelevant with the combination of Eldrazi + Twin ban.
We are playing standard with a bigger carpool, and between the twin banning and the mission statement article just released, they plan on artificially rotating the format
This is frustrating, the decks we have in tier 1 and tier 2 cost almost as much as a legacy deck did at one point, but they're not safe
I can't recommend a player in standard getting into the format anymore
Modern Masters needs to be released on a more daily basis as well, staples can't sustain these prices, they're too high and they're climbing way too high to be affordable. And when they reprint, let's not make ******* comet storm a mythic rare we find in a 10 dollar pack, ok, Wizards?
Look at these prices though, soon enough, is modern going to be like legacy where we can barely find an LGS with players playing modern?
One thing I find frustrating are the speculators that buyout and create a pseudo supply shortages of certain cards. Then when people like me want to actually build and play the game, I can't find anything. Seems to happen alot in Modern. People are leaving the format in droves at my LGS...
Eldrazi is a total oddball and you can't make long term analysis based on it.
It's hands down the best deck in the format and something will be banned from it in 3 months. U/R could very well be completely viable again after that
We are playing standard with a bigger carpool, and between the twin banning and the mission statement article just released, they plan on artificially rotating the format
I can't find this article or mission statement, anyone got a link?
We are playing standard with a bigger carpool, and between the twin banning and the mission statement article just released, they plan on artificially rotating the format
I can't find this article or mission statement, anyone got a link?
We are playing standard with a bigger carpool, and between the twin banning and the mission statement article just released, they plan on artificially rotating the format
I can't find this article or mission statement, anyone got a link?
Here's the article. It's long but well worth it to read.
Every deck can play Cavern. I guess you didn't play during Innistrad. Even reanimator decks were running Cavern. Delver and Snapcaster decks got destroyed and the meta was dominated by the Gx midrange decks.
Were you playing during Innistrad? Because if you were, you'd realize what you just said was completely false. Delver didn't get destroyed; it was still the best deck in the format until rotation. Nor was the meta dominated by Gx midrange decks; Delver was still on top. You're rewriting history.
Every deck can play Cavern. I guess you didn't play during Innistrad. Even reanimator decks were running Cavern. Delver and Snapcaster decks got destroyed and the meta was dominated by the Gx midrange decks.
Were you playing during Innistrad? Because if you were, you'd realize what you just said was completely false. Delver didn't get destroyed; it was still the best deck in the format until rotation. Nor was the meta dominated by Gx midrange decks; Delver was still on top. You're rewriting history.
We have to go back Marty!
Anyway yea what seth said, delver was ridiculous then. You're thinking of when return to ravnica entered the picture and everything was jund with swagtusks all day. Even THEN though cavern wasn't really that popular I felt.
Every deck can play Cavern. I guess you didn't play during Innistrad. Even reanimator decks were running Cavern. Delver and Snapcaster decks got destroyed and the meta was dominated by the Gx midrange decks.
Were you playing during Innistrad? Because if you were, you'd realize what you just said was completely false. Delver didn't get destroyed; it was still the best deck in the format until rotation. Nor was the meta dominated by Gx midrange decks; Delver was still on top. You're rewriting history.
We have to go back Marty!
Anyway yea what seth said, delver was ridiculous then. You're thinking of when return to ravnica entered the picture and everything was jund with swagtusks all day. Even THEN though cavern wasn't really that popular I felt.
*facepalm* You're right, Innistrad was still in the format at that point. I was thinking only about Scars-Innistrad. However, to blame Delver's fall off the face of the format after rotation on Cavern of Souls is ludicrous. Delver fell off not due to Cavern of Souls entering the format (I think the deck may have actually gotten better after Avacyn Restored thanks to Restoration Angel!), but because it lost Mana Leak, Ponder, Vapor Snag, Giraxian Probe, and Gut Shot.
I'm not really advocating for Counterspell, but Logic Knot already exists and doesn't see much play. Sure, you don't have to pay the Delve costs for Counterspell, but is it really THAT much better than Logic Knot? I think only the esper control deck really plays Logic Knot right now.
Is there really a need to ask that question? Its still not a hard counter. If the opponent has more spare mana than you have cards you are willing to delve, its basically a failed Leak, except you've also emptied your GY. Knot has a natural tension with Snapcaster, and then also with every Delve spell that a control deck may wish to play, such as angler, murderous cut and tasigur.
Logic Knot has another added disadvantage of being soft to GY hate, which people may board in against Snapcasters.
Logic Knot is slmost counterspell in fair games of msgic but fails really hard against big mana strats which is where counterspells were traditionally strong. Counterspell will make blue hsve a much easier time vs tron.
I've started rolling store credit at my LGS, went in with Eldrazi and of course beat the first 2 guys, then got paired down against another eldrazi. Split the packs. I beat lantern control, interestingly. I used BW so i was able to side in stony silence and stop the control part. then endbringers pinged him to death across ensnaring bridge.
welp, another 2 weeks of easy FNM wins before the ban, gonna enjoy it until the ban (or until everyone plays eldrazi).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is there really a need to ask that question? Its still not a hard counter. If the opponent has more spare mana than you have cards you are willing to delve, its basically a failed Leak, except you've also emptied your GY. Knot has a natural tension with Snapcaster, and then also with every Delve spell that a control deck may wish to play, such as angler, murderous cut and tasigur.
Logic Knot has another added disadvantage of being soft to GY hate, which people may board in against Snapcasters.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
The sad thing is I know many players that would like it if those cards were gone. The worse part it that now, it's not even certain they will stay. What if Wizards decides too many decks play Lightning bolt and it warps the format around needing 3 toughness? A few months ago I would have scoffed at the idea. Not anymore. This is precisely why I'm turning all of my tax money set aside for magic (and we're talking gofy set money here) into Force of Will. It's not incredibly popular yet, but I feel it's going to pick up steam and they already proved they aren't against aggressive reprints with Vingolf Series.
... Do you need me to send food...? or like blankets or shoes or something...? I know how table top gaming is man. You can get help.
Are you aware that Cavern only works for the creature type you name as you play it, and for any other purpose it will produce 1 colorless and not make the spell un-counterable?
Counterspell being printed will not result in Jund and Zoo decks suddenly running caverns. Tribal decks already run them. Vexing Shusher becoming staple? Sure. But nobody who was not running Caverns before would suddenly run them.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
We have Thoughtseize without a "drawback" in Distress, and no one plays it. The life loss is not so much a downside as it is like the spell costing 1+forced phyrexian, except you don't lose the life if the spell is countered.
There is also the inherent downside to counters, in that you have to risk not optimally using your resources in hopes that the opponent presents a good trade. And unlike with TS, you don't know their hand, so a smart opponent can either force a counter suboptimally, or sneak 1-2cmc cards under it and still advance the board state.
TS also protects against ETB Triggers, something Counterspell can't touch. On top of that, there are more "Can't be countered" spells and lands than there are Wilt Leafs.
I can't say for certain that Counterspell would be fine for the format, but I think it is certainly being overplayed in comparison to a card like Thoughtseize, which is insanely powerful, and only weak right now because of the aggressive meta... a meta in which I don't think Counterspell would be all that fantastic either, as trading UU for something like a Goblin Guide or 1cmc pump spell is just not very good.
Did you really just say "the life loss is not a downside"? What are you going to say next, that Steam Vents doesn't have a downside, you're just paying 1 phyrexian mana? Sure, whatever helps you win an argument. "Downside" is used to describe any sort of disadvantage you're taking on, or advantage you're giving in exchange for casting something otherwise too powerful or efficient. It may come in the form of symmetry (Undoing), ramping the opponent (path) or even giving them life (willows). Please don't try to rename it.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
You have the option to run Thoughtseize without a "downside" and have it cost what Counterspell does. Of course losing life, or paying mana, is a downside. Every use of any resource is a downside. But Thoughtseize's cost is fair, B+2 life is fair, if not undercosted for its effect.
I'm not sure why you think I am trying to win an argument when this was my first post in the thread. Just offering my perspective on how I evaluate the cards with comparison to TS and Counterspell.
Ummm, I dunno about that. First, aggro decks in modern dont need any help, quite the opposite.
Midrange decks would indeed be hard hit by the printing of a UU hard counter, but I would contend that they're currently doing better than Control, and they DO have a lot of value tools to grind with, so control should be able to fight back anyway.
Now that I think on it, snap in this context would then look OP. Oh dear.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Okay, it is clear that my "downside" comment has been a magnet away from the entire point of my post. Lets ignore that going forward.
If being able to trade a card 1-1 with your opponent for 2 mana without a downside is too strong, then why does no one play Distress?
Thoughtseize does not do what counterspell does. It lets you look at your opponents hand and take away any one card, and it lets you do this on your terms. This is vastly different than passing your turn with no action or perfect information in attempt to trade a card 1-1 without gaining the advantage of perfect information. If the response is that this is fair because Thoughtseize makes you lose 2 life, I would again point you to Distress.
Now, this isn't to ignore that Counterspells in general have the upside over targeted discard of having your opponent use resources on the spell you are getting rid of, and I'm not ignorant to this nor am I trying to skirt it or make the claim that TS is strictly better than Counterspell. I just disagree with the notion that the only reason TS is okay and Counterspell isn't, is the life loss of TS.
That thoughtseize costs 2 life instead of BB makes the card better. As would a card that read: "U: Counter Target Spell. Lose 2 Life". So, its downside really has nothing to do with its power level in comparison to Counterspell, or whether Counterspell would be too powerful in this format.
Also, yes, you are correct with ETB Triggers, I had meant to say Casting Triggers, such as Ulamog's exile trigger. My mistake. But TS does protect against this, where Counterspell does not.
What if we just compare Distress and Counterspell?
Both have an equal cost, neither has a downside, they both trade 1-1 with any card. One is considered by some to be too powerful for the format, the other sees virtually no play that I am aware of. I think this direction would Bring to Light why one is more dangerous than the other, because now a downside has nothing to do with the equation. The spells are nearly perfect proactive/reactive reflections of each other, and yet their power levels are considered to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.
We are playing standard with a bigger carpool, and between the twin banning and the mission statement article just released, they plan on artificially rotating the format
This is frustrating, the decks we have in tier 1 and tier 2 cost almost as much as a legacy deck did at one point, but they're not safe
I can't recommend a player in standard getting into the format anymore
Modern Masters needs to be released on a more daily basis as well, staples can't sustain these prices, they're too high and they're climbing way too high to be affordable. And when they reprint, let's not make ******* comet storm a mythic rare we find in a 10 dollar pack, ok, Wizards?
Look at these prices though, soon enough, is modern going to be like legacy where we can barely find an LGS with players playing modern?
Standard decks go from being worth hundreds to being worthless. I understand the frustration but it isn't remotely the same thing for people like me who avoid standard like the plague because it is a money pit.
Yeah, his answer is really bad. We all know the deck was on MTGO before the PT. Not the same lists but close enough to dominate. PT just put a spotlight on and accelerated things. The player base can and is able to compete with pro teams deck building ability. It's not for nothing that they stopped publishing all the results from online a while back. They are trying to artificially slow down the meta breaking. Thing is, with modern, it shouldn't make a difference as the meta is supposed to be more stable. His view show how stubborn they are. It's just a bold face lie.
In the current format you really can't invest into a URx deck. Unless you want to have a bad time. URx non-eldrazi decks became irrelevant with the combination of Eldrazi + Twin ban.
Twitch: gamerchamp
Modern: UGrand Architect, UBTezzeret Control, UBWRG Bridge From Below (Dredge)
Legacy: UWGTrue-Name Bant
It's hands down the best deck in the format and something will be banned from it in 3 months. U/R could very well be completely viable again after that
I can't find this article or mission statement, anyone got a link?
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/the-modern-dilemma
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
Here's the article. It's long but well worth it to read.
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/the-modern-dilemma
We have to go back Marty!
Anyway yea what seth said, delver was ridiculous then. You're thinking of when return to ravnica entered the picture and everything was jund with swagtusks all day. Even THEN though cavern wasn't really that popular I felt.
Logic Knot is slmost counterspell in fair games of msgic but fails really hard against big mana strats which is where counterspells were traditionally strong. Counterspell will make blue hsve a much easier time vs tron.
welp, another 2 weeks of easy FNM wins before the ban, gonna enjoy it until the ban (or until everyone plays eldrazi).
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR