I also don't get the love in this forum for Think Twice over say...Serum Visions. Serum Visions is more likely to help you hit land drops than Think Twice and costs less mana. The single U mana to draw one and scry to is so much better than 5 mana draw two. A scry is often regarded as 1/3 of a card. For Serum Visions you are paying 1 mana for 1 and 2/3 cards compared to TT 5 mana!!! to get an extra 1/3 of a card.
I'm not asking anyone to change their lists. I'm more or less highlighting for those that want to improve deck building and learn more about how jeskai works.
I don't know, the more I play UWR, the more I like that its win condition is actually its removal. In that sense, even AV itself serves as a win condition because a resolved AV often results in a dead opponent who was previously at a safe 12 life or something. I like fun 5-mana cards as much as the next guy, but I think they're at their best when in the sideboard.
It's probably UWr's strongest advantage over the other control color combinations to be able to deal a big chunk of damage through burn alone, but you can't rely solely on burn as a wincon. It is not realistic to expect to deal with whatever your opponent is doing, hit your land drops, and also draw 20 points of burn. Colonnade beats help, but is very mana inefficient and often very risky. You need some other ways to clear out the game.
I do however agree that our avaliable wincons are all lacking. There just is no catch-all big bomb finisher in modern and I feel that generally this is where most lists come to vary.
I also don't get the love in this forum for Think Twice over say...Serum Visions. Serum Visions is more likely to help you hit land drops than Think Twice and costs less mana. The single U mana to draw one and scry to is so much better than 5 mana draw two. A scry is often regarded as 1/3 of a card. For Serum Visions you are paying 1 mana for 1 and 2/3 cards compared to TT 5 mana!!! to get an extra 1/3 of a card.
I'm not asking anyone to change their lists. I'm more or less highlighting for those that want to improve deck building and learn more about how jeskai works.
Think Twice and Serum Visions are not comparable in function. One is card advantage, the other is filtering. We plan on hitting our land drops until turn 6 if not more, which means that if we play against a deck that curves out at 4 we are two spells down. Serum Visions is good when you can quickly stop drawing lands and just push spells to the top, but control decks need both spells and lands and for that, you need card advantage. That does not mean you can't play Serum Visions in a control deck (filtering is good for us too) but the effect of SV and TT are not really comparable.
It's probably UWr's strongest advantage over the other control color combinations to be able to deal a big chunk of damage through burn alone, but you can't rely solely on burn as a wincon. It is not realistic to expect to deal with whatever your opponent is doing, hit your land drops, and also draw 20 points of burn. Colonnade beats help, but is very mana inefficient and often very risky. You need some other ways to clear out the game.
I do however agree that our avaliable wincons are all lacking. There just is no catch-all big bomb finisher in modern and I feel that generally this is where most lists come to vary.
I also don't get the love in this forum for Think Twice over say...Serum Visions. Serum Visions is more likely to help you hit land drops than Think Twice and costs less mana. The single U mana to draw one and scry to is so much better than 5 mana draw two. A scry is often regarded as 1/3 of a card. For Serum Visions you are paying 1 mana for 1 and 2/3 cards compared to TT 5 mana!!! to get an extra 1/3 of a card.
I'm not asking anyone to change their lists. I'm more or less highlighting for those that want to improve deck building and learn more about how jeskai works.
Think Twice and Serum Visions are not comparable in function. One is card advantage, the other is filtering. We plan on hitting our land drops until turn 6 if not more, which means that if we play against a deck that curves out at 4 we are two spells down. Serum Visions is good when you can quickly stop drawing lands and just push spells to the top, but control decks need both spells and lands and for that, you need card advantage. That does not mean you can't play Serum Visions in a control deck (filtering is good for us too) but the effect of SV and TT are not really comparable.
I think they are very comparable. As I already said scry (mathematically is about 1/3 of a card. SV gives you 1 2/3 cards for 1 mana. TT is only giving you an extra 1/3 of a card for 4 extra mana. This is not where you want to be in Modern and I think this is shown pretty clearly in the fact that TT isn't a played card. AV can also draw you into whatever you need for one mana. Card quality gets you lands, or spells whatever is relevant at the time. Sometimes the "card advantage" of TT is worthless as you just paid 5 mana to draw 2 worthless lands, or spells you can't cast instead of just clearing the top three cards for what you need right away.
Sphinx's Revelation IS significantly worse than Ancestral Vision. One is currently not a competitive card and the other is a returning format defining draw spell. If you are firing it off on average for less than 8 mana you just aren't getting a long-term good deal. Ingenuity is always 5 mana for 3 cards (REV is 6 mana for that), Opportunity is always 6 mana for 4 cards (REV is always 7 for that effect). Sure you get a few life points but drawing a clunky spell like this isn't a way to win in modern. REV is at it's best against the midrange decks but AV already is the card that was needed to make those match-ups manageable. You don't need to put an often inefficient and/or dead card in your deck just so that it can occasionally shine against an occasional matchup that you already have good chances in.
There is close to no reason to run cards like Think Twice in modern when we have Remand/electrolyze and Serum Visions. All three of those cards just do better and more efficiently. Against what decks are you sitting back to pay 5 mana to draw 2 cards? Control? It's unnecessary.
I see a lot of really questionable reasons for people running "pet cards" right now in Jeskai and this is one of the main reasons our archtype isn't making as much headway as it could. "Why are you running cards like Gideon and Keranos?" Just because they are pet cards you have ran for a long time. There is no objective reason why they are justified in this meta, same with Rev, Think Twice and a host of other sacred cows that people jam into every deck they put together.
I disagree. First, Rev is better than the cards you mentioned for two reasons: 1) life gain CAN be relevant (though you dismiss it lightly.) Getting 3 life is often the difference between winning or loosing. I've won plenty games at 3 or less life, after casting rev for 4. The life IS relevant. 2) Its true that TT give you 2 card at 5 mana (horribly inefficient). But you fail to factor in the flexibility. Getting a cantrip for 2 mana, and then, later in the game, when you have excess mana but nothing impactful to do with that mana, flashing back the card for an extra card, is a good deal. While remand/lyze/visions serve the "early cantrip purpose", they don't fill the velocity role of giving you a card later in the game. In a sense, TT is a "late game mana dump". That's the appeal. I respect that you don't want to run the card, or you don't think that TT is maindeck worthy, but I think that there ARE logical reasons to run the card. Its more than a case of "i run it because its my pet card".
Sphinx's Revelation IS significantly worse than Ancestral Vision. One is currently not a competitive card and the other is a returning format defining draw spell. If you are firing it off on average for less than 8 mana you just aren't getting a long-term good deal. Ingenuity is always 5 mana for 3 cards (REV is 6 mana for that), Opportunity is always 6 mana for 4 cards (REV is always 7 for that effect). Sure you get a few life points but drawing a clunky spell like this isn't a way to win in modern. REV is at it's best against the midrange decks but AV already is the card that was needed to make those match-ups manageable. You don't need to put an often inefficient and/or dead card in your deck just so that it can occasionally shine against an occasional matchup that you already have good chances in.
There is close to no reason to run cards like Think Twice in modern when we have Remand/electrolyze and Serum Visions. All three of those cards just do better and more efficiently. Against what decks are you sitting back to pay 5 mana to draw 2 cards? Control? It's unnecessary.
I see a lot of really questionable reasons for people running "pet cards" right now in Jeskai and this is one of the main reasons our archtype isn't making as much headway as it could. "Why are you running cards like Gideon and Keranos?" Just because they are pet cards you have ran for a long time. There is no objective reason why they are justified in this meta, same with Rev, Think Twice and a host of other sacred cows that people jam into every deck they put together.
I disagree. First, Rev is better than the cards you mentioned for two reasons: 1) life gain CAN be relevant (though you dismiss it lightly.) Getting 3 life is often the difference between winning or loosing. I've won plenty games at 3 or less life, after casting rev for 4. The life IS relevant. 2) Its true that TT give you 2 card at 5 mana (horribly inefficient). But you fail to factor in the flexibility. Getting a cantrip for 2 mana, and then, later in the game, when you have excess mana but nothing impactful to do with that mana, flashing back the card for an extra card, is a good deal. While remand/lyze/visions serve the "early cantrip purpose", they don't fill the velocity role of giving you a card later in the game. In a sense, TT is a "late game mana dump". That's the appeal. I respect that you don't want to run the card, or you don't think that TT is maindeck worthy, but I think that there ARE logical reasons to run the card. Its more than a case of "i run it because its my pet card".
I understand what you're saying. Yes sometimes life gain matters but that actually doesn't justify the card here. I could run maindeck healing salve and then site that it kept me alive in many games but does that mean it was an optimal choice? No, of course not. It was a pet card based on a way I liked to play the game, not based on the optimal deck. I LOVE playing S REV, but it does take a backseat when stronger choices become available.
I tend to have more success at competitive tournaments running some variant of UWR (control, geist, and even delver). I have been dabbling with UW Thopter and UW control, but I decided to go back to my comfort zone for yesterday's States competition (94 participants). I decided to give a a flash variant with a couple of Kiki-jiki, Mirror Breaker a whirl and .... I Won! My list had no Ancestral Vision, but I don't think that card is necessary depending on your build. If y'all are interested, I can write up a play-by-play from the tournament or maybe just provide a decklist (though I imagine it will be up on the SCG website within the next couple days).
Also, I'll jump in on the card draw discussion. I feel like the addition of AV has made the inclusion of Sphinx's Revelation in lists a little unnecessary. I can see it being good, but sometimes it's just far too slow or the mana investment is too much (it can be hard to find a spot for it). The lifegain DOES matter, but in the matchups where lifegain is most important, like burn, I still don't feel like that's a good card. If your meta has gone all in on punishing AV (with redirect effects or processors), then I could see reverting back to a rev plan. I've never been much of fan of serum visions, but I think it's serviceable. I feel like I'd rather opt for the raw power of AV or the flexibility of Think Twice in most builds.
It's probably UWr's strongest advantage over the other control color combinations to be able to deal a big chunk of damage through burn alone, but you can't rely solely on burn as a wincon. It is not realistic to expect to deal with whatever your opponent is doing, hit your land drops, and also draw 20 points of burn. Colonnade beats help, but is very mana inefficient and often very risky. You need some other ways to clear out the game.
I do however agree that our avaliable wincons are all lacking. There just is no catch-all big bomb finisher in modern and I feel that generally this is where most lists come to vary.
I also don't get the love in this forum for Think Twice over say...Serum Visions. Serum Visions is more likely to help you hit land drops than Think Twice and costs less mana. The single U mana to draw one and scry to is so much better than 5 mana draw two. A scry is often regarded as 1/3 of a card. For Serum Visions you are paying 1 mana for 1 and 2/3 cards compared to TT 5 mana!!! to get an extra 1/3 of a card.
I'm not asking anyone to change their lists. I'm more or less highlighting for those that want to improve deck building and learn more about how jeskai works.
Think Twice and Serum Visions are not comparable in function. One is card advantage, the other is filtering. We plan on hitting our land drops until turn 6 if not more, which means that if we play against a deck that curves out at 4 we are two spells down. Serum Visions is good when you can quickly stop drawing lands and just push spells to the top, but control decks need both spells and lands and for that, you need card advantage. That does not mean you can't play Serum Visions in a control deck (filtering is good for us too) but the effect of SV and TT are not really comparable.
I think they are very comparable. As I already said scry (mathematically is about 1/3 of a card. SV gives you 1 2/3 cards for 1 mana. TT is only giving you an extra 1/3 of a card for 4 extra mana. This is not where you want to be in Modern and I think this is shown pretty clearly in the fact that TT isn't a played card. AV can also draw you into whatever you need for one mana. Card quality gets you lands, or spells whatever is relevant at the time. Sometimes the "card advantage" of TT is worthless as you just paid 5 mana to draw 2 worthless lands, or spells you can't cast instead of just clearing the top three cards for what you need right away.
There is no such thing as drawing thirds of cards. You draw one, two, or zero. Your analogy does not hold up when talking about card advantage.
And Think Twice has been a played card for as long as it has existed, both in modern and before that. You could argue that AV makes it irrelevant now, but replacing it with Serum Visions is incorrect.
Sphinx's Revelation has been in nearly every list that has placed in recent events. I'm not saying results are the only thing that determine if a card is good or not, but it can't be everyone's pet card. Rev provides you with the ability to use all that mana that Ancestral Vision and other CA spells drew us into. It is a win-con that closes out games and drowns opponent's in card advantage. The fact that other spells are more efficient at 5 mana is irrelevant because its flexibility and its ability to literally end the game when you have 8+ mana is great and unless you're under extreme pressure, you shouldn't feel like you have to pop it at 5 mana. It is a finisher, similar to Elspeth, Sun's Champion in that it is meant to be used in the late-game and is of course not very strong in your opening hand. I wouldn't run it BECAUSE of the lifegain but that is definitely nice upside.
I also wouldn't run more than 1 in any list right now, but Rev alongside another type of finisher is a great game plan that allows you to attack the game from two different angles depending on the match-up. Sometimes card advantage wins games and sometimes a resolved planeswalker will. Either way, I think you are highly underestimating the strength of the card. Games do get to the late-game in this format and having a card that, when resolved in the late game, almost always wins you the game is a great tool for control. With that said, I think it is a card best suited for hard-control lists running 26+ lands and minimal creatures or running the Thopter Combo where drawing into combo pieces can be relevant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out some Magic Gameplay and Commentary videos here, including Modern Grixis, Jeskai, and Esper videos as well as some Standard and Drafts too: My YouTube Channel!
I guess I didn't expect Sphinx's Revelation to be the card that we were debating in this thread after posting my list.
As far as I'm concerned, Revelation is immutable in this archetype. There are too many decks out there that are fair creature decks to some description (Chord/Company decks, GBx, Zoo), and they simply cannot beat a Revelation resolved for 4 or 5. Sure, Ancestral Vision is a more efficient card drawing engine, but Revelation provides the cards here and now and is a far better topdeck than AV. I'm comfortable with one maindeck as a psuedo wincon instead of running any of the 5/6 mana wincons established by this thread as viable. If it's a MU where Rev is a liability or you draw it early, just fire it off for x=1 and earmark a Snappy for it later. If you draw it lategame against another blue deck and manage to resolve it, then voila you've won the game.
The fact that it can draw MORE than three cards at a time and puts the cards in in hand immediately still merits its inclusion in decklists IMO, though I agree that one is the number for now, not two as it was in the past.
There is no such thing as drawing thirds of cards. You draw one, two, or zero. Your analogy does not hold up when talking about card advantage.
And Think Twice has been a played card for as long as it has existed, both in modern and before that. You could argue that AV makes it irrelevant now, but replacing it with Serum Visions is incorrect.
I haven't been keeping up with the discussion, but I wanted to chime in on this.
While you are not literally drawing a fraction of a card; effects that allow you to manipulate your deck through selection or thinning improve the functional value of the card on top of your deck. This is sometimes put in the class of things referred to as virtual card advantage, but naming it isn't the point.
If you use a scry effect and remove a card you definitely did not want to see; then that equates on some level to just drawing an extra card. Hence using fractions.
I think these discussions are sort of devolving around particular card choices like how many AVs, TT, SV, Revs, etc we are running it is largely relative to the metagame you expecting to face.
The slow nature of TT, AV, and Rev do very little when matched up against super aggressive/fast decks. Wasting your time spending 2 mana do nothing, or waiting to spend 5+ mana to gain 2ish life and 2ish cards is just...bad.
If you are expecting more midrange to control then adding in tools like TT or Rev are great.
I'm of the mindset that I want to be better at destroying fast decks, and sideboard against the grindy matchups; however it can go either way.
Also I just wanted to point out that card advantage, in whatever form, is not a win-con. Win-con refers to the literal set of cards that win you the game, either through combat, combo, whatever. The only time Rev was ever a win-con is when UW control in standard used Elixir of Immortality to loop it and functionally deck their opponent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Yes, I get the analogy of drawing half a card with filtering. It does not hold up when you need to actually draw more cards than your opponent however.
Super simplified gameplan of control:
1. you need to answer your opponent's cards.
2. control wants land drops until turn 6 or higher
3: opposing deck curves out at 4 or lower
4: ignoring play/draw/mull, each player starts off at 7 cards and draws one every turn
5: by turn 6, the control deck has ideally drawn 6 lands and 6 spells
6: by turn 6, the opposing deck has ideally drawn 4 lands and 8 spells
QED the control deck can not perform a gameplan solely relying on 1 for 1ing as it will end up with too few cards due to drawing more lands.
This is not a conceptual problem; if control solely 1 for 1s it will end up with physically less cards in hand as control decks aim to get more land drops. Filtering does not fix this; playing 3 Serum Visions at "a third of a card advantage" does not produce an actual physical card. That is the difference between Serum Visions and Think Twice and how they differ in function
I don't even know why I'm trying to explain all this when I play neither Serum Visions nor Think Twice in my list, lol.
I think a major point to be made here about virtual card advantage is that this only works if the top cards of your library are cards you don't want.
Maybe you can say "Oh I got rid of the land off the top with serum visions, so its basically like drawing a card since a land isn't as good as a bolt".
While thats true, I wanted that land. I want to cast my verdict on time. I want to cast my rev a bit bigger. I want to hit with colonnade earlier. But I don't want to bottom the bolt so I can draw the lands, I just want to draw as many cards as I can. And if I've got the mana to pay for that, think twice is an awful lot better than serum visions. A serum visions where you scry, and put it back as it was because you like what you see isn't really very much card advantage.
Yes, I get the analogy of drawing half a card with filtering. It does not hold up when you need to actually draw more cards than your opponent however.
Super simplified gameplan of control:
1. you need to answer your opponent's cards.
2. control wants land drops until turn 6 or higher
3: opposing deck curves out at 4 or lower
4: ignoring play/draw/mull, each player starts off at 7 cards and draws one every turn
5: by turn 6, the control deck has ideally drawn 6 lands and 6 spells
6: by turn 6, the opposing deck has ideally drawn 4 lands and 8 spells
QED the control deck can not perform a gameplan solely relying on 1 for 1ing as it will end up with too few cards due to drawing more lands.
This is not a conceptual problem; if control solely 1 for 1s it will end up with physically less cards in hand as control decks aim to get more land drops. Filtering does not fix this; playing 3 Serum Visions at "a third of a card advantage" does not produce an actual physical card. That is the difference between Serum Visions and Think Twice and how they differ in function
I don't even know why I'm trying to explain all this when I play neither Serum Visions nor Think Twice in my list, lol.
I get your point, and I am not saying that these more uber controlling versions of the deck don't want raw card draw. However your gameplan doesn't take into consideration mana efficiency, which usually equates to time. Which is why AV has been such a boon for us, because it circumvents the problem.
The mana investment required by TT means you aren't taking advantage of it until you are pretty much stable anyways. Which is when control decks begin to pull away. SV lets you look for an answer that you might need, or a land drop to make sure you stay on track into the lategame.
We also stay ahead on action cards in hand by 2-for-1's (or better), and disrupting key components of the opponents gameplan (counter/killing their key creature, etc).
I don't think its worthwhile to go through the iterations of when Serum Visions removes a certain card from the top of your deck (or doesn't). I rather just note that the scry effect from SV is worth some non-zero amount of a card.
I personally almost always consider a utility cantip a better choice than adding TT's on top of 4 AVs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Yes, I get the analogy of drawing half a card with filtering. It does not hold up when you need to actually draw more cards than your opponent however.
Super simplified gameplan of control:
1. you need to answer your opponent's cards.
2. control wants land drops until turn 6 or higher
3: opposing deck curves out at 4 or lower
4: ignoring play/draw/mull, each player starts off at 7 cards and draws one every turn
5: by turn 6, the control deck has ideally drawn 6 lands and 6 spells
6: by turn 6, the opposing deck has ideally drawn 4 lands and 8 spells
QED the control deck can not perform a gameplan solely relying on 1 for 1ing as it will end up with too few cards due to drawing more lands.
This is not a conceptual problem; if control solely 1 for 1s it will end up with physically less cards in hand as control decks aim to get more land drops. Filtering does not fix this; playing 3 Serum Visions at "a third of a card advantage" does not produce an actual physical card. That is the difference between Serum Visions and Think Twice and how they differ in function
I don't even know why I'm trying to explain all this when I play neither Serum Visions nor Think Twice in my list, lol.
I get your point, and I am not saying that these more uber controlling versions of the deck don't want raw card draw. However your gameplan doesn't take into consideration mana efficiency, which usually equates to time. Which is why AV has been such a boon for us, because it circumvents the problem.
The mana investment required by TT means you aren't taking advantage of it until you are pretty much stable anyways. Which is when control decks begin to pull away. SV lets you look for an answer that you might need, or a land drop to make sure you stay on track into the lategame.
We also stay ahead on action cards in hand by 2-for-1's (or better), and disrupting key components of the opponents gameplan (counter/killing their key creature, etc).
I don't think its worthwhile to go through the iterations of when Serum Visions removes a certain card from the top of your deck (or doesn't). I rather just note that the scry effect from SV is worth some non-zero amount of a card.
I personally almost always consider a utility cantip a better choice than adding TT's on top of 4 AVs.
You're completly ignoring the difference in speed and flexibility that Think Twice allows. I'm not even sure why this has to be stated, but how good does it feel to be tapping down on your turn early in a game against Burn, Zoo or Affinity? I'm not saying it's awful, but the ridiculous prevalence of aggro currently has me even shying away from Ancestral Vision because it's largely a dead card in those matchups and it's really slow.
You're completly ignoring the difference in speed and flexibility that Think Twice allows. I'm not even sure why this has to be stated, but how good does it feel to be tapping down on your turn early in a game against Burn, Zoo or Affinity? I'm not saying it's awful, but the ridiculous prevalence of aggro currently has me even shying away from Ancestral Vision because it's largely a dead card in those matchups and it's really slow.
I agree that AV isn't the best against decks like burn, infect, or affinity. However Think Twice is worse. If you have 5 mana to spend over multiple turns before turn 4+ then you are probably losing. Even though it is instant speed, finding a spot to just spend 2 mana eot means you didn't answer something your opponent presented.
Ideally you don't want either in those matchups.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
You're completly ignoring the difference in speed and flexibility that Think Twice allows. I'm not even sure why this has to be stated, but how good does it feel to be tapping down on your turn early in a game against Burn, Zoo or Affinity? I'm not saying it's awful, but the ridiculous prevalence of aggro currently has me even shying away from Ancestral Vision because it's largely a dead card in those matchups and it's really slow.
I agree that AV isn't the best against decks like burn, infect, or affinity. However Think Twice is worse. If you have 5 mana to spend over multiple turns before turn 4+ then you are probably losing. Even though it is instant speed, finding a spot to just spend 2 mana eot means you didn't answer something your opponent presented.
Ideally you don't want either in those matchups.
It means you get to hold up mana to answer threats or dig a card on a turn. The important word there is "or." There is no way Think Twice is worse than Ancestral Vision or Serum Visions in that spot. The point is that you have options instead of having to force a spell on your turn and hope you "get there."
It means you get to hold up mana to answer threats or dig a card on a turn. The important word there is "or." There is no way Think Twice is worse than Ancestral Vision or Serum Visions in that spot. The point is that you have options instead of having to force a spell on your turn and hope you "get there."
If you are cool running 4 AV + some number of Think Twice, then that's up to you. If you want to replace AV with TT, then you concede raw power for potential flexibility then thats fine too. TT has never been a 3-4 of in jeskai control for a reason.
I prefer not to assume I just have the answers I need in hand, which makes the choice irrelevant since you don't get the extra card until you invest the 3 mana for the back half. Until then Think Twice could be literally any other spell card in your deck and be more effective.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
On a different note, what are everyone's thoughts on the ideal 2-mana counter of choice? I'm looking through mtgtop8 and SCG lists and most of the lists, even if they're hard control without any combo, are running 4 Remand instead of Mana Leak or Logic Knot. I'm currently on a 3-1 split between Mana Leak and Logic Knot with 3 Spell Snare and 2 Cryptic Command, but would those slots be more useful as Remand, then a higher number of Cryptic Command as well so we have a better reason to delay the game for a turn? Generally curious as to what everyone's thoughts are on the issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out some Magic Gameplay and Commentary videos here, including Modern Grixis, Jeskai, and Esper videos as well as some Standard and Drafts too: My YouTube Channel!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not asking anyone to change their lists. I'm more or less highlighting for those that want to improve deck building and learn more about how jeskai works.
You are absolutely correct.
I do however agree that our avaliable wincons are all lacking. There just is no catch-all big bomb finisher in modern and I feel that generally this is where most lists come to vary.
Think Twice and Serum Visions are not comparable in function. One is card advantage, the other is filtering. We plan on hitting our land drops until turn 6 if not more, which means that if we play against a deck that curves out at 4 we are two spells down. Serum Visions is good when you can quickly stop drawing lands and just push spells to the top, but control decks need both spells and lands and for that, you need card advantage. That does not mean you can't play Serum Visions in a control deck (filtering is good for us too) but the effect of SV and TT are not really comparable.
I think they are very comparable. As I already said scry (mathematically is about 1/3 of a card. SV gives you 1 2/3 cards for 1 mana. TT is only giving you an extra 1/3 of a card for 4 extra mana. This is not where you want to be in Modern and I think this is shown pretty clearly in the fact that TT isn't a played card. AV can also draw you into whatever you need for one mana. Card quality gets you lands, or spells whatever is relevant at the time. Sometimes the "card advantage" of TT is worthless as you just paid 5 mana to draw 2 worthless lands, or spells you can't cast instead of just clearing the top three cards for what you need right away.
I disagree. First, Rev is better than the cards you mentioned for two reasons: 1) life gain CAN be relevant (though you dismiss it lightly.) Getting 3 life is often the difference between winning or loosing. I've won plenty games at 3 or less life, after casting rev for 4. The life IS relevant. 2) Its true that TT give you 2 card at 5 mana (horribly inefficient). But you fail to factor in the flexibility. Getting a cantrip for 2 mana, and then, later in the game, when you have excess mana but nothing impactful to do with that mana, flashing back the card for an extra card, is a good deal. While remand/lyze/visions serve the "early cantrip purpose", they don't fill the velocity role of giving you a card later in the game. In a sense, TT is a "late game mana dump". That's the appeal. I respect that you don't want to run the card, or you don't think that TT is maindeck worthy, but I think that there ARE logical reasons to run the card. Its more than a case of "i run it because its my pet card".
I understand what you're saying. Yes sometimes life gain matters but that actually doesn't justify the card here. I could run maindeck healing salve and then site that it kept me alive in many games but does that mean it was an optimal choice? No, of course not. It was a pet card based on a way I liked to play the game, not based on the optimal deck. I LOVE playing S REV, but it does take a backseat when stronger choices become available.
I tend to have more success at competitive tournaments running some variant of UWR (control, geist, and even delver). I have been dabbling with UW Thopter and UW control, but I decided to go back to my comfort zone for yesterday's States competition (94 participants). I decided to give a a flash variant with a couple of Kiki-jiki, Mirror Breaker a whirl and .... I Won! My list had no Ancestral Vision, but I don't think that card is necessary depending on your build. If y'all are interested, I can write up a play-by-play from the tournament or maybe just provide a decklist (though I imagine it will be up on the SCG website within the next couple days).
Also, I'll jump in on the card draw discussion. I feel like the addition of AV has made the inclusion of Sphinx's Revelation in lists a little unnecessary. I can see it being good, but sometimes it's just far too slow or the mana investment is too much (it can be hard to find a spot for it). The lifegain DOES matter, but in the matchups where lifegain is most important, like burn, I still don't feel like that's a good card. If your meta has gone all in on punishing AV (with redirect effects or processors), then I could see reverting back to a rev plan. I've never been much of fan of serum visions, but I think it's serviceable. I feel like I'd rather opt for the raw power of AV or the flexibility of Think Twice in most builds.
There is no such thing as drawing thirds of cards. You draw one, two, or zero. Your analogy does not hold up when talking about card advantage.
And Think Twice has been a played card for as long as it has existed, both in modern and before that. You could argue that AV makes it irrelevant now, but replacing it with Serum Visions is incorrect.
I also wouldn't run more than 1 in any list right now, but Rev alongside another type of finisher is a great game plan that allows you to attack the game from two different angles depending on the match-up. Sometimes card advantage wins games and sometimes a resolved planeswalker will. Either way, I think you are highly underestimating the strength of the card. Games do get to the late-game in this format and having a card that, when resolved in the late game, almost always wins you the game is a great tool for control. With that said, I think it is a card best suited for hard-control lists running 26+ lands and minimal creatures or running the Thopter Combo where drawing into combo pieces can be relevant.
As far as I'm concerned, Revelation is immutable in this archetype. There are too many decks out there that are fair creature decks to some description (Chord/Company decks, GBx, Zoo), and they simply cannot beat a Revelation resolved for 4 or 5. Sure, Ancestral Vision is a more efficient card drawing engine, but Revelation provides the cards here and now and is a far better topdeck than AV. I'm comfortable with one maindeck as a psuedo wincon instead of running any of the 5/6 mana wincons established by this thread as viable. If it's a MU where Rev is a liability or you draw it early, just fire it off for x=1 and earmark a Snappy for it later. If you draw it lategame against another blue deck and manage to resolve it, then voila you've won the game.
The fact that it can draw MORE than three cards at a time and puts the cards in in hand immediately still merits its inclusion in decklists IMO, though I agree that one is the number for now, not two as it was in the past.
I haven't been keeping up with the discussion, but I wanted to chime in on this.
While you are not literally drawing a fraction of a card; effects that allow you to manipulate your deck through selection or thinning improve the functional value of the card on top of your deck. This is sometimes put in the class of things referred to as virtual card advantage, but naming it isn't the point.
If you use a scry effect and remove a card you definitely did not want to see; then that equates on some level to just drawing an extra card. Hence using fractions.
I think these discussions are sort of devolving around particular card choices like how many AVs, TT, SV, Revs, etc we are running it is largely relative to the metagame you expecting to face.
The slow nature of TT, AV, and Rev do very little when matched up against super aggressive/fast decks. Wasting your time spending 2 mana do nothing, or waiting to spend 5+ mana to gain 2ish life and 2ish cards is just...bad.
If you are expecting more midrange to control then adding in tools like TT or Rev are great.
I'm of the mindset that I want to be better at destroying fast decks, and sideboard against the grindy matchups; however it can go either way.
Also I just wanted to point out that card advantage, in whatever form, is not a win-con. Win-con refers to the literal set of cards that win you the game, either through combat, combo, whatever. The only time Rev was ever a win-con is when UW control in standard used Elixir of Immortality to loop it and functionally deck their opponent.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Super simplified gameplan of control:
1. you need to answer your opponent's cards.
2. control wants land drops until turn 6 or higher
3: opposing deck curves out at 4 or lower
4: ignoring play/draw/mull, each player starts off at 7 cards and draws one every turn
5: by turn 6, the control deck has ideally drawn 6 lands and 6 spells
6: by turn 6, the opposing deck has ideally drawn 4 lands and 8 spells
QED the control deck can not perform a gameplan solely relying on 1 for 1ing as it will end up with too few cards due to drawing more lands.
This is not a conceptual problem; if control solely 1 for 1s it will end up with physically less cards in hand as control decks aim to get more land drops. Filtering does not fix this; playing 3 Serum Visions at "a third of a card advantage" does not produce an actual physical card. That is the difference between Serum Visions and Think Twice and how they differ in function
I don't even know why I'm trying to explain all this when I play neither Serum Visions nor Think Twice in my list, lol.
Maybe you can say "Oh I got rid of the land off the top with serum visions, so its basically like drawing a card since a land isn't as good as a bolt".
While thats true, I wanted that land. I want to cast my verdict on time. I want to cast my rev a bit bigger. I want to hit with colonnade earlier. But I don't want to bottom the bolt so I can draw the lands, I just want to draw as many cards as I can. And if I've got the mana to pay for that, think twice is an awful lot better than serum visions. A serum visions where you scry, and put it back as it was because you like what you see isn't really very much card advantage.
I get your point, and I am not saying that these more uber controlling versions of the deck don't want raw card draw. However your gameplan doesn't take into consideration mana efficiency, which usually equates to time. Which is why AV has been such a boon for us, because it circumvents the problem.
The mana investment required by TT means you aren't taking advantage of it until you are pretty much stable anyways. Which is when control decks begin to pull away. SV lets you look for an answer that you might need, or a land drop to make sure you stay on track into the lategame.
We also stay ahead on action cards in hand by 2-for-1's (or better), and disrupting key components of the opponents gameplan (counter/killing their key creature, etc).
I don't think its worthwhile to go through the iterations of when Serum Visions removes a certain card from the top of your deck (or doesn't). I rather just note that the scry effect from SV is worth some non-zero amount of a card.
I personally almost always consider a utility cantip a better choice than adding TT's on top of 4 AVs.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)You're completly ignoring the difference in speed and flexibility that Think Twice allows. I'm not even sure why this has to be stated, but how good does it feel to be tapping down on your turn early in a game against Burn, Zoo or Affinity? I'm not saying it's awful, but the ridiculous prevalence of aggro currently has me even shying away from Ancestral Vision because it's largely a dead card in those matchups and it's really slow.
I agree that AV isn't the best against decks like burn, infect, or affinity. However Think Twice is worse. If you have 5 mana to spend over multiple turns before turn 4+ then you are probably losing. Even though it is instant speed, finding a spot to just spend 2 mana eot means you didn't answer something your opponent presented.
Ideally you don't want either in those matchups.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It means you get to hold up mana to answer threats or dig a card on a turn. The important word there is "or." There is no way Think Twice is worse than Ancestral Vision or Serum Visions in that spot. The point is that you have options instead of having to force a spell on your turn and hope you "get there."
If you are cool running 4 AV + some number of Think Twice, then that's up to you. If you want to replace AV with TT, then you concede raw power for potential flexibility then thats fine too. TT has never been a 3-4 of in jeskai control for a reason.
I prefer not to assume I just have the answers I need in hand, which makes the choice irrelevant since you don't get the extra card until you invest the 3 mana for the back half. Until then Think Twice could be literally any other spell card in your deck and be more effective.
We will have to agree to disagree.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)