Usually our lists must be tuned for the meta we expect and thus we see diversity. It's laughable really to expect people to gravitate towards a single list and act as if there's a list out there that's miles better than others.
Lists don't need to be miles better than others nor did I ever use that phrase. The plan is not very good at what it wants to do. As was already suggested a couple posts up. There are other more flexible cards that do the job better than these.
Goblin Dark-Dwellers: Seems reasonably good with Anger of the Gods or Ancestral Vision, if you can make the play. The combo with Boom // Bust is also there, but I'm not whether it's better than other options (and thus whether GDD is really the right choice in the first place)...
There were also one Jeskai Flash (with Spell Queller and Blade Splicer!) and two Jeskai Aggro decks in the top 32.
Edit: Clarified phrasing.
Could you imagine how well we'd do if people were actually playing with better lists? The reason we don't see higher results (more top 8) is that very few players will go towards a single list. You have a lot of subpar lists out there. The boom/bust plan is comically bad.
In your view, how does that single list look like?
His curve is too high for 23 lands. He has 7 CMC 4+ in his main deck and 2 of them are UUU. After sideboard if you bring in GDD you go up to 9 4+CMC cards at 23 lands and I'm just not optimistic. Maindeck Negate is meh. Also I don't understand the two sulfer falls in this list. I like at least 3 Colonnade though I've been considering more and more whether 4 might just be current and worth building around a bit. And as said I don't like the GDD Boom/Bust nor the Surgical.
But the deck runs lots of good cards like Snapcasters, Nahiri, Ancestral Visions, Serum Visions, etc. and in an aggro meta our type of deck can thrive. I argue we should be seeing MORE good results but with weak lists and less pilots there are just too many versions.
Goblin Dark-Dwellers: Seems reasonably good with Anger of the Gods or Ancestral Vision, if you can make the play. The combo with Boom // Bust is also there, but I'm not whether it's better than other options (and thus whether GDD is really the right choice in the first place)...
There were also one Jeskai Flash (with Spell Queller and Blade Splicer!) and two Jeskai Aggro decks in the top 32.
Edit: Clarified phrasing.
Could you imagine how well we'd do if people were actually playing with better lists? The reason we don't see higher results (more top 8) is that very few players will go towards a single list. You have a lot of subpar lists out there. The boom/bust plan is comically bad.
In your view, how does that single list look like?
His curve is too high for 23 lands. He has 7 CMC 4+ in his main deck and 2 of them are UUU. After sideboard if you bring in GDD you go up to 9 4+CMC cards at 23 lands and I'm just not optimistic. Maindeck Negate is meh. Also I don't understand the two sulfer falls in this list. I like at least 3 Colonnade though I've been considering more and more whether 4 might just be current and worth building around a bit. And as said I don't like the GDD Boom/Bust nor the Surgical.
But the deck runs lots of good cards like Snapcasters, Nahiri, Ancestral Visions, Serum Visions, etc. and in an aggro meta our type of deck can thrive. I argue we should be seeing MORE good results but with weak lists and less pilots there are just too many versions.
I agree 100%. I feel that in a more aggressive meta, Mana Leak will be much stronger than Remand. I have not been fond of Remand recently. Most of the top 8 was pretty aggressive and Mana Leak is strong in all of those matchups (with the exclusion of Cavern of Souls situations against Bant Eldrazi as well as Remand flexibility in blue mirrors [countering your own spells and whatnot]).
@Cody_X
I think 24 lands is the place to be and where I've had most success. I think a combination of Spirebluff Canal and Sulfur Falls warrants some testing, but I am definitely leaning towards 3 Spirebluff and 0 Sulfur Falls right now, due to the fact that we want our mana early game online ASAP and do not want to fumble with weird T1 Colonnade T2 Sulfur Falls starts. I also really like 2x Cryptic right now, and am even testing out a more sweeper heavy version (2 Anger, 1 Verdict) in this aggressive meta.
I think our sideboard should shift to deal with Dredge (if you're not packing at least 2 Rest in Peace, you're doing it wrong) and other aggressive decks, while trying to have game against the decks that like to go bigger than us (Tron, Valakut/Scapeshift). I really like going back to 2x Crumble to Dust in the sideboards, with some other type of incidental hate in our sideboards as well like 2x Stony Silence for Tron/Affinity/Lantern Control, a healthy amount of Negate, cards like Aven Mindcensor that are hard to deal with post-board from those decks, and possibly more aggressive and disruptive tools like more copies of Vendilion Clique and Geist of Saint Traft, and even cards like Molten Rain in more aggressive lists or in combination with Crumble to Dust to facilitate its resolution.
I'm not sure we need to push our sideboard too hard to fight Tron (ideas above are not all necessary in one sideboard) because it could get hated out by opposing aggressive decks which we have a lot of game against already, but going into an open field without any hate feels like a mistake to me.
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!
went 3 and 4 at the Face to Face Open. Not overly happy but I'll talk about it
round 1 lost 0-2 to a Jeskai deck (not really Jeskai Nahiri, since he was only running 2 of her and no Emrakul) but instead was running value cards like torrential gearhulk and resto angel
0-1
round 2 I win 2-1 over Grixis control. Game 1 I win because of the colonnade beatdown. Game 2 he wins with Tasigue and maybe a Kalitas. Game 3 I believe I missed 1 or 2 land drops and he was kind of behind me, because I was on 5 vs his 4. He tried to cast a fulminator mage, which I remand (with another remand backup in case he has dispel, which he didn't). Him having 3 of his 4 lands tapped gives me enough of a reason to drop my Elspeth, which he snap concedes too.
1-1
Round 3 I lose to merfolk in one of the most brutal matches I've had in a while. Game 1 I mull to 5 and just fall way behind. Game 2 I mull to 6 and get stuck on 3 lands, when if I had drawn a 4th earlier I would have been able to supreme verdict
1-2
Round 4 I 2-0 a mono green ponza list. Game 1 wasn't much of a game, I pretty much just killed his dorks and countered his business/ game 2 was more of a game but I just got far ahead.
2-2
round 5 I lose to affinity. Game 1 I couldn't answer an etched champion. Game 2 I value him out. Game 3 I lost to an etched champion
2-3
Round 6 I lost to RG ponza. Game 1 he mulls to 4 and ZI win. Don't remember game 2 but I punted game 3 by trying to race him through a blood moon (I was almost able to hard cast emrakul through it though, can't really justify not exiling the blood moon though)
2-4
Round 7 I win due to opponent no show
3-4
I mean I probably need more reps with the deck and I wanna change my 75 around more
I don't like mixing fastlands with checklands, it can make your land sequencing very awkward. You should be playing either one or the other, not both (and fastlands are better)
Cutting Colonnades I'm also not a fan of, I still win plenty of games thanks to Colonnade blocks and beats
I don't like mixing fastlands with checklands, it can make your land sequencing very awkward. You should be playing either one or the other, not both (and fastlands are better)
Cutting Colonnades I'm also not a fan of, I still win plenty of games thanks to Colonnade blocks and beats
Looking at other decks we rarely see checklands but all seem to run fastlands. I think this seems rudimentary. And I'd much rather have a collonade than a checkland.
If by "cutting Colonnades" we mean going from 4 to 3, that's a move I can support. If it's cutting them altogether, I think that's a mistake. I've closed out several games of late thanks to Colonnade.
Usually our lists must be tuned for the meta we expect and thus we see diversity. It's laughable really to expect people to gravitate towards a single list and act as if there's a list out there that's miles better than others.
Lists don't need to be miles better than others nor did I ever use that phrase. The plan is not very good at what it wants to do. As was already suggested a couple posts up. There are other more flexible cards that do the job better than these.
You're making an impression here as if no other list that is posted is good enough and only you know what's best for this archetype. The bottom line is UWr decks are very flexible and obviously the list we're talking about isn't that bad as it did perform.
I'm actually not, but I am getting quite annoyed that you keep putting words in my mouth (strawman) and then try to attack your strawman. I think certain types of lists are more consistent than others, you are free to think otherwise. That's how this works. I'm not required to agree with a list just because you like it or because it survived some variance to place.
On the number of lands, don't forget that Splinter Twin was perhaps one of the most consistent decks in its day. It ran 23 lands to support 4 Twin, 2 Cryptic main, plus a random echelon of Keranos, Batterskull, Jace, etc out of the board.
Anyway, I run 3 Colonnade and 3 Spirebluff Canal and haven't looked back.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern decks: BGRDredgevineBGR UWRJeskai ControlUWR
Twin was also a (mostly) two-color deck however, and ran the full playset of Remand often with extra cantrips (Electrolyze and/or a singleton Peek)
I'm not saying 23 lands on cryptic is wrong per se because the difference between 23 and 24 lands is marginal, but I do think that it is very greedy and pushing the limits of what you can get away with
Usually our lists must be tuned for the meta we expect and thus we see diversity. It's laughable really to expect people to gravitate towards a single list and act as if there's a list out there that's miles better than others.
Lists don't need to be miles better than others nor did I ever use that phrase. The plan is not very good at what it wants to do. As was already suggested a couple posts up. There are other more flexible cards that do the job better than these.
You're making an impression here as if no other list that is posted is good enough and only you know what's best for this archetype. The bottom line is UWr decks are very flexible and obviously the list we're talking about isn't that bad as it did perform.
I'm actually not, but I am getting quite annoyed that you keep putting words in my mouth (strawman) and then try to attack your strawman. I think certain types of lists are more consistent than others, you are free to think otherwise. That's how this works. I'm not required to agree with a list just because you like it or because it survived some variance to place.
You just said the list was bad, now you're re-phrasing as less consistent even though I presume you didn't even play test it. Maybe I'm strawmanning but that's just because I'm also getting quite annoyed that you just roll in here bash about other lists and put nothing constructive towards your critique. If I remember correctly you stated not so long ago you're annoyed with people's ideas in this thread and in result you'll stop posting. What happened with that?
Just looked back. I can't find anywhere that I said "the list is bad". The only thing I attached bad to was the boom/bust sideboard plan, but for you to AGAIN, misquote me and say that I said the deck is bad is unfortunate. If you have some sort of bone to pick with me I'd appreciate it if you at least would stop misattributing statements and then attacking those statements.
so is it fair to run 2 spirebluff canals over 2 sulfur falls?
I'd say it's just better to play Spirebluff Canal instead of Sulfur Falls. There are some marginal cases where Sulfur Falls might be better, but if you can't make it to turn 3, none of them matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lists don't need to be miles better than others nor did I ever use that phrase. The plan is not very good at what it wants to do. As was already suggested a couple posts up. There are other more flexible cards that do the job better than these.
His curve is too high for 23 lands. He has 7 CMC 4+ in his main deck and 2 of them are UUU. After sideboard if you bring in GDD you go up to 9 4+CMC cards at 23 lands and I'm just not optimistic. Maindeck Negate is meh. Also I don't understand the two sulfer falls in this list. I like at least 3 Colonnade though I've been considering more and more whether 4 might just be current and worth building around a bit. And as said I don't like the GDD Boom/Bust nor the Surgical.
But the deck runs lots of good cards like Snapcasters, Nahiri, Ancestral Visions, Serum Visions, etc. and in an aggro meta our type of deck can thrive. I argue we should be seeing MORE good results but with weak lists and less pilots there are just too many versions.
His curve is too high for 23 lands. He has 7 CMC 4+ in his main deck and 2 of them are UUU. After sideboard if you bring in GDD you go up to 9 4+CMC cards at 23 lands and I'm just not optimistic. Maindeck Negate is meh. Also I don't understand the two sulfer falls in this list. I like at least 3 Colonnade though I've been considering more and more whether 4 might just be current and worth building around a bit. And as said I don't like the GDD Boom/Bust nor the Surgical.
But the deck runs lots of good cards like Snapcasters, Nahiri, Ancestral Visions, Serum Visions, etc. and in an aggro meta our type of deck can thrive. I argue we should be seeing MORE good results but with weak lists and less pilots there are just too many versions.
That all being said, I feel that 24 lands is ideal if you're playing cryptics without cutting down on other expensive cards.
I agree 100%. I feel that in a more aggressive meta, Mana Leak will be much stronger than Remand. I have not been fond of Remand recently. Most of the top 8 was pretty aggressive and Mana Leak is strong in all of those matchups (with the exclusion of Cavern of Souls situations against Bant Eldrazi as well as Remand flexibility in blue mirrors [countering your own spells and whatnot]).
@Cody_X
I think 24 lands is the place to be and where I've had most success. I think a combination of Spirebluff Canal and Sulfur Falls warrants some testing, but I am definitely leaning towards 3 Spirebluff and 0 Sulfur Falls right now, due to the fact that we want our mana early game online ASAP and do not want to fumble with weird T1 Colonnade T2 Sulfur Falls starts. I also really like 2x Cryptic right now, and am even testing out a more sweeper heavy version (2 Anger, 1 Verdict) in this aggressive meta.
I think our sideboard should shift to deal with Dredge (if you're not packing at least 2 Rest in Peace, you're doing it wrong) and other aggressive decks, while trying to have game against the decks that like to go bigger than us (Tron, Valakut/Scapeshift). I really like going back to 2x Crumble to Dust in the sideboards, with some other type of incidental hate in our sideboards as well like 2x Stony Silence for Tron/Affinity/Lantern Control, a healthy amount of Negate, cards like Aven Mindcensor that are hard to deal with post-board from those decks, and possibly more aggressive and disruptive tools like more copies of Vendilion Clique and Geist of Saint Traft, and even cards like Molten Rain in more aggressive lists or in combination with Crumble to Dust to facilitate its resolution.
I'm not sure we need to push our sideboard too hard to fight Tron (ideas above are not all necessary in one sideboard) because it could get hated out by opposing aggressive decks which we have a lot of game against already, but going into an open field without any hate feels like a mistake to me.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staffround 1 lost 0-2 to a Jeskai deck (not really Jeskai Nahiri, since he was only running 2 of her and no Emrakul) but instead was running value cards like torrential gearhulk and resto angel
0-1
round 2 I win 2-1 over Grixis control. Game 1 I win because of the colonnade beatdown. Game 2 he wins with Tasigue and maybe a Kalitas. Game 3 I believe I missed 1 or 2 land drops and he was kind of behind me, because I was on 5 vs his 4. He tried to cast a fulminator mage, which I remand (with another remand backup in case he has dispel, which he didn't). Him having 3 of his 4 lands tapped gives me enough of a reason to drop my Elspeth, which he snap concedes too.
1-1
Round 3 I lose to merfolk in one of the most brutal matches I've had in a while. Game 1 I mull to 5 and just fall way behind. Game 2 I mull to 6 and get stuck on 3 lands, when if I had drawn a 4th earlier I would have been able to supreme verdict
1-2
Round 4 I 2-0 a mono green ponza list. Game 1 wasn't much of a game, I pretty much just killed his dorks and countered his business/ game 2 was more of a game but I just got far ahead.
2-2
round 5 I lose to affinity. Game 1 I couldn't answer an etched champion. Game 2 I value him out. Game 3 I lost to an etched champion
2-3
Round 6 I lost to RG ponza. Game 1 he mulls to 4 and ZI win. Don't remember game 2 but I punted game 3 by trying to race him through a blood moon (I was almost able to hard cast emrakul through it though, can't really justify not exiling the blood moon though)
2-4
Round 7 I win due to opponent no show
3-4
I mean I probably need more reps with the deck and I wanna change my 75 around more
Cutting Colonnades I'm also not a fan of, I still win plenty of games thanks to Colonnade blocks and beats
Looking at other decks we rarely see checklands but all seem to run fastlands. I think this seems rudimentary. And I'd much rather have a collonade than a checkland.
Legacy: Merfolk U; Shadow UB; Eldrazi Stompy C
Pauper: Delver U
Vintage: Merfolk U
Primers:
I'm actually not, but I am getting quite annoyed that you keep putting words in my mouth (strawman) and then try to attack your strawman. I think certain types of lists are more consistent than others, you are free to think otherwise. That's how this works. I'm not required to agree with a list just because you like it or because it survived some variance to place.
Anyway, I run 3 Colonnade and 3 Spirebluff Canal and haven't looked back.
BGRDredgevineBGR
UWRJeskai ControlUWR
Pauper:
GMono-Green AggroG
MTGO Username: creamy99
Twitch Stream: www.twitch.tv/coachcreamy
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/Cherokee3210
Check it out for the latest testing, gameplay, and dailies!
I'm not saying 23 lands on cryptic is wrong per se because the difference between 23 and 24 lands is marginal, but I do think that it is very greedy and pushing the limits of what you can get away with
Just looked back. I can't find anywhere that I said "the list is bad". The only thing I attached bad to was the boom/bust sideboard plan, but for you to AGAIN, misquote me and say that I said the deck is bad is unfortunate. If you have some sort of bone to pick with me I'd appreciate it if you at least would stop misattributing statements and then attacking those statements.
Better yet just quote me directly.
To be continued...
Probably not, because after your second fake account to dodge a ban, we IP ban you.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffUWR Control
Legacy:
W D&T
I'd say it's just better to play Spirebluff Canal instead of Sulfur Falls. There are some marginal cases where Sulfur Falls might be better, but if you can't make it to turn 3, none of them matter.