I really hope this new path board wipe helps vs etron/aggro decks but that just makes mana leak look even worse sooner.
It's not any faster to cast than Wrath of God, not uncounterable like Verdict, and putting all your opponent's basics on the field is pretty awful. I'd say the only time that spell will ever be good is if you already have lethal on board; something that rarely happens for a deck wanting to beat in with Colonnades.
new path board wipe???
Scuttle the Wreckage
2WW
Instant
Exile all attacking creatures target player controls. That player may search his or her library for that many basic land cards, put those cards onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle his or her library.
Alright so I might be going too deep here, but if I replace the three think twice in my build with glimmer, which I'm strongly considering because TT has been pretty okay for me, then I'm left with a bunch of energy and nothing to do with it.
This opens up the possibility of running an aether hub or two. As the only consumer of energy it functions a lot like an untapped triland. Is this too cute or is there some merit here?
I think this is far too 'cute'. Between fetchlands, shocklands, fastlands, and checklands (in addition to Colonnades, obviously), I think there is ample mana fixing. The downside of drawing an Aether Hubwithout a Glimmer of Genius in hand is surely far worse than the potential upside of being able to generate all three colors of mana a couple times over the course of a game. If you don't have access to a 'competitive' mana base and feel like you need mana fixing that you can't get from the two-color lands available to you, I'd just run Mystic Monastery over Aether Hub.
It would be interesting to hear what people's definition of what "Draw Go" technically means. I'll start with mine if anyone else doesn't feel like stating their opinion.
To me, Draw Go means playing Magic while presenting countermagic at all/most times. Only tapping out when necessary/needed AND by choice only.
I mostly agree with this, but think being overly literal -- e.g.,
This means that all cards must be of the "instant" or "flash" type or any cards that can grant instant speed like Quicken. This also means that any single card that forces you into playing on your own turn, like cards of the "Sorcery" type, is not playable in true Draw Go, and in fact should be classified as a general archetype such as "Control" or "Draw Go, Tap Out Hybrid" for lack of better names.
-- is counterproductive.
I started a longer post on this, but it's probably not really interesting to anyone and I don't care to spend the time organizing all my thoughts ( ), so I'll just say this:
In my experience and in my opinion, "draw go" control generally refers to a control deck that
Leaves mana open on most turns to represent countermagic or removal -- or, at times, an instant-speed threat
Uses sorcery-speed spells sparingly, usually limited to mana-efficient card draw/filtration, wraths, and win conditions (once control has been established)
Has a game-plan of trading off early game advantage for late-game inevitability (card advantage, difficult-to-interact-with win condition, etc.)
It's obviously on a spectrum, but I would say that this Jeskai Control list is "draw-go" control despite playing sorcery-speed cards because it has a definite goal of reaching the late game and plays mostly at instant speed. This Jeskai Queller list, despite being almost entirely instant speed, is not "draw-go" control because it does not have a resilient, inevitable end-game and instead is playing more of a Faeries aggro-tempo-control / Counter-Burn game plan. I would consider this UW Control list to also not be "draw-go" control because it plays sorcery-speed disruptive pieces (Spreading Seas) and relies more on planeswalkers to control the game, rather than purely as a win condition.
* * *
TL;DR: The need for every single non-land card to be instant speed is arbitrary, overly restrictive from a competitive standpoint (though obviously do what suits your own aesthetic to enjoy the game!), and is at odds with a common-sense interpretation of the term "draw-go control".
Price of Progress would be a sweet card to have in modern as an answer to the heavy non-basic decks.
Price of Progress is a reasonable card in Legacy because you can fetch three two-colored lands for three life, and the mana curve is often low enough that Price only hits for 4-6 damage. In Modern, the fact that each dual land hits you for an additional two life (if you actually want to use the mana when you fetch the land) combined with generally higher mana curves (not to mention a general lack of countermagic) means Price would be very good. Even without Price, Burn has been a consistent performer for a long time. Fatal Push and Collective Brutality have hurt quite a bit, but even still Burn is competitive. Price of Progress is in no way a reasonable card for Modern.
IMO, if Modern does need non-basic land hate, a modified Wasteland would be the way to go. Something like "T, Sacrifice ~: Destroy target land without a basic land sub-type." (Or however that should be worded.) Destroys Tron lands, creature lands, random utility lands, etc., but can't destroy shocklands (or battle-lands, cycle-lands, etc.). Currently, I think Death's Shadow does a reasonable job of policing the decks that are relying on advantages from colorless "sol" lands (Eldrazi / Tron variants), but I unfortunately wouldn't be surprised to see Wizards ban Shadow or Wraith just because of all the complaining. If that happens, I'd really like to see something like this Wasteland variant introduced. In the right Standard environment (i.e., one with basic land typed dual lands -- like the current one), the drawback wouldn't be so large. Not that I expect this would happen any time soon, though.
1U
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 2
Look at the top 3 cards of your library; put one into your hand and the rest on bottom
-- I would be quite interested. As it is, I don't see the use of a 3 CMC counterspell, even with possible card draw. The same goes for the cycling counterspell. Again, both missed opportunities as far as Modern is concerned.
Jack Kiefer has 3 (I think?) Ancestral Vision in his sideboard. Interesting choice. I wonder taking up that sideboard space will work out against the general field.
I will say, to echo acc from a previous page, that all the online doom and gloom about Modern doesn't seem to play out in real tournaments or venues. Attendance is super high, tournaments have tons of viewers (generally more than every other format by a large margin), and the format is overall incredibly popular. It's easy to forget this because we get caught up dueling a hyper-vocal, hyper minority of players who strongly dislike format elements. For most players, however, Modern rocks and is doing a great job.
My fear is that the "hyper-vocal, hyper minority of players" are going to raise such a fuss that Wizards will continue banning cards. Death's Shadow / Street Wraith now, and something else the next time, and something else the time after that. And when Luis Scott-Vargas is included among those players (whether his videos are just clickbait or meant to be taken seriously), it's somewhat concerning, and pretty exhausting.
* * *
As far as Legacy goes, I'll just say this (as someone who re-started Magic with Modern two years ago and now plays Legacy as well): I see many Modern players (including some here, I believe) who have foiled decks. (Not even talking about having multiple decks, playing Standard, etc.). For example (using MM2 prices, though the original printings have even more of a discrepancy), a regular Scalding Tarn is $45, while a foil is $72 (+$27). A regular Snapcaster is $46, while a foil is $77 (+$31). So having a playset of foil Snaps & Tarns over regular printings is about $230. Coincidentally, a playset of Forces is about $240. And while you might lose some games by shocking (and probably shouldn't play Daze without basic Islands or ABUR duals), you can certainly get started in Legacy with a Modern collection + Forces (assuming you want to play blue in the first place). If you don't foil your other fetches, your shocks, your Goyfs (!!), etc., then you could probably afford a dual land or two or three. So yes, an optimized Legacy list is expensive, but you don't need a fully optimized list to play (and even win), and some concessions in how 'blinged out' your Modern collection is can get you into Legacy. Not to mention that many Legacy players have spare decks they are happy to loan out to increase the player base, and that a number of stores (at least in my area) run proxies-allowed Legacy nights.
I've been playing U/W and primariy Jeskai control based variants in modern for many years. The things that have kept me coming back time and again to the deck are the chances for consistent interaction, the interesting and difficult decision points, and the ability to give yourself a huge advantage against a correctly predicted field by playing the right number of specific elements in your 75.
Along the way, I've met many Jeskai players. Some I've learned a lot from and this has really helped my game. But I'd have to say that on average the Jeskai players I have come across tend to be calcified in their card evaluations and very rarely think deeply on decisions. This is something I want to discuss briefly and if anyone wants to chime in for a more in-depth discussion feel free.
1. Fetch/shocking too aggressively(or not aggressively enough).
This is one I see often. Jeskai player is against some kind of control deck with a R/B land on the battlefield, a Sacred Foundry, and two fetches in hand. Player proceeds to play Foundry untapped (or fetch shock for a Hallowed Fountain). Doesn't go for any basics. After these games I often inquire, "Why did you fetch up the third shockland?" The answer is something trivial like "I wanted double white, and of course I need more U for Cryptics". I look through the deck seeing that there is only a singleton Supreme Verdict for WW, and can't find any other useful uses of WW. In these situations, don't shock, it's rarely worth it. And there are other times I see what seem like rather obvious mistakes. Opp is playing against burn and on T1 doesn't fetch/shock the Goblin Guide. After the game he says, "I wanted to save the life". I explain to him that if he had shocked it would have been the same two life he let the GG hit him for and he would have used his mana on T1 and had up his Mana Leak for T2. To which he responds, "Oh," and doesn the same thing when I saw him playing burn a couple weeks later.
Be careful, guys! Think about why you are doing something. Don't just go off habit = )
2. "Card X has always been great for me". This is a big deal and one of the reasons IMO that Jeskai gets held back as an archtype. other decks seems to be fine with adding and removing cards when they are less optimal. But Jeskai players are very calcified in their card evaluations. Have you heard of these? "I would never run Jeskai without Cryptic", "4 lightning bolt is always correct," "You'd be crazy not to have a 4-mana sweeper in the main," "I always run Gideon because he's always great for me," "I'd never run AV because it seems slow to me (but I run Sphinx's Revelation)".
Try to be able to see when cards are good and when they aren't. There are lots of metas where I've argued to forgo 4 mana sweepers, and many where I've said Cryptic isn't good. But currently I think they are both fine. This is based on what my opponent's are bringing to the table, NOT my own card preferences.
3. Using Remand incorrectly. One thing about remand I've always found strange is that people use it on their own spells far less often than they should. For example, your opponent has a goyf and your hand is bolt, remand. You can bolt him end of turn, maintain priority and remand your bolt to cycle the remand. I see players in this kind of situation all the time and they don't cycle their remand. Give it the due consideration it deserves. I also see many players remanding their opponent's counterspells in the hopes of drawing into an answer instead of just remanding their own spell. Example- I play snap, you spell snare. DON'T remand the spell snare! I see this a lot. Remand your snapcaster for super value!
4. Not activating colonnade enough in post board games. In game one many opponents are stuck with removal in hand against Jeskai. But they usually shave some number during sideboarding. It's often correct to jam with your colonnade and force them to have it. I think people have a hard time going from the mindset of "I'm going to control the game" to "Now I'm going to race you, can you race my 4/4 flier?"
5. Not mulliganing enough against linear match-ups. Post board hands are much less keepable in the linear match-ups like Dredge, Tron, etc. Provided that you have brought appropriate hate you should be rolling the dice more to get a hand that can win. I see WAY TOO MANY people keep hands just because they are "lands and spells". Lands and spells don't help you beat Dredge, lest you forgot?
Anyway, those are five tips off the top of my head. Hope they provide some food for thought.
How is the nahiri-version against grixis shadow? Nahiri can at least exile a tapped fatty. Seems decent in these fatty-times.
I haven't played the matchup from either side (was on Jeskai for a long time; switched to Grixis Death's Shadow a couple months ago), but Grixis DS is usually playing 2-3 Stubborn Denial in the main deck, and the remainder of the playset in the sideboard. A 4-mana non-creature spell seems a bit risky. But on the flip side, Grixis DS usually isn't running very many damage spells, so if you can keep the board clear and cast Nahiri, it's unlikely she's going to die even at 2 loyalty (compared to the Grixis Control / Delver lists that were more popular a while back).
I think the Tamada style is probably still a better matchup against Grixis DS. Electrolyze may not be a good card in the matchup, but seems well-positioned against a number of decks right now. The match I watched of Jeskai Queller Counter-Burn vs. Grixis DS was very close, and with some fine-tuning of the list could be favored, I would think.
It makes sense. This is yet another Standard banning, and Wizards needs to really explain their rationale and goals for the format, and set future expectations. And the discussion is informative, even if not directly pertaining to Modern. For now, I'm just happy there aren't any more bans in Modern. I think the metagame is still adapting to the different Death's Shadow decks, and giving things time to settle before taking any action (even unbans) is the right way to go.
I'm creating a sideboard map, using gkourou's post as a starting point but with my own deviations, and had a quick sideboarding question: Against UWx control, do you keep in Kolaghan's Command? It seems like if our threats are removed, they are going to be exiled or put into the library (Condemn) rather than put into the graveyard (assuming they resolve, which obviously isn't guaranteed...), so it seems like Kolaghan's Command is going to be Shock + Discard most of the time. Is it worth keeping in a couple Fatal Push to deal with Colonnades, Spell Quellers, etc. instead of K. Command? Or do you still prefer K. Command in case the threats are countered and for general attrition purposes?
Definitely keep Kommands in. They also run Supreme Verdict, so you can buy back threats killed off that, and they sometimes run artifacts like Crucible of Worlds that you might want to shatter.
Oh, duh... Wasn't thinking about Verdict even though that's pretty obvious. Crucible is a good point as well. Thanks!
I'm creating a sideboard map, using gkourou's post as a starting point but with my own deviations, and had a quick sideboarding question: Against UWx control, do you keep in Kolaghan's Command? It seems like if our threats are removed, they are going to be exiled or put into the library (Condemn) rather than put into the graveyard (assuming they resolve, which obviously isn't guaranteed...), so it seems like Kolaghan's Command is going to be Shock + Discard most of the time. Is it worth keeping in a couple Fatal Push to deal with Colonnades, Spell Quellers, etc. instead of K. Command? Or do you still prefer K. Command in case the threats are countered and for general attrition purposes?
This take is interesting: heavy on card advantage with Sphinx's Rev and Verdict as well as Electrolyze and Cryptic Command; Ajani as a planeswalker win condition that supplements a burn plan from Bolt/Helix/Electrolyze; and 3 Spreading Seas a la recent UW Control lists for disruption and card advantage. This looks pretty good to me. A bit more disruptive thanks to Spreading Seas than more 'straightforward' Jeskai Control lists, but very firmly a counter-burn / control hybrid. Plus three Leyline of Sanctity (!?) in the sideboard, presumably for the Shadow matches.
Scuttle the Wreckage
2WW
Instant
Exile all attacking creatures target player controls. That player may search his or her library for that many basic land cards, put those cards onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle his or her library.
http://www.mythicspoiler.com/ixa/cards/scuttlethewreckage.html
I think this is far too 'cute'. Between fetchlands, shocklands, fastlands, and checklands (in addition to Colonnades, obviously), I think there is ample mana fixing. The downside of drawing an Aether Hub without a Glimmer of Genius in hand is surely far worse than the potential upside of being able to generate all three colors of mana a couple times over the course of a game. If you don't have access to a 'competitive' mana base and feel like you need mana fixing that you can't get from the two-color lands available to you, I'd just run Mystic Monastery over Aether Hub.
I mostly agree with this, but think being overly literal -- e.g.,
-- is counterproductive.
I started a longer post on this, but it's probably not really interesting to anyone and I don't care to spend the time organizing all my thoughts (
In my experience and in my opinion, "draw go" control generally refers to a control deck that
It's obviously on a spectrum, but I would say that this Jeskai Control list is "draw-go" control despite playing sorcery-speed cards because it has a definite goal of reaching the late game and plays mostly at instant speed. This Jeskai Queller list, despite being almost entirely instant speed, is not "draw-go" control because it does not have a resilient, inevitable end-game and instead is playing more of a Faeries aggro-tempo-control / Counter-Burn game plan. I would consider this UW Control list to also not be "draw-go" control because it plays sorcery-speed disruptive pieces (Spreading Seas) and relies more on planeswalkers to control the game, rather than purely as a win condition.
* * *
TL;DR: The need for every single non-land card to be instant speed is arbitrary, overly restrictive from a competitive standpoint (though obviously do what suits your own aesthetic to enjoy the game!), and is at odds with a common-sense interpretation of the term "draw-go control".
Price of Progress is a reasonable card in Legacy because you can fetch three two-colored lands for three life, and the mana curve is often low enough that Price only hits for 4-6 damage. In Modern, the fact that each dual land hits you for an additional two life (if you actually want to use the mana when you fetch the land) combined with generally higher mana curves (not to mention a general lack of countermagic) means Price would be very good. Even without Price, Burn has been a consistent performer for a long time. Fatal Push and Collective Brutality have hurt quite a bit, but even still Burn is competitive. Price of Progress is in no way a reasonable card for Modern.
IMO, if Modern does need non-basic land hate, a modified Wasteland would be the way to go. Something like "T, Sacrifice ~: Destroy target land without a basic land sub-type." (Or however that should be worded.) Destroys Tron lands, creature lands, random utility lands, etc., but can't destroy shocklands (or battle-lands, cycle-lands, etc.). Currently, I think Death's Shadow does a reasonable job of policing the decks that are relying on advantages from colorless "sol" lands (Eldrazi / Tron variants), but I unfortunately wouldn't be surprised to see Wizards ban Shadow or Wraith just because of all the complaining. If that happens, I'd really like to see something like this Wasteland variant introduced. In the right Standard environment (i.e., one with basic land typed dual lands -- like the current one), the drawback wouldn't be so large. Not that I expect this would happen any time soon, though.
1U
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 2
Look at the top 3 cards of your library; put one into your hand and the rest on bottom
-- I would be quite interested. As it is, I don't see the use of a 3 CMC counterspell, even with possible card draw. The same goes for the cycling counterspell. Again, both missed opportunities as far as Modern is concerned.
Jack Kiefer has 3 (I think?) Ancestral Vision in his sideboard. Interesting choice. I wonder taking up that sideboard space will work out against the general field.
www.twitch.com/scgtour
My fear is that the "hyper-vocal, hyper minority of players" are going to raise such a fuss that Wizards will continue banning cards. Death's Shadow / Street Wraith now, and something else the next time, and something else the time after that. And when Luis Scott-Vargas is included among those players (whether his videos are just clickbait or meant to be taken seriously), it's somewhat concerning, and pretty exhausting.
* * *
As far as Legacy goes, I'll just say this (as someone who re-started Magic with Modern two years ago and now plays Legacy as well): I see many Modern players (including some here, I believe) who have foiled decks. (Not even talking about having multiple decks, playing Standard, etc.). For example (using MM2 prices, though the original printings have even more of a discrepancy), a regular Scalding Tarn is $45, while a foil is $72 (+$27). A regular Snapcaster is $46, while a foil is $77 (+$31). So having a playset of foil Snaps & Tarns over regular printings is about $230. Coincidentally, a playset of Forces is about $240. And while you might lose some games by shocking (and probably shouldn't play Daze without basic Islands or ABUR duals), you can certainly get started in Legacy with a Modern collection + Forces (assuming you want to play blue in the first place). If you don't foil your other fetches, your shocks, your Goyfs (!!), etc., then you could probably afford a dual land or two or three. So yes, an optimized Legacy list is expensive, but you don't need a fully optimized list to play (and even win), and some concessions in how 'blinged out' your Modern collection is can get you into Legacy. Not to mention that many Legacy players have spare decks they are happy to loan out to increase the player base, and that a number of stores (at least in my area) run proxies-allowed Legacy nights.
Very good post!
I haven't played the matchup from either side (was on Jeskai for a long time; switched to Grixis Death's Shadow a couple months ago), but Grixis DS is usually playing 2-3 Stubborn Denial in the main deck, and the remainder of the playset in the sideboard. A 4-mana non-creature spell seems a bit risky. But on the flip side, Grixis DS usually isn't running very many damage spells, so if you can keep the board clear and cast Nahiri, it's unlikely she's going to die even at 2 loyalty (compared to the Grixis Control / Delver lists that were more popular a while back).
I think the Tamada style is probably still a better matchup against Grixis DS. Electrolyze may not be a good card in the matchup, but seems well-positioned against a number of decks right now. The match I watched of Jeskai Queller Counter-Burn vs. Grixis DS was very close, and with some fine-tuning of the list could be favored, I would think.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/june-13-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-06-13
It makes sense. This is yet another Standard banning, and Wizards needs to really explain their rationale and goals for the format, and set future expectations. And the discussion is informative, even if not directly pertaining to Modern. For now, I'm just happy there aren't any more bans in Modern. I think the metagame is still adapting to the different Death's Shadow decks, and giving things time to settle before taking any action (even unbans) is the right way to go.
Oh, duh... Wasn't thinking about Verdict even though that's pretty obvious.
4 Snapcaster Mage
Enchantments
3 Spreading Seas
Instants
3 Cryptic Command
2 Electrolyze
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Lightning Helix
4 Mana Leak
4 Path to Exile
1 Spell Snare
2 Sphinx's Revelation
Planeswalkers
2 Ajani Vengeant
Sorceries
3 Supreme Verdict
2 Island
1 Mountain
1 Plains
Lands
4 Celestial Colonnade
4 Flooded Strand
1 Glacial Fortress
2 Hallowed Fountain
1 Sacred Foundry
4 Scalding Tarn
2 Steam Vents
1 Sulfur Falls
3 Tectonic Edge
1 Crucible Of Worlds
3 Leyline of Sanctity
2 Rest in Peace
2 Stony Silence
1 Celestial Purge
1 Counterflux
1 Dispel
1 Negate
1 Wear
2 Vendilion Clique
This take is interesting: heavy on card advantage with Sphinx's Rev and Verdict as well as Electrolyze and Cryptic Command; Ajani as a planeswalker win condition that supplements a burn plan from Bolt/Helix/Electrolyze; and 3 Spreading Seas a la recent UW Control lists for disruption and card advantage. This looks pretty good to me. A bit more disruptive thanks to Spreading Seas than more 'straightforward' Jeskai Control lists, but very firmly a counter-burn / control hybrid. Plus three Leyline of Sanctity (!?) in the sideboard, presumably for the Shadow matches.