MTG Salvation

Aggro is very good right now. There's no denying that.

*I had an interesting thing happen to me the other day. I faced a player in an Cash Modern/Invitational Qualifier at a local shop in the final round at 3-2 and out of Top 8 contention. I recognized his name from being a very good Shadow player. He ended up on GB Midrange and when I talked to him about it, he said that he wanted to play a deck that wouldn't take any thinking and GB Midrange is "fun" for him. He said that he had a rough day yesterday, so that sealed it for him. That seemed interesting to me, because I would have thought that the decks take about equal skill to play. I don't think Shadow is as tough as he does, while I don't think that GB Midrange is as easy as he does (Grixis Shadow for reference). He made it seem like it was the difference between playing Bogles and Whir Prison; maybe I misunderstood him?

The Shadow decks both reward and punish making a lot of correct micro-decisions that often revolve around managing your mana and life total. It's entirely possible to lose a game based entirely on having fetched the wrong land on turn 1/2, to say nothing of the balancing act that closing games out often ends up being. Because GDS plays so many cantrips, a lot of the time you have to make decisions about your mana and life total based on future possibilities and what you might draw, instead of working with all known information. Comparatively, and for BG specifically, you have far less micro-decisions to make, while still getting to enjoy some of the general gameplay of discard -> big idiot beater. This comes at the cost of the sheer aggression that Shadow can sometimes put out, and less cantrips means you're more dependent on the top of your deck and general deckbuilding to give you what you need.

As a long time Shadow player I have also occasionally switched to BG when I felt like I just needed a break from the micro-management.

Quote from DeFish »

The Shadow decks both reward and punish making a lot of correct micro-decisions that often revolve around managing your mana and life total. It's entirely possible to lose a game based entirely on having fetched the wrong land on turn 1/2, to say nothing of the balancing act that closing games out often ends up being. Because GDS plays so many cantrips, a lot of the time you have to make decisions about your mana and life total based on future possibilities and what you might draw, instead of working with all known information. Comparatively, and for BG specifically, you have far less micro-decisions to make, while still getting to enjoy some of the general gameplay of discard -> big idiot beater. This comes at the cost of the sheer aggression that Shadow can sometimes put out, and less cantrips means you're more dependent on the top of your deck and general deckbuilding to give you what you need.

As a long time Shadow player I have also occasionally switched to BG when I felt like I just needed a break from the micro-management.

I agree wholeheartedly, you can't autopilot through Shadow whatsoever. Not saying the BGx archetype is exactly flowchart Magic like Scapeshift or Tron but the deck somewhat plays itself at a basic level.

After all, when in doubt...

I enjoy Modern, I pretty much always have. I would be happier if Hollow One bit the big one, or Burning Inquiry, but that's ust an LGS complaint, not a format complaint. I run mostly Tron, so I can't fault someone else for playing an obnoxious deck, but 'I have a good hand....oh, Burning Inquiry, now my hand is garbage and you have two Hollow Ones in play turn one. great' is not fun. really it's just those two cards. Everything else I can usually move fast enough to compete, but those openers are just so blisteringly fast, and too resilient to get that kind of speed. Storm is fine, a light breeze and that deck is borked, but a resolved Hollow One is a backbreaking turn 1 play, and there's no real chance to do anything about it.

Quote from Melkor »

I enjoy Modern, I pretty much always have. I would be happier if Hollow One bit the big one, or Burning Inquiry, but that's ust an LGS complaint, not a format complaint. I run mostly Tron, so I can't fault someone else for playing an obnoxious deck, but 'I have a good hand....oh, Burning Inquiry, now my hand is garbage and you have two Hollow Ones in play turn one. great' is not fun. really it's just those two cards. Everything else I can usually move fast enough to compete, but those openers are just so blisteringly fast, and too resilient to get that kind of speed. Storm is fine, a light breeze and that deck is borked, but a resolved Hollow One is a backbreaking turn 1 play, and there's no real chance to do anything about it.

Yeah, thank GOD that deck lost favor at my store. But instead I have to deal with monumental disparity between streamlined tier decks and wacky random brews, or decks way out of favor. Just this last week, I lost a tight round 1 against Eldrazi Taxes (hi RIP and Leyline against GDS), so I go into the loser's bracket and play Bant Pile of Planeswalkers, then Grindstone combo, then Eldrazi Stopmpy. Awesome. Why do I even bother trying to pick my deck or tune my sideboard for anything. Meanwhile, the other half of the room was all Humans, Spirits, and Phoenix.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Yeah, thank GOD that deck lost favor at my store. But instead I have to deal with monumental disparity between streamlined tier decks and wacky random brews, or decks way out of favor. Just this last week, I lost a tight round 1 against Eldrazi Taxes (hi RIP and Leyline against GDS), so I go into the loser's bracket and play Bant Pile of Planeswalkers, then Grindstone combo, then Eldrazi Stopmpy. Awesome. Why do I even bother trying to pick my deck or tune my sideboard for anything. Meanwhile, the other half of the room was all Humans, Spirits, and Phoenix.

Man with such a matchup lottery, it almost sounds like you would've been better off playing something extremely linear that can mostly ignore the opponent's gameplan

Quote from Bearscape »

Quote from cfusionpm »

Yeah, thank GOD that deck lost favor at my store. But instead I have to deal with monumental disparity between streamlined tier decks and wacky random brews, or decks way out of favor. Just this last week, I lost a tight round 1 against Eldrazi Taxes (hi RIP and Leyline against GDS), so I go into the loser's bracket and play Bant Pile of Planeswalkers, then Grindstone combo, then Eldrazi Stopmpy. Awesome. Why do I even bother trying to pick my deck or tune my sideboard for anything. Meanwhile, the other half of the room was all Humans, Spirits, and Phoenix.

Man with such a matchup lottery, it almost sounds like you would've been better off playing something extremely linear that can mostly ignore the opponent's gameplan

For what feels like the two dozenth time, matchup lottery is not a real effect. There is no difference between top player MWP in Modern vs. other formats at either the SCG or GP level. The ceiling and spread are both statistically identical. Either so-called matchup lottery doesn't exist at all in Modern, or it has no impact on MWP for top players. This is true of both average grinders who attend lots of events and true of the top 50ish players in the world. Either way, it's not something to complain about. Philosophically, it's also not something to complain about because we know Modern will always be, and has always been, Wizards' diversity format. They want as many random, diverse decks viable as possible, which necessarily leads to less predictable fields. If one doesn't like diversity, Modern is not the format for that player. There are many legitimate things to complain about in Modern, and I have stayed largely silent in this thread and the State of Modern thread recently while people identify those legitimate areas of grievance. But matchup lottery is not one.

Ok so that comment was mostly just an innocent jab but of course matchup lottery is a thing, that's just common sense. If there is a wide array of decks that people play, playing linear decks is a winning strategy. It's not even a complaint; without standard's limited cardpool or legacy and vintage's format warping cards, modern's wideness inherently promotes linear decks and I don't expect any banning, unbanning or new printing to change that

When the linear noninteractive decks then also become the most consistent and powerful strategies, giving little payoff for trying to beat the field, that is where I say modern is going wrong

Quote from Bearscape »

Ok so that comment was mostly just an innocent jab but of course matchup lottery is a thing, that's just common sense. If there is a wide array of decks that people play, playing linear decks is a winning strategy. It's not even a complaint; without standard's limited cardpool or legacy and vintage's format warping cards, modern's wideness inherently promotes linear decks and I don't expect any banning, unbanning or new printing to change that

When the linear noninteractive decks then also become the most consistent and powerful strategies, giving little payoff for trying to beat the field, that is where I say modern is going wrong

On the one hand, it's almost necessarily true that a diverse field favors proactive strategies that don't try to react to a predicted set of threats. On the other hand, we still see major events like GP Toronto's February 2019 T8 with two unambiguously interactive decks (BG Rock). As I said in another thread, it's easy to find a major result example for most Modern narratives that one wants to see. That ultimately means the true Modern picture is probably somewhere in the middle of those views. Both the reddit and our poll appear to reflect this, with most people enjoying Modern but still identifying issues that need solving.

IMO format diversity is my favorite part of Modern. You make a deck and try to use whatever resources you packed to win. It requires a lot of thought in and around the game. It encourages you to focus outside of the game building said deck, and then in matches and games determining how to best use those resources.

Quote from michaelvogler »

IMO format diversity is my favorite part of Modern. You make a deck and try to use whatever resources you packed to win. It requires a lot of thought in and around the game. It encourages you to focus outside of the game building said deck, and then in matches and games determining how to best use those resources.

You just described Magic, in a general sense.

That is not Modern, in a competitive sense.

Quote from idSurge »

Quote from michaelvogler »

IMO format diversity is my favorite part of Modern. You make a deck and try to use whatever resources you packed to win. It requires a lot of thought in and around the game. It encourages you to focus outside of the game building said deck, and then in matches and games determining how to best use those resources.

You just described Magic, in a general sense.

That is not Modern, in a competitive sense.

I was wondering about this as well, but I'm assuming he has an LGS where the decks are indeed very diverse. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm going to be playing Caleb Durward's Shaman Tribal this coming Friday and possibly the Modern 1K. It doesn't mean that I think I'm gonna win a GP (or even Day 2 with my play skill) any time soon. I was able to get 2nd with Cragganwick Cremator at a Staples tournament months ago, losing to UW Control in the finals just barely, but there were only 28 players (I'm guessing because of other local tournaments). That was fun, as much as it feels bad for losing. I was just 1 win short of my goal.

https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=20510&d=334765&f=MO

I voted for option 4. I still play Modern but not very much as I simply don't enjoy it very much. As for someone who prefers interactive fair decks Modern just isn't where I want it to be. Furthermore I don't like format when a specific deck (read: UR phoenix) dominates so much but prefer metagame where none deck is so much above others.

I still have hope that MH will help with this though.

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

Quote from idSurge »

Quote from michaelvogler »

IMO format diversity is my favorite part of Modern. You make a deck and try to use whatever resources you packed to win. It requires a lot of thought in and around the game. It encourages you to focus outside of the game building said deck, and then in matches and games determining how to best use those resources.

You just described Magic, in a general sense.

That is not Modern, in a competitive sense.

I was wondering about this as well, but I'm assuming he has an LGS where the decks are indeed very diverse. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm going to be playing Caleb Durward's Shaman Tribal this coming Friday and possibly the Modern 1K. It doesn't mean that I think I'm gonna win a GP (or even Day 2 with my play skill) any time soon. I was able to get 2nd with Cragganwick Cremator at a Staples tournament months ago, losing to UW Control in the finals just barely, but there were only 28 players (I'm guessing because of other local tournaments). That was fun, as much as it feels bad for losing. I was just 1 win short of my goal.

https://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=20510&d=334765&f=MO

Congrats on the 2nd place win at the Staples Tournament.

I voted the second option. I personally like the format right now, granted its really fast, but I would be okay with some unbans or some cool cards in modern horizon to slow down the format a little bit. I don't think there is any truly problematic cards outside of faithless, but i believe I'd rather have answers printed to the problems rather than a ban that outright kills a deck.

At 135 votes we have a total of:
Positive votes towards the format: 64.4%
Indifferent of format status: 7.4%
Negative towards the format: 28.2%

Overall, a bit more than two thirds of people enjoy the format right now with its pros and cons. If these are the indications that Wizards has as well, then I think they will wait with any bans.
28.2% is negative, which is not insignificant, but by no means extremely large. From that, only 6.7% refuse to play the format as is, which is even less of a drive to do something proactive for the format.

I highly doubt that player satisfaction with the format has anything to do with ban timing right now. Nothing will be touched until Horizon's hits. It would take a complete implosion to have it go otherwise dont you think?

As to the poll numbers, if a 3rd of your most enfranchised customers are not happy with your product, well, I know in my work head's would be rolling over those kinds of numbers.

Quote from gkourou »

Also, you can play any deck you like and with some targeted graveyard hate, you are set to do well in any tournament.

You cannot actually believe this to be true, do you? After this last weekend? Its a demonstrably false statement.

EDIT: And I call this out, because you are free to have your opinions, you are free to think a 3 deck meta is healthy, and you are free to enjoy a constant churn. I like to see you take say...BG Explore from Standard, and top 8 a GP, but hey if you REALLY believe you can take a Standard deck into Modern and do well, thats great.

To claim you can play what you want and do well however if you add some 'targeted graveyard hate' is absolutely false.

Quote from idSurge »

Quote from gkourou »

Also, you can play any deck you like and with some targeted graveyard hate, you are set to do well in any tournament.

You cannot actually believe this to be true, do you? After this last weekend? Its a demonstrably false statement.

EDIT: And I call this out, because you are free to have your opinions, you are free to think a 3 deck meta is healthy, and you are free to enjoy a constant churn. I like to see you take say...BG Explore from Standard, and top 8 a GP, but hey if you REALLY believe you can take a Standard deck into Modern and do well, thats great.

To claim you can play what you want and do well however if you add some 'targeted graveyard hate' is absolutely false.

Having played a few Modern GPs recently, I'm going to have to agree with idSurge here. In the first GP Oakland, I took a refined deck list of the Cragganwick that I ran at the local 28 person Staples tournament and went 0-4 vs. UR Phoenix, 2-0 vs. other decks, and 2 Byes. I got slaughtered by Phoenix, despite having a "plan" for them. Their consistent nut draws and consistent die roll wins lead to me getting my butt handed to me, despite having pretty solid hands my damn self. Then I ran Titan Breach with 4 main board Chalice of the Void (to fight Phoenix and Burn) and also went 1-3 on the weekend vs. UR Phoenix again, although most of the other wins were just the deck imploding on itself and 4-5 card hands not getting there.

At one's own LGS and possibly in their local meta, you can probably do solidly with another deck. But if you think you're going to have a solid GP without a really good matchup vs. UR Phoenix and Dredge, you're kidding yourself.

Honestly I wish I had 2-3 more GPs under my belt at this time to solidify my findings, but this is what I see so far. It is safe to run Phoenix because some of the worse (by that I mean slightly less than 50%) matchups get run out of the house by Dredge and Tron.

*P.S. - This was also the first time that I did not Day 2 in consecutive GPs in YEARS. I've done it in other formats, despite not testing them at all in recent years. But Modern is a format that I've played like crazy since 2012, but I guess playing it too much has made me terrible. I truly believe that. A month ago, I overheard a guy who I beat in the Swiss on Elves in Legacy talk about the "key to top 8ing the format" being not playing it much. I laughed because it was the first time I'd played Legacy since the SCG Team Event. I truly feel that Modern is like that.

**A guy who just borrowed Titan Breach got 2nd place at our local 34 person Modern Staples tournament, netting an Invocation Thoughtseize. It was the first time he played the deck. He lost BTW to the guy on RW Enduring Ideal from Los Angeles "fame," this being the first time he won as far as I know. But I guess he automatically made better plays than I did while going 4-4 at the GP Los Angeles. That makes me really sad that I've played Valakut in so many formats since it was printed and a guy who just played it for the first time and started MTG a year ago (only playing Thopter Sword so far) played that much better than me. The proof is in the results. I think this solidifies me as the worst player of all time.

***The truth of the matter is that I can outplay mtg players in Limited when it's the first time I've seen the cards in the set, Standard when I know only what's highlighted online, and Legacy when I don't know updated deck lists or results, but I can literally outplay NO ONE in Modern. It's really sad. I probably play Modern 20-30 hours per week and other formats 20-30 hours a month at the very most. For others who outplay players with their Merfolk list and 5-0 every week, I am happy for you. I envy you. I wish I could be like that (again, because I was like that just 2 years ago).

You may just be a bit burnt out, not thinking the lines through in a current sense, because you have 'done it so much' already.

When I go on big binge's of grinding Modern, it eventually becomes rote. I know people love it say Magic is so complicated, but it really isnt. I have winning percentages on Blue Moon under almost every configuration from the last time I was playing 'serious' but when I see the tide turning and decks I have no interest in playing with OR against come to be the top dog? Why continue? I'm in it for the enjoyment, not the grind. When the meta sours, I've got a half dozen other ways to dump time and money.

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

***The truth of the matter is that I can outplay mtg players in Limited when it's the first time I've seen the cards in the set, Standard when I know only what's highlighted online, and Legacy when I don't know updated deck lists or results, but I can literally outplay NO ONE in Modern. It's really sad. I probably play Modern 20-30 hours per week and other formats 20-30 hours a month at the very most. For others who outplay players with their Merfolk list and 5-0 every week, I am happy for you. I envy you. I wish I could be like that (again, because I was like that just 2 years ago).

I won't say much about your other points, but this one here is a classic sign of burnout (as idSurge said). I can guarantee you this isn't a Modern-specific issue, as we have an extensive, large N dataset showing that neither grinders nor top pros nor average joes/janes do measurably better/worse from an MWP/standings perspective in Modern vs. Standard or Legacy (not sure about Limited). Anyone is capable of succeeding in any of these big Constructed formats. If you are suddenly experiencing significant difficulties with a format, there are probably a series of small to large issues with your format engagement that are leading to those difficulties. Possibilities include attitude, tunnelvision, autopilot, deck/card choices, lack of perspective, self-expectation, and many others. Goodness knows I've had most/all of those. In fact, I had a similar performance drop in the recent year and did take a break from both Modern and Standard before returning and feeling better. But I don't think any of us would be able to point to a specific thing to work on.

That said, from my own personal experience, the number one culprit for me and some friends/players I know tends to be attitude issues. This includes cynicism at formats/decks, unwillingness to self-analyze and admit mistakes, taking losses really hard, and general saltiness. Again, I don't know if that's at play with you, but I know it's a rampant issue in this game and community. That makes it a good starting point for self-diagnosis.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Anyone is capable of succeeding in any of these big Constructed formats. If you are suddenly experiencing significant difficulties with a format, there are probably a series of small to large issues with your format engagement that are leading to those difficulties. Possibilities include attitude, tunnelvision, autopilot, deck/card choices, lack of perspective, self-expectation, and many others. Goodness knows I've had most/all of those. In fact, I had a similar performance drop in the recent year and did take a break from both Modern and Standard before returning and feeling better.

100% and this happened to me on Arena before I gave that up as well. I was getting caught in lines I knew I should have recognized, missed obvious play patterns, and was simply on 'autopilot' grinding out Best of One games over and over and over, before I finally caught myself literally clicking through whatever my opponent was doing, while I just waited to queue up again so I could win the die roll and burn them out.

Have not gone back to Arena since, and am buying back into Blue Moon on MTGO (I DID actually sell out, dont even remember doing so I must have been quite tilted!) so I can play it in a few months. Least I still have it in Paper! lol

Either way, I fully recommend taking breaks from formats, or the game, just to reset the focus. There are off seasons in sports for a reason.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

I won't say much about your other points, but this one here is a classic sign of burnout (as idSurge said). I can guarantee you this isn't a Modern-specific issue, as we have an extensive, large N dataset showing that neither grinders nor top pros nor average joes/janes do measurably better/worse from an MWP/standings perspective in Modern vs. Standard or Legacy (not sure about Limited). Anyone is capable of succeeding in any of these big Constructed formats. If you are suddenly experiencing significant difficulties with a format, there are probably a series of small to large issues with your format engagement that are leading to those difficulties. Possibilities include attitude, tunnelvision, autopilot, deck/card choices, lack of perspective, self-expectation, and many others. Goodness knows I've had most/all of those. In fact, I had a similar performance drop in the recent year and did take a break from both Modern and Standard before returning and feeling better. But I don't think any of us would be able to point to a specific thing to work on.

That said, from my own personal experience, the number one culprit for me and some friends/players I know tends to be attitude issues. This includes cynicism at formats/decks, unwillingness to self-analyze and admit mistakes, taking losses really hard, and general saltiness. Again, I don't know if that's at play with you, but I know it's a rampant issue in this game and community. That makes it a good starting point for self-diagnosis.

I know I've had issues with all of these things, but I've always had some of those issues at all times. Yes, success breeds a positive attitude, but part of that positive attitude can also be ignorance of why you've really been winning. I try to have no delusions about that.

I was 2-1 in a 6 round tournament with Dredge 2 weeks ago. I was facing Mono Red Phoenix. My first game went like this...
1. Creeping Chill, Narcomoeba, Prized Amalgam, land, land, Conflagrate, Golgari Thug - I mulligan the slow hand.
2. Creeping Chill, Narcomoeba, Prized Amalgam, Life from the Loam, Life from the Loam, Cathartic Reunion - I mulligan because I need 2 lands.
3. Creeping Chill, Narcomoeba, Prized Amalgam, land, Golgari Thug - Nonfunctional hand.
4. Creeping Chill, Narcomoeba, Prized Amalgam, Conflagrate - no land.
5. Creeping Chill, Narcomoeba, Prized Amalgam - I'm not kidding. I remember this hand like it was the back of my hand.
6. Narcomoeba, land - keep, I doubt I'll find a 1 card hand that has land and then draw Faithless Looting off the top. Scry Prized Amalgam to the bottom.

In Round 1, I drew just bad enough to not get there against a very strong Eldrazi Taxes draw in games 1 and 3 on the draw. In Rounds 2, 3, 5, and 6, I drew literally the absolute nuts. My tournament report is in "Dredge" for reference. I shuffled about the same way the whole tournament, outside of Round 4 when I tried different methods, including semi-riffle shuffling my deck. I nearly asked a Judge to shuffle my deck this round because no matter how I shuffled my deck, I knew it would do the same thing, but I assumed I'd draw differently in Games 2 and 3. Sure, this match was an extreme version of what I feel has been happening a bunch in Modern, to me AND to my opponents as well. I dredged 3 Creeping Chill on turn 2 against Burn; he scooped on the spot. I played a strong deck. I shuffled well in 5 rounds. I certainly didn't play perfectly. I feel if I had, it's possible that I could have just barely lost in Round 1, but after analyzing part of the match on Twitchtv, I actually didn't see anything differently I could have done, other than not shuffling my opponent to turn 2 Thought-Knot Seer on the play after a mediocre hand by me.

*You may have noticed I was able to utilize the copypasta option to describe my hands, despite intensive shuffling. I realize that part of this is playing 4 ofs, but the variance is real in that round. I have never, never mulliganed to 2 in my life and especially not rightfully so!

I've seen you post enough to think that its unreal you do not simply play Phoenix (now) UW (middle last year) or GDS. You always mention variance, yet you never play decks to limit it.

There is a reason I can never play a deck without cantrips, I simply refuse to let my own deck beat me, yet you seem to never pick up those consistency tool based decks.

Why?

I have tried each of those decks (well, not Phoenix in tournament play). I have tested all of them. I am very unimpressed with Serum Visions and even more unimpressed with Opt.

As for Phoenix, I asked a local guy who is #2 in our state in PWpoints and a very good Modern player why he didn't run Phoenix. I was surprised that he didn't since he was on KCI and UW Control before committing all-in to KCI. He said that he tried it for a few tournaments and he said that "Burn is unwinnable." I personally HATE losing to Burn, so this is part of it. Also I feel that Dredge beats Phoenix as well. I feel that Dredge is well-positioned right now.

As for UW, I probably didn't give it enough. I played it at a MNM and went 4-0, drawing 1223445 Path to Exile. Then I played it at FNM that week and drew only 2 Path to Exile in Round 4 vs. Ad Nauseam (the only non-creature deck) before SB and went 0-4. I assumed UW does as well as Path to Exiles you draw and didn't feel okay with that.

With Grixis Shadow, I don't know what it is, but I seem to get mana flooded a lot. I mean it's good that I don't think I've ever been mana screwed, even in testing since every Shadow player has some game where they get mana screwed. I don't know what it is. Sometimes I feel that I'm playing 26 lands. It makes games much tougher to win than normal. They are still very winnable, but sometimes it's just not quite enough and opponents go wide when I can't find Temur Battle Rage. Maybe I should have tried 3 Temur Battle Rage, but I can foresee potential negatives to that. I think Grixis Shadow is pretty meh when you can't find a threat or can't discard 2 of your opponent's cards early on and drawing lands, even with scrying them to the bottom or leaving them on top, then Thought Scouring them, doesn't make it easy to find those "2 Shadow with protection and discard" type hands.

*I think I may try UR Phoenix because I'm pretty sure I can just build the SB toward the mirror and most likely win those mirrors on play skill. I just have to let go with my aversion for losing to Burn. Even if my first tournament is 3 Burn and an Amulet, I should let it go and keep trying.

**Also Dredge shouldn't really have too much variance, at least regarding mulligans. Here is my opinion on the 3 decks in Modern that mulligan the best.
1. Dredge
2. Tron
3. Titanshift
With other decks, I'm afraid to mulligan "meh" hands into nonfunctional hands. Like I said, I am very unimpressed with Serum Visions, even if it is the best we have. As for right now, I personally think it's better to go with Faithless Looting or even Ancient Stirrings. I shouldn't get caught not running those cards if I want to just strictly win right now.