General thoughts:
This whole "spell snare doesn't deserve 4 slots anymore" and "I hate holding up mana to beat mana leak and skullcrack" are kind of at odds.
Wafo could have reasonably made the decision to cut them completely if he accurately predicts the meta at gp lille (which he did to some extent, but without his pairing data, we can't be quite sure) and has 3 byes. In nearly no other circumstance (beside super hard read on the meta, which seems fairly unlike in this instance) would I be comfortable playing so few snares.
Clique is pretty good in the general sense, but I'm not the hugest fan of just playing one mainboard. I personally would play 2 main or 2 side, and not split them up, but this is fairly insignificant.
1 rev/ 1 teachings split is also something I used to do (and used to be able to get away with).
However, I think I would want the 26th land without serum visions or any other velocity in the deck.
I'm not a huge fan of leyline main in general, but i think especially with teachings, that slot could be more impactful as something else.
Slaughter pact in particular is fairly strong right now, and is pretty good with teachings.
I'm not a huge fan of your mana base, I think sunken hollow is going to get you in more trouble than its worth.
If you choose to play 5+ manlands, filters have an advantage over buddy lands.
Anguished unmaking, fracturing gust, summary dismissal, consume the meek, dispel, and crypt incursion are worth considering as teachable sideboard cards.
I've previously played esper gifts but my list was horrible. Now I'm returning to the archetype, and I've read the primer and some of the latest pages in this thead. Anyway, I have many questions about card choices and wincons.
1 - Think twice vs. serum visions. Some lists trim copies of think twice and instead play some sv. I just don't see why serum is played in this archetype, at all. The only reason to play some copies is to fuel delve spells, and that's not enough. It's not card advantage, and it's not instant speed! Should I go with the general consensus and play 4 think twice? Otherwise, against which decks is serum visions better?
2 - Number of Spell Snare. I love it, but I see that your lists don't play many copies of it. Against which decks is it good? I would like to play 2-4 copies but I want to know if my local meta justifies that number.
3 - Lingering souls. Is there any reason to play those in the sideboard? The list that I'm currently building is this one
I think that lingering souls is an amazing card. I played 4 of those in my esper gifts deck, but many of the interactions there aren't available here (gifts including souls just for value, elesh norn turning the tokens into 3/3 fliers). If I played some copies of lingering souls in my sideboard, in which matchups I would bring them in?
I've previously played esper gifts but my list was horrible. Now I'm returning to the archetype, and I've read the primer and some of the latest pages in this thead. Anyway, I have many questions about card choices and wincons.
1 - Think twice vs. serum visions. Some lists trim copies of think twice and instead play some sv. I just don't see why serum is played in this archetype, at all. The only reason to play some copies is to fuel delve spells, and that's not enough. It's not card advantage, and it's not instant speed! Should I go with the general consensus and play 4 think twice? Otherwise, against which decks is serum visions better?
Think Twice and Serum Visions aren't interchangeable. People running Serum Visions are trimming other playsets of spells or lands to do so for deck Velocity. Think Twice and Esper Charm are Divination effects; Wafo cut one so he could run Ancestral Visions.
Primer update will go up saturday after I get it back from my proofreader.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
Yesterday I spent like... 2 hours maybe, reading comments in this thread haha. On my questions:
1 - I see, I messed up. Since some of you have recently stated, cantrips can't replace CA like think twice. The question should have been: Cantrips, ¿yes or no?
I didn't really found lots of real discussion about this topic in here. It looked like personal preference most of the time, with the only tangible reason to run cantrips being "the list runs smoother".
In my opinion, the only reasonable cantrip is serum visions, if I were to run some. Shadow of doubt was super weird most of the time I played it, and it really underperformed. Remand is... okay, but as I read in this thread, you need to answer the threat again most of the time, making the card draw a less relevant.
2 - Number of Spell Snare. Okay, this has been discussed way more than what I expected. The general consensus, if I understood correctly, is that MODO meta is really heavy with death shadow aggro, and snare is not amazing against it, so MODO players run less copies (or even zero) compared to paper copies. Other people also "felt" that snare was running out of targets, that snare was useful in already favorable matchups (with the exception of burn), etc.
While snare is not amazing against death shadow aggro, G1 it's not a dead card (temur battle rage is the best card in their deck, and without it, most of the time they can't one-shot people). Some lists also run a nonzero number of goyfs mainboard, which snare hits... and that's it. Not amazing, but not a dead card either. I think that I'll run some copies to see how it performs.
3 - Lingering souls. While I saw many lists playing 3 copies in the sideboard "because it's really versatile", I didn't really see more arguments in its favor. Like, I wanted to see which (not favorable G1) matchups lingering souls makes favorable. If someone can explain this to me...
Well, for this FNM I'll be playing this list (mainly because I have all the cards for this one while I currently have neither runed halo nor secure the wastes).
I like many things about this list (GQ/discard+surgical combo, baneslayer angel) but there are other things that I don't really understand. First, why stony silence? affinity is already a favorable matchup, we can include better cards against tron, and weird artifact based lists aren't the most common thing.
Secondly, why x3 duress in the sideboard? Seems like the extra reach thoughtseize gives is well worth the two lives.
In addition to this, in which matchups do I want to side in the discard? Aside from combo and tron (where I would prefer thoughtseize), are there any aggro/midrange/control matchups where I want to duress/thoughtsize them?
//Offtopic I saw that Blasco Oier, from my LGS, posted in this thread. If you read this, hi! I'm Diego, the guy who usually plays Bant Coralhelm.
Ultimately the cantrip question boils down to personal preference. Do you feel comfortable shaving about two real cards and a land to bring them in? You will see more of your deck and have better control over drawing your answers and preventing mana screw and flood, but it requires a different line. T1 fetch Island becomes a regular play, rather than having the luxury of dropping your Colonnade early.
Snare comes down to meta and build. If you have lots of jund and affinity players, Snare gets better. But if you are running 4 wraths main and a bunch of can trips, well it's likely you made room for those cantrips by cutting snares. In that build, you can get away with it because of your increased likelihood of board wiping on 4.
Souls... Preference I think. I've never liked them but they help put pressure early against Tron and burn and provide blockers against the aggro decks. In my experience, the aggro decks find a way to get there when you tap out on 3, and the card pulls the play style away from draw-go, so I'm not a fan.
Duress v Thoughtseize I'm with you on. But I think duress is much better if you want to survive burn. Otherwise, I bring them in against combo and aggro-combo like infect.
Duress vs inquisition vs thoughtseize depends on what your plans are for various matchups.
The way I think about it is that we have five categories of deck: Control, Combo, agro, burn, and midrange.
Against agro decks (think infect, zooicide, boggles), your best options are inquisition and thoughtseize.
Against control decks, you really want thoughtseize followed by duress.
For combo decks, you want thoughtseize followed by duress.
For midrange decks, you want inquisition, followed by thoughtseize
For burn, you want inquisition, followed by duress.
As an archetype, we mostly don't want discard against midrange at all to begin with, so that's irrelevant. For control decks, we look to go bigger so it's more relevant to answer their countermagic/protection spells than it is to take their actual threats. This leaves us wanting thoughtseize and duress, with a very slight edge to duress. Therefore, the question becomes mostly one of your burn and infect plans. If you want to try to fight the burn matchup, playing duress instead of thoughtseize gives you a pretty reasonable method of having an extra three cards to bring in. If you don't necessarily care as much about the burn matchup and want to shore up infect, thoughtseize is good. If discard is my primary tool against combo, I'm playing three thoughtseizes or a 2-1 split with duress, whereas if discard is more a tool for control mirrors and incidental cards against combo and burn, I'll run heavy to duress.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
You guys are missing the point in the discussion about cantrips. 4 Serum Visions is mainly a concession to running Logic Knot. The format is way too fast right now and it's critical that your 2-mana counterspell can interact on turn 2, therefore you run 1-mana cantrips to help activate it. The alternative to cutting Serum Visions isn't spells that cost two or more mana, but more blue fetchlands, other 1-mana cantrips, 1-mana discard, or cutting Logic Knots.
I will say it again: Logic Knot with only 8 ways (fetches) to turn it on early is a big deck construction mistake.
You guys are missing the point in the discussion about cantrips. 4 Serum Visions is mainly a concession to running Logic Knot. The format is way too fast right now and it's critical that your 2-mana counterspell can interact on turn 2, therefore you run 1-mana cantrips to help activate it. The alternative to cutting Serum Visions isn't spells that cost two or more mana, but more blue fetchlands, other 1-mana cantrips, 1-mana discard, or cutting Logic Knots.
I will say it again: Logic Knot with only 8 ways (fetches) to turn it on early is a big deck construction mistake.
If you aren't running spell snares, then yes I agree with you. To me, the question is actually one that runs along three axes:
1. Is it useful to run more than two logic knot?
2. In the majority of matchups where I would want a turn 2 or 3 logic knot, am I also likely to want or have wanted a spell snare?
3. Is there any reason to avoid running more fetchlands?
The reality is, we're running 4 path to exiles, so against about half the decks where we want logic knot to turn on early, basic sequencing says we already have 12 enablers and that logic knot for 2 is basically counterspell and often times stymied hopes is sufficient--these would be matchups like zooicide and infect/delver. This means that the first two logic knots are fine--you can always deal with one dead draw in a matchup, particularly if it's a card that will be live eventually, and the second logic knot is a freeroll just based on the number of fetchlands we play, so unless you want a third logic knot, there's no reason to worry about enabling it further. The last question is irrelevant the way the format stands, because more fetchlands = more blood moon protection, so 7 is pretty much mandatory, 8 is typical, and the 9th is going to come into play if you want to cut down on manlands to speed up the manabase slightly. Point two then becomes the only relevant axis when talking about whether you need serum visions. If spell snare is playable as a 4 of, then likely you don't need to run serum visions, since the metagame already makes the 9th fetch attractive for speed reasons. If spell snare is not playable as a 4-of, then I question why you want extra early copies of logic knot in the first place?
Perhaps, and this is just a guess, you're new to draw-go as an archetype, and don't quite understand the role countermagic plays. The idea with countermagic in a draw-go shell is that it does two things: it allows you to continue to "hold position" once you stabilize, AKA ensure you keep getting to untap on a clean board, and more importantly, it allows you to get "in position" in the first place by allowing you to stabilize (typically by wrathing the board), while also preventing your opponent from using their next turn to establish a board presence you have to worry about. In the typical wafo-style shells, my experience has been that logic knot tends to be the card you hold up when wrathing on turn 6 in fair matchups, and the card you cast on turn 4 or 5 in unfair matchups. In matchups where neither of those is applicable, like burn or small zoo, you don't need enablers because you can just trade it off with one delved card for a spell most of the time because those decks are all about critical mass and mana efficiency, so all that matters is the early 1 for 1, not what card you actually hit. I guess the point I'm making is that it takes a narrow style of metagame for serum visions to power logic knot to actually be correct. The MTGO metagame of late makes that reasonable. Most of the time, it isn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
So I had to sell my deck a few months ago and am looking to get back into modern recently. How well does this deck hold up against Jeskai Nahiri for a control deck.
Lingering Souls - I think it's too slow vs Tron and Burn and also risky tapping turn 3. I think it's best against midrange and control decks. It poos on their spot removal/discard/counters. I'd bring it in against decks like Jund and Jeskai, but then again I'd think Esper is good against them anyway.
ThoughtseizeDuress. Reading PV's Faeries article, he suggests if you're going to play discard, you need to play planeswalkers with it. Reasons being, when you're on the discard plan, you're trading 1 for 1 until eventually both players are low on cards. By sticking a planeswalker after your discard, you're effectively gaining some sort of card advantage from the planeswalker in play when both players are low on cards, so it favours you over your opponent as you have the planeswalker in play. So if you have 6 slots he recommends a 4/2 discard/walker split. He doesn't like playing more than 4 discard spells but says if you are playing a 3rd planeswalker, he'd play a 5th discard spell. That's why I've got 4 Thoughtseize, 1 Duress and 3 Liliana, the Last Hope in my grixis sideboard. 5/3 split according to PV's reasoning.
Other than what PV suggested, discard is THE reason to play B IMO. Combo decks like Ad Nauseam, Scapeshift, Storm etc all fold to discard provided no turn 0 Leyline of Sanctity. It's still the best answer to them even if they pack leylines. I like Thoughtseize the best as I'd bring them in against decks where my life total doesn't matter as much. Hits important stuff like Thought-Knot Seer, Reality Smasher, Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger, Nahiri, the Harbinger, Scapeshift, Ad Nauseam in one card so it saves sideboard slots. Duress is nice too and like EsperShardmage said, it's awesome against Burn, it's virtually another Negate. I'd also never bring Thoughtseize in against Burn, it's suicide IMO. So Duress wins there. I like both and think they answer harder to deal with cards better than Inquisition of Kozilek in a pure control deck.
@EsperShardmage - I actually never feel comfortable running less than 26 land. I've even gone up to 28 land in the past but have permanently settled on 26. I don't know, mana screw is like death for me, it's the thing I fear most. With that said, I find it near impossible to find room for cantrips such as Serum Visions without rejigging my whole deck so to speak... It's literally the one thing I haven't been able to correctly implement into my deck building of control decks. I see less than 26 lands and I go yuck, I mentally can't do it but I mean it works, like there are so many other control decks running like 22-24 lands like Jeskai.
What PV's article says is relevant to tempo decks and to midrange or tap-out decks. Wrong archetype, wrong gameplan. Also, wrong format--those articles came out when the recently rotated standard faeries and jund decks were tearing up the "4 year extended" format. In draw-go control, we aren't looking to create a low-resource game, we're looking to create an imbalance of resources by pulling ahead. Subtle difference in theory, but massive in practical application. Faeries wants to have a cryptic command in hand and a couple of little dudes on the table clocking against an opponent topdecking with no board presence. draw-go control wants to have three counterspells, a boardwipe, and a removal spell in hand against a topdecking opponent on an entirely empty board. We don't want to protect a planeswalker and grind out advantage--we want a win condition that pretty much haymakers the game, and we don't want to worry about protecting it, we just want it to be a thing that comes down when the game is on lock and can't be *easily* disrupted, aka not die to bolt/path/terminate/helix/liliana minus. In UWR draw-go, I used to play a pair of assemble the legion--same thing, doesn't die to any of the removal in our opponents mainboard, don't have to protect it, it just does its thing and the game is over. I've played nephalia drownyard in standard for the same reason--it just does a thing, and then you win.
As far as discard being the primary reason to be in black, you're not wrong, but not with the reasoning you state. Everything black can do as a sideboard color, white can hate on better. The reason for black is the FLEXIBILITY of the discard options available--rest in peace, runed halo, and stony silence are all nuts against their respective decks? Guess what, surgical extraction + thoughtseize hits almost all of the same decks, with a less narrow commitment. The epitome of the flexibility aspect is esper charm--I wouldn't be playing black if not for this card, because the flexibility of black sideboard cards does not actually make up for the discrepancy in consistency and powerlevel between UW and Esper--it really is the instant speed divination that also is a swiss army knife that makes the difference.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
Great points amalek0 and what's your opinion on cantrips in a draw go control decks like Esper?
Also Surgical Extraction. I love the card but I've reading a few old articles lately labelling it as kind of a trap and really being card disadvantage and all. I can understand that side of things and it does sound counterproductive considering our whole game is based on overwhelming card advantage, but is it fair to say, some matches card advantage don't really count for jack and the game should be won on a different strategy?
A big part of control theory is strategic advantage -- if our strategy is strong against theirs, then we will likely win because the game will go long enough for the strategic advantage to take over. If surgical puts us at a significant strategic advantage, then it's worth the card disadvantage. For example, extracting Valakut from a Valakut deck makes them a ramp deck with easy-to-answer threats or (a control deck with basically no wincon if on Scapeshift). Against mono-G devo, extracting Garruk Wildspeaker lets you keep up with them, turning them into a bad midrange deck. Against Boggles/Infect, extracting their threats really stretches the deck thin -- especially if they don't have any other threats in hand. Not to mention graveyard decks like Dredge and Reanimator.
As for the 8-fetches not being enough for logic knot: That's simply not true. I started playing the deck when the general consensus was playing 7 fetches and 2 logic knot. The only reason im now on 8 is from the time i tried 3 logic's i ultimately didnt like it due to drawing multiples, but i liked the mana and have stuck with it. I cant remember ever having trouble casting Logic knot on Turn 2.
Edit: if you're looking to counter stuff on turn 2. - Snare is your guy.
The previous general consensus was completely wrong. Think of it as a math problem. Do you want to use Logic Knot on turn 2 as a force spike? My premise is that, yes, you want this added utility even if it's main role is to work as a mid-game hard counter - it still will be weak in aggro matchups, which are like 60% of modern right now, but not useless, which is a significant upgrade. If so, the deck needs more enablers. With just 8 fetches, you won't draw them ~27% of the times, which is way too high. For instance, no one splashes a card that is better played on turn 2 in a deck with just 8 mana sources.
If you aren't running spell snares, then yes I agree with you. To me, the question is actually one that runs along three axes:
1. Is it useful to run more than two logic knot?
2. In the majority of matchups where I would want a turn 2 or 3 logic knot, am I also likely to want or have wanted a spell snare?
3. Is there any reason to avoid running more fetchlands?
I think it's a lot simpler than that. It's OK to want to run Logic Knot because it works as a hard counter late-game, but having the added utility of it also being a good early play makes the card significantly better - and actually playable in modern IMO. Of course, if all I wanted was a card to interact early I would not run Logic Knot in ths spot. I am not looking for it to replace Spell Snare's role either. What I do want is that my strong mid-game or late-game card can also help survive early sometimes, and for that to be reliably possible I need a min # of enablers for delve. I wouldn't count Path to Exile as a proper "enabler" because it also gives the opponent +1 mana to help pay for the Knot some of the times. It's more of a partial enabler.
So, run Logic Knot because you want mid-game hard counters, as a control deck does need. But build your deck in a way where you can also can benefit from using it early a significat % of the time, or the card won't be good enough. The deck doesn't interact a lot early, so I am the opinion that it can't afford the Logic Knots to also be bad before turn 4. It's just too much air. Logic Knot should get all the help it can from deck construction, and a set of Serum Visions is the minimum I would do in that regard.
As for the 8-fetches not being enough for logic knot: That's simply not true. I started playing the deck when the general consensus was playing 7 fetches and 2 logic knot. The only reason im now on 8 is from the time i tried 3 logic's i ultimately didnt like it due to drawing multiples, but i liked the mana and have stuck with it. I cant remember ever having trouble casting Logic knot on Turn 2.
Edit: if you're looking to counter stuff on turn 2. - Snare is your guy.
The previous general consensus was completely wrong. Think of it as a math problem. Do you want to use Logic Knot on turn 2 as a force spike? My premise is that, yes, you want this added utility even if it's main role is to work as a mid-game hard counter - it still will be weak in aggro matchups, which are like 60% of modern right now, but not useless, which is a significant upgrade. If so, the deck needs more enablers. With just 8 fetches, you won't draw them ~27% of the times, which is way too high. For instance, no one splashes a card that is better played on turn 2 in a deck with just 8 mana sources.
If you aren't running spell snares, then yes I agree with you. To me, the question is actually one that runs along three axes:
1. Is it useful to run more than two logic knot?
2. In the majority of matchups where I would want a turn 2 or 3 logic knot, am I also likely to want or have wanted a spell snare?
3. Is there any reason to avoid running more fetchlands?
I think it's a lot simpler than that. It's OK to want to run Logic Knot because it works as a hard counter late-game, but having the added utility of it also being a good early play makes the card significantly better - and actually playable in modern IMO. Of course, if all I wanted was a card to interact early I would not run Logic Knot in ths spot. I am not looking for it to replace Spell Snare's role either. What I do want is that my strong mid-game or late-game card can also help survive early sometimes, and for that to be reliably possible I need a min # of enablers for delve. I wouldn't count Path to Exile as a proper "enabler" because it also gives the opponent +1 mana to help pay for the Knot some of the times. It's more of a partial enabler.
So, run Logic Knot because you want mid-game hard counters, as a control deck does need. But build your deck in a way where you can also can benefit from using it early a significat % of the time, or the card won't be good enough. The deck doesn't interact a lot early, so I am the opinion that it can't afford the Logic Knots to also be bad before turn 4. It's just too much air. Logic Knot should get all the help it can from deck construction, and a set of Serum Visions is the minimum I would do in that regard.
It's a math problem that you're also not correctly structuring--there's a lot of pieces missing in your explanation:
1. Life points saved by CIPT lands translates to some quantitative value
2. Mandatory tap lands mess with your percentages by a good bit
3. You fail to consider the value of tempo wrt Logic Knot--it can often be correct to fire it off for less than a hard counter just to eat up their turn
4. you presume that logic knot occupies a spot on the curve that is intended to aid in early interaction
5. you fail to account for the fact that combining logic knot and serum visions in a deck with as many tap lands as esper is wont to play leads to awkward sequencing of tap land, tap land + visions, and logic knot online turn three--wherein a force spike vs a mana leak is effectively identical for most of the format
Those are just the hard combinatorial instances you entirely miss with those numbers. The biggest reality is you fall afoul of one of the biggest historical traps in magic deck building: playing bad cards to make mediocre cards better. Serum visions is not objectively a good card. It's the best of its class in the modern card pool. It's a class of card that esper could desperately use. But the opportunity cost of having a card that actively bad in your deck is greater than the gain from having card selection and slightly more easily enabled logic knots in your mainboard. The reason to play serum visions is not to enable logic knot. It's to enable turn 4 verdict with as much consistency as possible in an MTGO format that has 30%+ of the format fold entirely to the second board wipe.
Compare these text boxes: Esper charm, serum visions, supreme verdict, sphinx's revelation, cryptic command, snapcaster mage. one of these cards is really, really far down in power compared to the others, and it's because the level of selection on serum visions just isn't there, so even if its effectiveness to cmc punches waaaay over weight, it's still not good enough to be worth the card unless external (metagame influences) make it necessary, and I would still expect that just playing additional board wipes and slot removal in those same spots would be a better use of the space; UW control rarely plays the full set of serum visions, if any at all, for this reason.
Final point--calling a consensus reached by a group of people through mostly independent testing over the course of basically two years wrong means you're likely missing something. I learned that the first time I had to present the state of my research to my advisory board; for every hundred pages of mathematics research you read in preparation for your thesis, your advisors somehow have another 10 or 20 pages they've read that completely change the light in which your assertions stand, and probably makes them look really stupid. I'm a grad student in math, but I'm sure there are guys in the thread from other disciplines who know what I mean--none of us are as dumb as most of us together, but all of us can't screw up with enough consistency all the time to make all of our data invalid.
Yes, I am a local area mod. WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Primary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
Clearly, I never tried to compute the perfect number of enablers, or the cost-benefit of taplands. I merely stated that 8 fetch as enablers are not enough, and that Path can't count as full enabler. That's easy to figure out.
If Serum Visions is bad and Logic Knot is mediocre, then don't ruin either, which is a fine conclusion. But they should be treated as package, because you can't afford to run Logic Knot as a play that is only good after turn 3.
You very much can afford to run logic knot without serum visions.
While obviously, serum visions is going to make logic knot better (thats not really up for dispute, but theres more to the picture than that).
We run plenty of cards that aren't even castable, let alone good, before turn 3. Logic knot being occasionally awkward is unfortunate, but thats how it goes.
However, I don't think its realistic to get away with not running logic knot.
Its crossed my mind to just say **** it and run a set of rune snags as my 2 cmc counter, and I think right now, thats more appealing than its ever been, as especially with cutting snares, the demand for 2 mana broader counters is there, and it doesn't require playing serum visions. However, rune snag is going to run you into problems.
The issue primarily is this: logic knot is honest to god not a good card. But its almost unarguably the best card we can play in this deck. Assuming we play less than four 2 cmc counters (which has been a given for a long time up til now) then theres nothing else worth playing over knot because you're going to get into trouble more with them than with knot.
However, spell snare being your turn 2 counter (and letting you play your lands more conveniently) means you'll be leaning much less heavily on logic knot, which isn't something we can ignore.
I'm disappointed wafo has decided to switch to jeskai, and that list isn't all that impressive either, at first glance. Nothing to really write home about.
I find Logic Knot to typically be the last counterspell I cut vs. a lot of decks. Vs. most aggressive decks (Burn notwithstanding), I'm cutting Negates first (sometimes in exchange for Dispel), then a handful of Cryptic, then maybe 1-3 Snares depending on the deck, *then* Logic Knot in a lot of cases.
I can't say I've done much in the way of data. I like casting Serum Visions - I do. I just wouldn't cut Spell Snares, removal, Snapcaster, or anything beyond the first Think Twice for a few copies.
I think there are two reasons to play Spell Snare:
1) It evens out a bad match up. I'm talking about Burn. The deck becomes infinitely easier to play against when you can Spell Snare an Eidolon and then Snap-Snare a Boros Charm. Or replace that w/ any other 2 mana card. The combination of Snap, Path/Condemn, Spell Snare, and Dispel is your bread and butter in that match up. I'd argue you're even favored if you're seeing a good portion of those in your first turn or 2.
2) It keeps traditionally good match ups good, or makes them safer. You can acknowledge something as good match up all you want, but if you continue to cut the cards that win you that match, you will end up losing. Affinity, Jund, and Snapcaster decks fall here. Snapcaster is a tough card for control to deal with. If it isn't being countered, it's a body and some form of card advantage (either removal, card draw, filtering, damage, or anything) in 1 card. That's tough to grind out, especially in conjunction with Kologhan's Command or a Planeswalker. Spell Snare is, bar none, the cleanest answer. If you can answer another blue deck's Snaps, you're far more likely to win than if one sneaks by and chips you down for a few turns because you can't afford to waste removal on just a 2/1. This is even assuming you can counter what they try to flashback. The pain can add up quickly and not in our favor.
Jund and Affinity just become safer. That Etched Champion or Blinkmoth chipping away at your health are a lot less threatening when you were able to counter their Cranial Plating or Ravager before it hit the board. The same holds true for Bob. I've just found that there are a lot more ways to lose when you don't have that turn 2 answer. And, as we know, the longer the game goes, the better we are.
FYI, this deck was piloted by Erwann Maisonneuve, who is wafo's former playtester, with a 52nd place in GP Lille.
They still test together.
Both Esper and Jeskai lists have strong similarities, basically - Esper Charm + Electrolize and some bolts.
That list is a pure masterpiece. I prefer it -1x Desolate Lighthouse +1x Colonnade, and with different sideboard stuff (Why doesn't Wafo ever play Leyline?); but that list is very good. The low-to-the-groud Serum+Secure plan fits well in a UWR shell.
This whole "spell snare doesn't deserve 4 slots anymore" and "I hate holding up mana to beat mana leak and skullcrack" are kind of at odds.
Wafo could have reasonably made the decision to cut them completely if he accurately predicts the meta at gp lille (which he did to some extent, but without his pairing data, we can't be quite sure) and has 3 byes. In nearly no other circumstance (beside super hard read on the meta, which seems fairly unlike in this instance) would I be comfortable playing so few snares.
Clique is pretty good in the general sense, but I'm not the hugest fan of just playing one mainboard. I personally would play 2 main or 2 side, and not split them up, but this is fairly insignificant.
1 rev/ 1 teachings split is also something I used to do (and used to be able to get away with).
However, I think I would want the 26th land without serum visions or any other velocity in the deck.
I'm not a huge fan of leyline main in general, but i think especially with teachings, that slot could be more impactful as something else.
Slaughter pact in particular is fairly strong right now, and is pretty good with teachings.
I'm not a huge fan of your mana base, I think sunken hollow is going to get you in more trouble than its worth.
If you choose to play 5+ manlands, filters have an advantage over buddy lands.
Anguished unmaking, fracturing gust, summary dismissal, consume the meek, dispel, and crypt incursion are worth considering as teachable sideboard cards.
I've previously played esper gifts but my list was horrible. Now I'm returning to the archetype, and I've read the primer and some of the latest pages in this thead. Anyway, I have many questions about card choices and wincons.
1 - Think twice vs. serum visions. Some lists trim copies of think twice and instead play some sv. I just don't see why serum is played in this archetype, at all. The only reason to play some copies is to fuel delve spells, and that's not enough. It's not card advantage, and it's not instant speed! Should I go with the general consensus and play 4 think twice? Otherwise, against which decks is serum visions better?
2 - Number of Spell Snare. I love it, but I see that your lists don't play many copies of it. Against which decks is it good? I would like to play 2-4 copies but I want to know if my local meta justifies that number.
3 - Lingering souls. Is there any reason to play those in the sideboard? The list that I'm currently building is this one
http://modernnexus.com/attacking-settled-metagame-esper-control-modern/
I think that lingering souls is an amazing card. I played 4 of those in my esper gifts deck, but many of the interactions there aren't available here (gifts including souls just for value, elesh norn turning the tokens into 3/3 fliers). If I played some copies of lingering souls in my sideboard, in which matchups I would bring them in?
L: Maverick
Think Twice and Serum Visions aren't interchangeable. People running Serum Visions are trimming other playsets of spells or lands to do so for deck Velocity. Think Twice and Esper Charm are Divination effects; Wafo cut one so he could run Ancestral Visions.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
Yesterday I spent like... 2 hours maybe, reading comments in this thread haha. On my questions:
1 - I see, I messed up. Since some of you have recently stated, cantrips can't replace CA like think twice. The question should have been: Cantrips, ¿yes or no?
I didn't really found lots of real discussion about this topic in here. It looked like personal preference most of the time, with the only tangible reason to run cantrips being "the list runs smoother".
In my opinion, the only reasonable cantrip is serum visions, if I were to run some. Shadow of doubt was super weird most of the time I played it, and it really underperformed. Remand is... okay, but as I read in this thread, you need to answer the threat again most of the time, making the card draw a less relevant.
2 - Number of Spell Snare. Okay, this has been discussed way more than what I expected. The general consensus, if I understood correctly, is that MODO meta is really heavy with death shadow aggro, and snare is not amazing against it, so MODO players run less copies (or even zero) compared to paper copies. Other people also "felt" that snare was running out of targets, that snare was useful in already favorable matchups (with the exception of burn), etc.
While snare is not amazing against death shadow aggro, G1 it's not a dead card (temur battle rage is the best card in their deck, and without it, most of the time they can't one-shot people). Some lists also run a nonzero number of goyfs mainboard, which snare hits... and that's it. Not amazing, but not a dead card either. I think that I'll run some copies to see how it performs.
3 - Lingering souls. While I saw many lists playing 3 copies in the sideboard "because it's really versatile", I didn't really see more arguments in its favor. Like, I wanted to see which (not favorable G1) matchups lingering souls makes favorable. If someone can explain this to me...
Well, for this FNM I'll be playing this list (mainly because I have all the cards for this one while I currently have neither runed halo nor secure the wastes).
4 flooded strand
4 polluted delta
3 hallowed fountain
2 watery grave
3 island
2 plains
1 swamp
1 drowned catacomb
2 ghost quarter
4 cryptic command
3 spell snare
2 logic knot
4 esper charm
2 sphinx's revelation
4 path to exile
2 blessed alliance
3 supreme verdict
3 snapcaster mage
2 leyline of sanctity
1 white sun's zenith
1 blessed alliance
1 wrath of god
2 celestial purge
2 baneslayer angel
3 duress
3 surgical extraction
1 Elspeth, Sun's Champion
2 stony silence
I like many things about this list (GQ/discard+surgical combo, baneslayer angel) but there are other things that I don't really understand. First, why stony silence? affinity is already a favorable matchup, we can include better cards against tron, and weird artifact based lists aren't the most common thing.
Secondly, why x3 duress in the sideboard? Seems like the extra reach thoughtseize gives is well worth the two lives.
In addition to this, in which matchups do I want to side in the discard? Aside from combo and tron (where I would prefer thoughtseize), are there any aggro/midrange/control matchups where I want to duress/thoughtsize them?
//Offtopic I saw that Blasco Oier, from my LGS, posted in this thread. If you read this, hi! I'm Diego, the guy who usually plays Bant Coralhelm.
L: Maverick
Snare comes down to meta and build. If you have lots of jund and affinity players, Snare gets better. But if you are running 4 wraths main and a bunch of can trips, well it's likely you made room for those cantrips by cutting snares. In that build, you can get away with it because of your increased likelihood of board wiping on 4.
Souls... Preference I think. I've never liked them but they help put pressure early against Tron and burn and provide blockers against the aggro decks. In my experience, the aggro decks find a way to get there when you tap out on 3, and the card pulls the play style away from draw-go, so I'm not a fan.
Duress v Thoughtseize I'm with you on. But I think duress is much better if you want to survive burn. Otherwise, I bring them in against combo and aggro-combo like infect.
The way I think about it is that we have five categories of deck: Control, Combo, agro, burn, and midrange.
Against agro decks (think infect, zooicide, boggles), your best options are inquisition and thoughtseize.
Against control decks, you really want thoughtseize followed by duress.
For combo decks, you want thoughtseize followed by duress.
For midrange decks, you want inquisition, followed by thoughtseize
For burn, you want inquisition, followed by duress.
As an archetype, we mostly don't want discard against midrange at all to begin with, so that's irrelevant. For control decks, we look to go bigger so it's more relevant to answer their countermagic/protection spells than it is to take their actual threats. This leaves us wanting thoughtseize and duress, with a very slight edge to duress. Therefore, the question becomes mostly one of your burn and infect plans. If you want to try to fight the burn matchup, playing duress instead of thoughtseize gives you a pretty reasonable method of having an extra three cards to bring in. If you don't necessarily care as much about the burn matchup and want to shore up infect, thoughtseize is good. If discard is my primary tool against combo, I'm playing three thoughtseizes or a 2-1 split with duress, whereas if discard is more a tool for control mirrors and incidental cards against combo and burn, I'll run heavy to duress.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
I will say it again: Logic Knot with only 8 ways (fetches) to turn it on early is a big deck construction mistake.
If you aren't running spell snares, then yes I agree with you. To me, the question is actually one that runs along three axes:
1. Is it useful to run more than two logic knot?
2. In the majority of matchups where I would want a turn 2 or 3 logic knot, am I also likely to want or have wanted a spell snare?
3. Is there any reason to avoid running more fetchlands?
The reality is, we're running 4 path to exiles, so against about half the decks where we want logic knot to turn on early, basic sequencing says we already have 12 enablers and that logic knot for 2 is basically counterspell and often times stymied hopes is sufficient--these would be matchups like zooicide and infect/delver. This means that the first two logic knots are fine--you can always deal with one dead draw in a matchup, particularly if it's a card that will be live eventually, and the second logic knot is a freeroll just based on the number of fetchlands we play, so unless you want a third logic knot, there's no reason to worry about enabling it further. The last question is irrelevant the way the format stands, because more fetchlands = more blood moon protection, so 7 is pretty much mandatory, 8 is typical, and the 9th is going to come into play if you want to cut down on manlands to speed up the manabase slightly. Point two then becomes the only relevant axis when talking about whether you need serum visions. If spell snare is playable as a 4 of, then likely you don't need to run serum visions, since the metagame already makes the 9th fetch attractive for speed reasons. If spell snare is not playable as a 4-of, then I question why you want extra early copies of logic knot in the first place?
Perhaps, and this is just a guess, you're new to draw-go as an archetype, and don't quite understand the role countermagic plays. The idea with countermagic in a draw-go shell is that it does two things: it allows you to continue to "hold position" once you stabilize, AKA ensure you keep getting to untap on a clean board, and more importantly, it allows you to get "in position" in the first place by allowing you to stabilize (typically by wrathing the board), while also preventing your opponent from using their next turn to establish a board presence you have to worry about. In the typical wafo-style shells, my experience has been that logic knot tends to be the card you hold up when wrathing on turn 6 in fair matchups, and the card you cast on turn 4 or 5 in unfair matchups. In matchups where neither of those is applicable, like burn or small zoo, you don't need enablers because you can just trade it off with one delved card for a spell most of the time because those decks are all about critical mass and mana efficiency, so all that matters is the early 1 for 1, not what card you actually hit. I guess the point I'm making is that it takes a narrow style of metagame for serum visions to power logic knot to actually be correct. The MTGO metagame of late makes that reasonable. Most of the time, it isn't.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
What PV's article says is relevant to tempo decks and to midrange or tap-out decks. Wrong archetype, wrong gameplan. Also, wrong format--those articles came out when the recently rotated standard faeries and jund decks were tearing up the "4 year extended" format. In draw-go control, we aren't looking to create a low-resource game, we're looking to create an imbalance of resources by pulling ahead. Subtle difference in theory, but massive in practical application. Faeries wants to have a cryptic command in hand and a couple of little dudes on the table clocking against an opponent topdecking with no board presence. draw-go control wants to have three counterspells, a boardwipe, and a removal spell in hand against a topdecking opponent on an entirely empty board. We don't want to protect a planeswalker and grind out advantage--we want a win condition that pretty much haymakers the game, and we don't want to worry about protecting it, we just want it to be a thing that comes down when the game is on lock and can't be *easily* disrupted, aka not die to bolt/path/terminate/helix/liliana minus. In UWR draw-go, I used to play a pair of assemble the legion--same thing, doesn't die to any of the removal in our opponents mainboard, don't have to protect it, it just does its thing and the game is over. I've played nephalia drownyard in standard for the same reason--it just does a thing, and then you win.
As far as discard being the primary reason to be in black, you're not wrong, but not with the reasoning you state. Everything black can do as a sideboard color, white can hate on better. The reason for black is the FLEXIBILITY of the discard options available--rest in peace, runed halo, and stony silence are all nuts against their respective decks? Guess what, surgical extraction + thoughtseize hits almost all of the same decks, with a less narrow commitment. The epitome of the flexibility aspect is esper charm--I wouldn't be playing black if not for this card, because the flexibility of black sideboard cards does not actually make up for the discrepancy in consistency and powerlevel between UW and Esper--it really is the instant speed divination that also is a swiss army knife that makes the difference.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
A big part of control theory is strategic advantage -- if our strategy is strong against theirs, then we will likely win because the game will go long enough for the strategic advantage to take over. If surgical puts us at a significant strategic advantage, then it's worth the card disadvantage. For example, extracting Valakut from a Valakut deck makes them a ramp deck with easy-to-answer threats or (a control deck with basically no wincon if on Scapeshift). Against mono-G devo, extracting Garruk Wildspeaker lets you keep up with them, turning them into a bad midrange deck. Against Boggles/Infect, extracting their threats really stretches the deck thin -- especially if they don't have any other threats in hand. Not to mention graveyard decks like Dredge and Reanimator.
UWB Esper Draw-Go Control (clicky)
UW Azorius Control (clicky)
Currently pursuing a degree in Biochemistry.
EDH: I've decided I don't like multiplayer formats.
The previous general consensus was completely wrong. Think of it as a math problem. Do you want to use Logic Knot on turn 2 as a force spike? My premise is that, yes, you want this added utility even if it's main role is to work as a mid-game hard counter - it still will be weak in aggro matchups, which are like 60% of modern right now, but not useless, which is a significant upgrade. If so, the deck needs more enablers. With just 8 fetches, you won't draw them ~27% of the times, which is way too high. For instance, no one splashes a card that is better played on turn 2 in a deck with just 8 mana sources.
I think it's a lot simpler than that. It's OK to want to run Logic Knot because it works as a hard counter late-game, but having the added utility of it also being a good early play makes the card significantly better - and actually playable in modern IMO. Of course, if all I wanted was a card to interact early I would not run Logic Knot in ths spot. I am not looking for it to replace Spell Snare's role either. What I do want is that my strong mid-game or late-game card can also help survive early sometimes, and for that to be reliably possible I need a min # of enablers for delve. I wouldn't count Path to Exile as a proper "enabler" because it also gives the opponent +1 mana to help pay for the Knot some of the times. It's more of a partial enabler.
So, run Logic Knot because you want mid-game hard counters, as a control deck does need. But build your deck in a way where you can also can benefit from using it early a significat % of the time, or the card won't be good enough. The deck doesn't interact a lot early, so I am the opinion that it can't afford the Logic Knots to also be bad before turn 4. It's just too much air. Logic Knot should get all the help it can from deck construction, and a set of Serum Visions is the minimum I would do in that regard.
It's a math problem that you're also not correctly structuring--there's a lot of pieces missing in your explanation:
1. Life points saved by CIPT lands translates to some quantitative value
2. Mandatory tap lands mess with your percentages by a good bit
3. You fail to consider the value of tempo wrt Logic Knot--it can often be correct to fire it off for less than a hard counter just to eat up their turn
4. you presume that logic knot occupies a spot on the curve that is intended to aid in early interaction
5. you fail to account for the fact that combining logic knot and serum visions in a deck with as many tap lands as esper is wont to play leads to awkward sequencing of tap land, tap land + visions, and logic knot online turn three--wherein a force spike vs a mana leak is effectively identical for most of the format
Those are just the hard combinatorial instances you entirely miss with those numbers. The biggest reality is you fall afoul of one of the biggest historical traps in magic deck building: playing bad cards to make mediocre cards better. Serum visions is not objectively a good card. It's the best of its class in the modern card pool. It's a class of card that esper could desperately use. But the opportunity cost of having a card that actively bad in your deck is greater than the gain from having card selection and slightly more easily enabled logic knots in your mainboard. The reason to play serum visions is not to enable logic knot. It's to enable turn 4 verdict with as much consistency as possible in an MTGO format that has 30%+ of the format fold entirely to the second board wipe.
Compare these text boxes: Esper charm, serum visions, supreme verdict, sphinx's revelation, cryptic command, snapcaster mage. one of these cards is really, really far down in power compared to the others, and it's because the level of selection on serum visions just isn't there, so even if its effectiveness to cmc punches waaaay over weight, it's still not good enough to be worth the card unless external (metagame influences) make it necessary, and I would still expect that just playing additional board wipes and slot removal in those same spots would be a better use of the space; UW control rarely plays the full set of serum visions, if any at all, for this reason.
Final point--calling a consensus reached by a group of people through mostly independent testing over the course of basically two years wrong means you're likely missing something. I learned that the first time I had to present the state of my research to my advisory board; for every hundred pages of mathematics research you read in preparation for your thesis, your advisors somehow have another 10 or 20 pages they've read that completely change the light in which your assertions stand, and probably makes them look really stupid. I'm a grad student in math, but I'm sure there are guys in the thread from other disciplines who know what I mean--none of us are as dumb as most of us together, but all of us can't screw up with enough consistency all the time to make all of our data invalid.
Yes, I am a local area mod.WELP. GOOD LIFE CHANGES ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE AND SOME ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVEPrimary Decks:
Modern: Esper Draw-Go
Legacy: RUG Lands
EDH: Sidisi turn-3 storm
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/468064#online
FYI, this deck was piloted by Erwann Maisonneuve, who is wafo's former playtester, with a 52nd place in GP Lille.
They still test together.
Both Esper and Jeskai lists have strong similarities, basically - Esper Charm + Electrolize and some bolts.
If Serum Visions is bad and Logic Knot is mediocre, then don't ruin either, which is a fine conclusion. But they should be treated as package, because you can't afford to run Logic Knot as a play that is only good after turn 3.
While obviously, serum visions is going to make logic knot better (thats not really up for dispute, but theres more to the picture than that).
We run plenty of cards that aren't even castable, let alone good, before turn 3. Logic knot being occasionally awkward is unfortunate, but thats how it goes.
However, I don't think its realistic to get away with not running logic knot.
Its crossed my mind to just say **** it and run a set of rune snags as my 2 cmc counter, and I think right now, thats more appealing than its ever been, as especially with cutting snares, the demand for 2 mana broader counters is there, and it doesn't require playing serum visions. However, rune snag is going to run you into problems.
The issue primarily is this: logic knot is honest to god not a good card. But its almost unarguably the best card we can play in this deck. Assuming we play less than four 2 cmc counters (which has been a given for a long time up til now) then theres nothing else worth playing over knot because you're going to get into trouble more with them than with knot.
However, spell snare being your turn 2 counter (and letting you play your lands more conveniently) means you'll be leaning much less heavily on logic knot, which isn't something we can ignore.
I'm disappointed wafo has decided to switch to jeskai, and that list isn't all that impressive either, at first glance. Nothing to really write home about.
I can't say I've done much in the way of data. I like casting Serum Visions - I do. I just wouldn't cut Spell Snares, removal, Snapcaster, or anything beyond the first Think Twice for a few copies.
I think there are two reasons to play Spell Snare:
1) It evens out a bad match up. I'm talking about Burn. The deck becomes infinitely easier to play against when you can Spell Snare an Eidolon and then Snap-Snare a Boros Charm. Or replace that w/ any other 2 mana card. The combination of Snap, Path/Condemn, Spell Snare, and Dispel is your bread and butter in that match up. I'd argue you're even favored if you're seeing a good portion of those in your first turn or 2.
2) It keeps traditionally good match ups good, or makes them safer. You can acknowledge something as good match up all you want, but if you continue to cut the cards that win you that match, you will end up losing. Affinity, Jund, and Snapcaster decks fall here. Snapcaster is a tough card for control to deal with. If it isn't being countered, it's a body and some form of card advantage (either removal, card draw, filtering, damage, or anything) in 1 card. That's tough to grind out, especially in conjunction with Kologhan's Command or a Planeswalker. Spell Snare is, bar none, the cleanest answer. If you can answer another blue deck's Snaps, you're far more likely to win than if one sneaks by and chips you down for a few turns because you can't afford to waste removal on just a 2/1. This is even assuming you can counter what they try to flashback. The pain can add up quickly and not in our favor.
Jund and Affinity just become safer. That Etched Champion or Blinkmoth chipping away at your health are a lot less threatening when you were able to counter their Cranial Plating or Ravager before it hit the board. The same holds true for Bob. I've just found that there are a lot more ways to lose when you don't have that turn 2 answer. And, as we know, the longer the game goes, the better we are.
Wafo's allowed to play more than 1 deck guys. lol
Modern - Esper Draw-Go (Best finish - 12-3, 45th at GP Charlotte 2015), Jeskai Control, UR Breach Moon
That list is a pure masterpiece. I prefer it -1x Desolate Lighthouse +1x Colonnade, and with different sideboard stuff (Why doesn't Wafo ever play Leyline?); but that list is very good. The low-to-the-groud Serum+Secure plan fits well in a UWR shell.
UWB Esper Draw-Go Control (clicky)
UW Azorius Control (clicky)
Currently pursuing a degree in Biochemistry.
EDH: I've decided I don't like multiplayer formats.