Hello everyone! My third semester of nursing school just started so I have been off the forums and magic for the past few weeks! I see everyone has already started talking about Opt in modern!
I was wondering how people are scaling it in significance to the deck? Are we thinking it is a possible Serum Visions replacement? Is it worth it to run both Opt and Serum Visions? I feel like additional scry/draw effects are nice but I am still unsure.. Definitely like that it is an instant though, allows for you to leave up a mana on turn one - pass - and opt on their end step if they don't play anything of value in their opening turn..
As for the Geist conversation.. He is excellent in my experience, but to play him effectively you have to have the deck and your play style tailored. I think you need a large amount of burn and cheap creature removal and you have to start every turn by going straight to attack step and forcing blockers before using resources to kill/remove their creatures. I also run one vendilion clique mainboard because it allows for you to see their hand before casting him. I think that he is hands down the most reliable win condition right now in the format given that Nahiri is too slow and flash is so weak to fatal push
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UU"Brute force can sometimes kick down a locked door, but knowledge is a skeleton key"UU
I think most of you guys have never played with Opt before. You can't pull lands out of the deck for a one scry cantrip. It's much less powerful for filtering than it's being hyped. Opt can be compared to Peek as they are the same card with a different wrinkle. Seeing the hand vs. a scry one.
Scry one is not good at filtering. Scry two is MUCH stronger. The reason people would include Opt would be for combo decks that are going to take the cheapest filtering they can get or decks that want to play draw-go. I could see 2-3 making it into Nahiri decks to find Nahiri or a Path when needed. But Opt doesn't do much digging. Sleight of Hand is a stronger digging effect.
Statistically you can take out a land for any playset of (cheap) cantrips. I do think opt is good enough to become a commonly played card in modern, and at least for starters I will put the full playset into my Nahiri lists
Statistically you can take out a land for any playset of (cheap) cantrips. I do think opt is good enough to become a commonly played card in modern, and at least for starters I will put the full playset into my Nahiri lists
Do you have some data to back up that scry one cantrip playset=go down a land?
If you play a playset of Ponder, brainstorm, preordain, and the like...yes.
Opt is not near as good at filtering as those cards. And, as I said, it might be good. I'm just very skeptical that this card can lower the land count in a jeskai deck with many four mana spells lower than 23 lands.
I think most of you guys have never played with Opt before. You can't pull lands out of the deck for a one scry cantrip. It's much less powerful for filtering than it's being hyped. Opt can be compared to Peek as they are the same card with a different wrinkle. Seeing the hand vs. a scry one.
Scry one is not good at filtering. Scry two is MUCH stronger. The reason people would include Opt would be for combo decks that are going to take the cheapest filtering they can get or decks that want to play draw-go. I could see 2-3 making it into Nahiri decks to find Nahiri or a Path when needed. But Opt doesn't do much digging. Sleight of Hand is a stronger digging effect.
I'm not sure I agree. Comparing opt to peek makes zero sense. Scry 1 is actually relevant (especially because it comes before you draw).
Opt is more comparable to preordain. You loose one scry to get the spell at instant speed.
I think most of you guys have never played with Opt before. You can't pull lands out of the deck for a one scry cantrip. It's much less powerful for filtering than it's being hyped. Opt can be compared to Peek as they are the same card with a different wrinkle. Seeing the hand vs. a scry one.
Scry one is not good at filtering. Scry two is MUCH stronger. The reason people would include Opt would be for combo decks that are going to take the cheapest filtering they can get or decks that want to play draw-go. I could see 2-3 making it into Nahiri decks to find Nahiri or a Path when needed. But Opt doesn't do much digging. Sleight of Hand is a stronger digging effect.
I'm not sure I agree. Comparing opt to peek makes zero sense. Scry 1 is actually relevant (especially because it comes before you draw).
Opt is more comparable to preordain. You loose one scry to get the spell at instant speed.
That's semantics. My comparison is equally correct. You trade hand knowledge for a scry one.
The scry 2 effect is much more powerful than scry one. If scry one was very powerful you'd see a lot more people experimenting with Dissolve. Preordain is much more powerful than Opt. Comparing Opt to Preordain is likely farther from the truth than comparing it to Peek. The difference from scry one to scry 2 on a post scry draw is MUCH stronger and more reliable than the difference between see hand(no scry) and scry one. Especially considering everyone seems to think they can shave lands, which would be lending them to mainphase this effect much more often(making the instant speed clause less upside).
I think most of you guys have never played with Opt before. You can't pull lands out of the deck for a one scry cantrip. It's much less powerful for filtering than it's being hyped. Opt can be compared to Peek as they are the same card with a different wrinkle. Seeing the hand vs. a scry one.
Scry one is not good at filtering. Scry two is MUCH stronger. The reason people would include Opt would be for combo decks that are going to take the cheapest filtering they can get or decks that want to play draw-go. I could see 2-3 making it into Nahiri decks to find Nahiri or a Path when needed. But Opt doesn't do much digging. Sleight of Hand is a stronger digging effect.
I'm not sure I agree. Comparing opt to peek makes zero sense. Scry 1 is actually relevant (especially because it comes before you draw).
Opt is more comparable to preordain. You loose one scry to get the spell at instant speed.
That's semantics. My comparison is equally correct. You trade hand knowledge for a scry one.
The scry 2 effect is much more powerful than scry one. If scry one was very powerful you'd see a lot more people experimenting with Dissolve. Preordain is much more powerful than Opt. Comparing Opt to Preordain is likely farther from the truth than comparing it to Peek. The difference from scry one to scry 2 on a post scry draw is MUCH stronger and more reliable than the difference between see hand(no scry) and scry one. Especially considering everyone seems to think they can shave lands, which would be lending them to mainphase this effect much more often(making the instant speed clause less upside).
Scry 1 > hand knowledge assuming the cost of the spell is equal.
Also - you are using a fallacy logic. Dissolve doesn't see play not because scry 1 isn't good. It's because scry 1 isn't worth one extra mana. Three mana counter spells are largely unplayable in modern anyways. You'd need alot more than "scry" to make that spell playable. Even if the card was scry 2 or 3... it probably wouldn't see play.
I agree scry 2 is far more powerful than scry one. But trading one scry for instant speed is not inherently bad. It's actually better for control decks that want to keep one mana-removal available on the draw (a common thing in modern).
I think most of you guys have never played with Opt before. You can't pull lands out of the deck for a one scry cantrip. It's much less powerful for filtering than it's being hyped. Opt can be compared to Peek as they are the same card with a different wrinkle. Seeing the hand vs. a scry one.
Scry one is not good at filtering. Scry two is MUCH stronger. The reason people would include Opt would be for combo decks that are going to take the cheapest filtering they can get or decks that want to play draw-go. I could see 2-3 making it into Nahiri decks to find Nahiri or a Path when needed. But Opt doesn't do much digging. Sleight of Hand is a stronger digging effect.
I'm not sure I agree. Comparing opt to peek makes zero sense. Scry 1 is actually relevant (especially because it comes before you draw).
Opt is more comparable to preordain. You loose one scry to get the spell at instant speed.
That's semantics. My comparison is equally correct. You trade hand knowledge for a scry one.
The scry 2 effect is much more powerful than scry one. If scry one was very powerful you'd see a lot more people experimenting with Dissolve. Preordain is much more powerful than Opt. Comparing Opt to Preordain is likely farther from the truth than comparing it to Peek. The difference from scry one to scry 2 on a post scry draw is MUCH stronger and more reliable than the difference between see hand(no scry) and scry one. Especially considering everyone seems to think they can shave lands, which would be lending them to mainphase this effect much more often(making the instant speed clause less upside).
Scry 1 > hand knowledge assuming the cost of the spell is equal.
Also - you are using a fallacy logic. Dissolve doesn't see play not because scry 1 isn't good. It's because scry 1 isn't worth one extra mana. Three mana counter spells are largely unplayable in modern anyways. You'd need alot more than "scry" to make that spell playable. Even if the card was scry 2 or 3... it probably wouldn't see play.
I agree scry 2 is far more powerful than scry one. But trading one scry for instant speed is not inherently bad. It's actually better for control decks that want to keep one mana-removal available on the draw (a common thing in modern).
You might need to look up what logical fallacy means, here you are misusing the term. People are playing 3-4 mana counters. Cryptic Command at 4 CMC and I keep seeing Disallow pop-up more and more at 3 CMC. If scry one was very valuable people would ALSO be trying out dissolve more. But it's clear people aren't valuing the scry as highly as other effects.
So the logical fallacy I am seeing is that you are trying to make an argument about 2 CMC counters vs 3 CMC yet you ignore that 3-4 CMC counters are already regularly played in these decks.
I think most of you guys have never played with Opt before. You can't pull lands out of the deck for a one scry cantrip. It's much less powerful for filtering than it's being hyped. Opt can be compared to Peek as they are the same card with a different wrinkle. Seeing the hand vs. a scry one.
Scry one is not good at filtering. Scry two is MUCH stronger. The reason people would include Opt would be for combo decks that are going to take the cheapest filtering they can get or decks that want to play draw-go. I could see 2-3 making it into Nahiri decks to find Nahiri or a Path when needed. But Opt doesn't do much digging. Sleight of Hand is a stronger digging effect.
I'm not sure I agree. Comparing opt to peek makes zero sense. Scry 1 is actually relevant (especially because it comes before you draw).
Opt is more comparable to preordain. You loose one scry to get the spell at instant speed.
That's semantics. My comparison is equally correct. You trade hand knowledge for a scry one.
The scry 2 effect is much more powerful than scry one. If scry one was very powerful you'd see a lot more people experimenting with Dissolve. Preordain is much more powerful than Opt. Comparing Opt to Preordain is likely farther from the truth than comparing it to Peek. The difference from scry one to scry 2 on a post scry draw is MUCH stronger and more reliable than the difference between see hand(no scry) and scry one. Especially considering everyone seems to think they can shave lands, which would be lending them to mainphase this effect much more often(making the instant speed clause less upside).
Scry 1 > hand knowledge assuming the cost of the spell is equal.
Also - you are using a fallacy logic. Dissolve doesn't see play not because scry 1 isn't good. It's because scry 1 isn't worth one extra mana. Three mana counter spells are largely unplayable in modern anyways. You'd need alot more than "scry" to make that spell playable. Even if the card was scry 2 or 3... it probably wouldn't see play.
I agree scry 2 is far more powerful than scry one. But trading one scry for instant speed is not inherently bad. It's actually better for control decks that want to keep one mana-removal available on the draw (a common thing in modern).
You might need to look up what logical fallacy means, here you are misusing the term. People are playing 3-4 mana counters. Cryptic Command at 4 CMC and I keep seeing Disallow pop-up more and more at 3 CMC. If scry one was very valuable people would ALSO be trying out dissolve more. But it's clear people aren't valuing the scry as highly as other effects.
So the logical fallacy I am seeing is that you are trying to make an argument about 2 CMC counters vs 3 CMC yet you ignore that 3-4 CMC counters are already regularly played in these decks.
Cryptic Command has four effects and is arguably one of the most powerful counter spell ever printed.
Secondly - Dissalow is the ONLY three mana counter spell that occasionally sees play (and as a one of). It also has three modes on it. (counter target spell, activated, or triggered ability). It is versatile.
Whenever you evaluate a card, you have to ask your self why does this card cost more and is that extra cost worth it. Dissolve Does not see play because scry 1 is not powerful enough to warrent an extra mana cost. That does not mean scry 1 is bad or not good enough (your fallacy that you are using). It simply means scry 1 is not strong enough to make a traditionally unplayable CMC slot playable.
Cryptic Command has extra abilities that are nearly always worth the extra two mana. (tap, draw a card, or bounce a trouble permanent).
Dissalow occasionally has abilities that are worth the extra mana cost (counter an ETB or cast trigger).
Scry 1 is substantially less powerful than either of those options.
To summarize - the only reason why you'd play a counter spell that costs more than 2 is if it has an effect that makes it worth it. Scry 1 is not good enough by itself on that type of card.
EDIT - The only question you really have to ask yourself with opt is loosing one scry worth gaining instant speed. I would argue yes. Especially when the stronger sorcery speed card is not available to us.
I'm not sure I agree. Comparing opt to peek makes zero sense. Scry 1 is actually relevant (especially because it comes before you draw).
Opt is more comparable to preordain. You loose one scry to get the spell at instant speed.
That's semantics. My comparison is equally correct. You trade hand knowledge for a scry one.
The scry 2 effect is much more powerful than scry one. If scry one was very powerful you'd see a lot more people experimenting with Dissolve. Preordain is much more powerful than Opt. Comparing Opt to Preordain is likely farther from the truth than comparing it to Peek. The difference from scry one to scry 2 on a post scry draw is MUCH stronger and more reliable than the difference between see hand(no scry) and scry one. Especially considering everyone seems to think they can shave lands, which would be lending them to mainphase this effect much more often(making the instant speed clause less upside).
Scry 1 > hand knowledge assuming the cost of the spell is equal.
Also - you are using a fallacy logic. Dissolve doesn't see play not because scry 1 isn't good. It's because scry 1 isn't worth one extra mana. Three mana counter spells are largely unplayable in modern anyways. You'd need alot more than "scry" to make that spell playable. Even if the card was scry 2 or 3... it probably wouldn't see play.
I agree scry 2 is far more powerful than scry one. But trading one scry for instant speed is not inherently bad. It's actually better for control decks that want to keep one mana-removal available on the draw (a common thing in modern).
You might need to look up what logical fallacy means, here you are misusing the term. People are playing 3-4 mana counters. Cryptic Command at 4 CMC and I keep seeing Disallow pop-up more and more at 3 CMC. If scry one was very valuable people would ALSO be trying out dissolve more. But it's clear people aren't valuing the scry as highly as other effects.
So the logical fallacy I am seeing is that you are trying to make an argument about 2 CMC counters vs 3 CMC yet you ignore that 3-4 CMC counters are already regularly played in these decks.
Cryptic Command has four effects and is arguably one of the most powerful counter spell ever printed.
Secondly - Dissalow is the ONLY three mana counter spell that occasionally sees play (and as a one of). It also has three modes on it. (counter target spell, activated, or triggered ability). It is versatile.
Whenever you evaluate a card, you have to ask your self why does this card cost more and is that extra cost worth it. Dissolve Does not see play because scry 1 is not powerful enough to warrent an extra mana cost. That does not mean scry 1 is bad or not good enough (your fallacy that you are using). It simply means scry 1 is not strong enough to make a traditionally unplayable CMC slot playable.
Cryptic Command has extra abilities that are nearly always worth the extra two mana. (tap, draw a card, or bounce a trouble permanent).
Dissalow occasionally has abilities that are worth the extra mana cost (counter an ETB or cast trigger).
Scry 1 is substantially less powerful than either of those options.
To summarize - the only reason why you'd play a counter spell that costs more than 2 is if it has an effect that makes it worth it. Scry 1 is not good enough by itself on that type of card.
EDIT - The only question you really have to ask yourself with opt is loosing one scry worth gaining instant speed. I would argue yes. Especially when the stronger sorcery speed card is not available to us.
You are speaking to the choir here, perhaps unwittingly.
I don't need to be told why Cryptic Command is a powerful card. I was pointing out your fallacy of 3 CMC can't be played because 2 CMC counterspells are so much more valuable by pointing out that 3-4 mana counterspells are, in fact, commonly played.
The point you are failing to realize is that scry 1 is much less pwoerful than scry 2 when you have a post-scry draw. There isn't much digging to be done. It doesn't see up to 3-4 cards like a Serum Visions, Brainstorm, or Ponder.
With all this said, I'm not saying it won't see play or that I wont play it. I was pointing out that a playset of Opt does not in any way justify lowering land count, especially in decks that are playing 4+ spells of 4 CMC.
That's semantics. My comparison is equally correct. You trade hand knowledge for a scry one.
The scry 2 effect is much more powerful than scry one. If scry one was very powerful you'd see a lot more people experimenting with Dissolve. Preordain is much more powerful than Opt. Comparing Opt to Preordain is likely farther from the truth than comparing it to Peek. The difference from scry one to scry 2 on a post scry draw is MUCH stronger and more reliable than the difference between see hand(no scry) and scry one. Especially considering everyone seems to think they can shave lands, which would be lending them to mainphase this effect much more often(making the instant speed clause less upside).
Scry 1 > hand knowledge assuming the cost of the spell is equal.
Also - you are using a fallacy logic. Dissolve doesn't see play not because scry 1 isn't good. It's because scry 1 isn't worth one extra mana. Three mana counter spells are largely unplayable in modern anyways. You'd need alot more than "scry" to make that spell playable. Even if the card was scry 2 or 3... it probably wouldn't see play.
I agree scry 2 is far more powerful than scry one. But trading one scry for instant speed is not inherently bad. It's actually better for control decks that want to keep one mana-removal available on the draw (a common thing in modern).
You might need to look up what logical fallacy means, here you are misusing the term. People are playing 3-4 mana counters. Cryptic Command at 4 CMC and I keep seeing Disallow pop-up more and more at 3 CMC. If scry one was very valuable people would ALSO be trying out dissolve more. But it's clear people aren't valuing the scry as highly as other effects.
So the logical fallacy I am seeing is that you are trying to make an argument about 2 CMC counters vs 3 CMC yet you ignore that 3-4 CMC counters are already regularly played in these decks.
Cryptic Command has four effects and is arguably one of the most powerful counter spell ever printed.
Secondly - Dissalow is the ONLY three mana counter spell that occasionally sees play (and as a one of). It also has three modes on it. (counter target spell, activated, or triggered ability). It is versatile.
Whenever you evaluate a card, you have to ask your self why does this card cost more and is that extra cost worth it. Dissolve Does not see play because scry 1 is not powerful enough to warrent an extra mana cost. That does not mean scry 1 is bad or not good enough (your fallacy that you are using). It simply means scry 1 is not strong enough to make a traditionally unplayable CMC slot playable.
Cryptic Command has extra abilities that are nearly always worth the extra two mana. (tap, draw a card, or bounce a trouble permanent).
Dissalow occasionally has abilities that are worth the extra mana cost (counter an ETB or cast trigger).
Scry 1 is substantially less powerful than either of those options.
To summarize - the only reason why you'd play a counter spell that costs more than 2 is if it has an effect that makes it worth it. Scry 1 is not good enough by itself on that type of card.
EDIT - The only question you really have to ask yourself with opt is loosing one scry worth gaining instant speed. I would argue yes. Especially when the stronger sorcery speed card is not available to us.
You are speaking to the choir here, perhaps unwittingly.
I don't need to be told why Cryptic Command is a powerful card. I was pointing out your fallacy of 3 CMC can't be played because 2 CMC counterspells are so much more valuable by pointing out that 3-4 mana counterspells are, in fact, commonly played.
The point you are failing to realize is that scry 1 is much less pwoerful than scry 2 when you have a post-scry draw. There isn't much digging to be done. It doesn't see up to 3-4 cards like a Serum Visions, Brainstorm, or Ponder.
With all this said, I'm not saying it won't see play or that I wont play it. I was pointing out that a playset of Opt does not in any way justify lowering land count, especially in decks that are playing 4+ spells of 4 CMC.
The fact that scry 1 is less powerful than scry 2 (and then pointing out how dissolve sees no play) is the fallacy.
Even if dissolve was scry 2, it would still not see play. Not sure why you mentioned it at all.
No one is contesting scry 1 is less powerful than scry 2. But the power difference between scry 2 and scry 1 is not large enough to make a significant difference, especially given the fact that it gains instant speed which works more favorable with snapcaster mage.
But the power difference between scry 2 and scry 1 is not large enough to make a significant difference
This shows a very shallow understanding of the innate power level of cantrips, on your part. The power difference between scry 2 and scry 1 in this instance is so great that: U instant Scry 1 Draw a card is fine and U sorcery Scry 2 Draw a card is BANNED.
Please at least familiarize yourself with cantrips relative power-level before challenging others who have experience with Opt, Preordain, etc. Play legacy or vintage where Preordain is a 4 of.
Statistically you can take out a land for any playset of (cheap) cantrips. I do think opt is good enough to become a commonly played card in modern, and at least for starters I will put the full playset into my Nahiri lists
Do you have some data to back up that scry one cantrip playset=go down a land?
If you play a playset of Ponder, brainstorm, preordain, and the like...yes.
Opt is not near as good at filtering as those cards. And, as I said, it might be good. I'm just very skeptical that this card can lower the land count in a jeskai deck with many four mana spells lower than 23 lands.
Basic lands are simple. A Plains counts as a white source, and a Forest counts as a green source. But what if (contrary to what I initially assumed) the deck contains non-land mana sources as well? The numbers in my tables should still act as good guidelines, but does a Birds of Paradise or Serum Visions count as a full colored mana source? A good rule of thumb is to count fragile mana producers (e.g., Birds of Paradise or Deathrite Shaman) as half a colored mana source, to count any cheap cantrip (e.g., Remand or Peek) as 0.25 colored sources, and to count any cheap scry card (e.g., Temples) as 0.2 colored sources.
Brainstorm and Ponder are much better at it of course, that is why you see tricolor decks in legacy go as low as 18 lands
Statistically you can take out a land for any playset of (cheap) cantrips. I do think opt is good enough to become a commonly played card in modern, and at least for starters I will put the full playset into my Nahiri lists
Do you have some data to back up that scry one cantrip playset=go down a land?
If you play a playset of Ponder, brainstorm, preordain, and the like...yes.
Opt is not near as good at filtering as those cards. And, as I said, it might be good. I'm just very skeptical that this card can lower the land count in a jeskai deck with many four mana spells lower than 23 lands.
Basic lands are simple. A Plains counts as a white source, and a Forest counts as a green source. But what if (contrary to what I initially assumed) the deck contains non-land mana sources as well? The numbers in my tables should still act as good guidelines, but does a Birds of Paradise or Serum Visions count as a full colored mana source? A good rule of thumb is to count fragile mana producers (e.g., Birds of Paradise or Deathrite Shaman) as half a colored mana source, to count any cheap cantrip (e.g., Remand or Peek) as 0.25 colored sources, and to count any cheap scry card (e.g., Temples) as 0.2 colored sources.
Brainstorm and Ponder are much better at it of course, that is why you see tricolor decks in legacy go as low as 18 lands
Even by Frank's deduction that would only add .8 but that doesn't take into effect things like deck's spell inventory and average CMC which play a large role in land count. In legacy the average CMC is extremely low. Brainstorm also let's you put cards back and shuffle them away, ponder is insane at helping hit land drops. These are not factors in modern.
Perhaps in a low-curve delver deck but not in A Nahiri deck playing 4 x Nahiri, Emrakul, plus some number of Cryptics, Verdicts, etc. Three color decks also need to make sure they are hitting enough sources of each color. The lower on lands you go, the MORE LIKELY you mainphase Opt making it worse than Sleight of hand.
Statistically you can take out a land for any playset of (cheap) cantrips. I do think opt is good enough to become a commonly played card in modern, and at least for starters I will put the full playset into my Nahiri lists
Do you have some data to back up that scry one cantrip playset=go down a land?
If you play a playset of Ponder, brainstorm, preordain, and the like...yes.
Opt is not near as good at filtering as those cards. And, as I said, it might be good. I'm just very skeptical that this card can lower the land count in a jeskai deck with many four mana spells lower than 23 lands.
Basic lands are simple. A Plains counts as a white source, and a Forest counts as a green source. But what if (contrary to what I initially assumed) the deck contains non-land mana sources as well? The numbers in my tables should still act as good guidelines, but does a Birds of Paradise or Serum Visions count as a full colored mana source? A good rule of thumb is to count fragile mana producers (e.g., Birds of Paradise or Deathrite Shaman) as half a colored mana source, to count any cheap cantrip (e.g., Remand or Peek) as 0.25 colored sources, and to count any cheap scry card (e.g., Temples) as 0.2 colored sources.
Brainstorm and Ponder are much better at it of course, that is why you see tricolor decks in legacy go as low as 18 lands
Even by Frank's deduction that would only add .8 but that doesn't take into effect things like deck's spell inventory and average CMC which play a large role in land count. In legacy the average CMC is extremely low. Brainstorm also let's you put cards back and shuffle them away, ponder is insane at helping hit land drops. These are not factors in modern.
Perhaps in a low-curve delver deck but not in A Nahiri deck playing 4 x Nahiri, Emrakul, plus some number of Cryptics, Verdicts, etc. Three color decks also need to make sure they are hitting enough sources of each color. The lower on lands you go, the MORE LIKELY you mainphase Opt making it worse than Sleight of hand.
A control deck doesn't want to main phase sleight of hand either though...
I mean yea. If you want to tap out during your turn play serum visions. But being able to cast opt at instant speed is the strength of that card.
Statistically you can take out a land for any playset of (cheap) cantrips. I do think opt is good enough to become a commonly played card in modern, and at least for starters I will put the full playset into my Nahiri lists
Do you have some data to back up that scry one cantrip playset=go down a land?
If you play a playset of Ponder, brainstorm, preordain, and the like...yes.
Opt is not near as good at filtering as those cards. And, as I said, it might be good. I'm just very skeptical that this card can lower the land count in a jeskai deck with many four mana spells lower than 23 lands.
Basic lands are simple. A Plains counts as a white source, and a Forest counts as a green source. But what if (contrary to what I initially assumed) the deck contains non-land mana sources as well? The numbers in my tables should still act as good guidelines, but does a Birds of Paradise or Serum Visions count as a full colored mana source? A good rule of thumb is to count fragile mana producers (e.g., Birds of Paradise or Deathrite Shaman) as half a colored mana source, to count any cheap cantrip (e.g., Remand or Peek) as 0.25 colored sources, and to count any cheap scry card (e.g., Temples) as 0.2 colored sources.
Brainstorm and Ponder are much better at it of course, that is why you see tricolor decks in legacy go as low as 18 lands
Even by Frank's deduction that would only add .8 but that doesn't take into effect things like deck's spell inventory and average CMC which play a large role in land count. In legacy the average CMC is extremely low. Brainstorm also let's you put cards back and shuffle them away, ponder is insane at helping hit land drops. These are not factors in modern.
Perhaps in a low-curve delver deck but not in A Nahiri deck playing 4 x Nahiri, Emrakul, plus some number of Cryptics, Verdicts, etc. Three color decks also need to make sure they are hitting enough sources of each color. The lower on lands you go, the MORE LIKELY you mainphase Opt making it worse than Sleight of hand.
A control deck doesn't want to main phase sleight of hand either though...
I mean yea. If you want to tap out during your turn play serum visions. But being able to cast opt at instant speed is the strength of that card.
I really wish people would read before they replied. That was my ENTIRE point. I said, Opt DOESN'T allow you to drop lands (for many reasons) because that puts you in the position to need to main phase it to find those few lands in your deck. If you have to mainphase Opt too often you might as well be playing the slightly better effect of Slight of Hand.
If you want Opt to be good you slide it into a deck that is already good on lands. Because guess what, Opt let's you sry a land to the bottom if you need to at endstep. Instead of mainphasing it to find said land.
Do you have some data to back up that scry one cantrip playset=go down a land?
If you play a playset of Ponder, brainstorm, preordain, and the like...yes.
Opt is not near as good at filtering as those cards. And, as I said, it might be good. I'm just very skeptical that this card can lower the land count in a jeskai deck with many four mana spells lower than 23 lands.
Basic lands are simple. A Plains counts as a white source, and a Forest counts as a green source. But what if (contrary to what I initially assumed) the deck contains non-land mana sources as well? The numbers in my tables should still act as good guidelines, but does a Birds of Paradise or Serum Visions count as a full colored mana source? A good rule of thumb is to count fragile mana producers (e.g., Birds of Paradise or Deathrite Shaman) as half a colored mana source, to count any cheap cantrip (e.g., Remand or Peek) as 0.25 colored sources, and to count any cheap scry card (e.g., Temples) as 0.2 colored sources.
Brainstorm and Ponder are much better at it of course, that is why you see tricolor decks in legacy go as low as 18 lands
Even by Frank's deduction that would only add .8 but that doesn't take into effect things like deck's spell inventory and average CMC which play a large role in land count. In legacy the average CMC is extremely low. Brainstorm also let's you put cards back and shuffle them away, ponder is insane at helping hit land drops. These are not factors in modern.
Perhaps in a low-curve delver deck but not in A Nahiri deck playing 4 x Nahiri, Emrakul, plus some number of Cryptics, Verdicts, etc. Three color decks also need to make sure they are hitting enough sources of each color. The lower on lands you go, the MORE LIKELY you mainphase Opt making it worse than Sleight of hand.
A control deck doesn't want to main phase sleight of hand either though...
I mean yea. If you want to tap out during your turn play serum visions. But being able to cast opt at instant speed is the strength of that card.
I really wish people would read before they replied. That was my ENTIRE point. I said, Opt DOESN'T allow you to drop lands (for many reasons) because that puts you in the position to need to main phase it to find those few lands in your deck. If you have to mainphase Opt too often you might as well be playing the slightly better effect of Slight of Hand.
If you want Opt to be good you slide it into a deck that is already good on lands. Because guess what, Opt let's you sry a land to the bottom if you need to at endstep. Instead of mainphasing it to find said land.
Opt will allow you to drop as many lands as serum visions would IMO. If you play both serum visions and opt, you can probably get away with 22 lands. If you play just one (either or) 23 is still the norm.
Opt will allow you to drop as many lands as serum visions would IMO. If you play both serum visions and opt, you can probably get away with 22 lands. If you play just one (either or) 23 is still the norm.
I just want you to take a look at this. A playset of SV vs. a playset of Opt (in the scenario you suggested above playing only four Opt) gives you 4 extra scry (double what the playset of Opt gives you). That is the important part. Those four extra scry give the deck a tremendous amount of extra consistency. Ponder would be quite a bit worse (unplayable) in Legacy if it was "Look at the top two cards".
Opt will allow you to drop as many lands as serum visions would IMO. If you play both serum visions and opt, you can probably get away with 22 lands. If you play just one (either or) 23 is still the norm.
I just want you to take a look at this. A playset of SV vs. a playset of Opt (in the scenario you suggested above playing only four Opt) gives you 4 extra scry (double what the playset of Opt gives you). That is the important part. Those four extra scry give the deck a tremendous amount of extra consistency. Ponder would be quite a bit worse (unplayable) in Legacy if it was "Look at the top two cards".
Actually that depends. If ponder was instant speed, scry 2 would probably be fine.
In some cases actually better then sorcery speed scry 3.
I was wondering how people are scaling it in significance to the deck? Are we thinking it is a possible Serum Visions replacement? Is it worth it to run both Opt and Serum Visions? I feel like additional scry/draw effects are nice but I am still unsure.. Definitely like that it is an instant though, allows for you to leave up a mana on turn one - pass - and opt on their end step if they don't play anything of value in their opening turn..
As for the Geist conversation.. He is excellent in my experience, but to play him effectively you have to have the deck and your play style tailored. I think you need a large amount of burn and cheap creature removal and you have to start every turn by going straight to attack step and forcing blockers before using resources to kill/remove their creatures. I also run one vendilion clique mainboard because it allows for you to see their hand before casting him. I think that he is hands down the most reliable win condition right now in the format given that Nahiri is too slow and flash is so weak to fatal push
Scry one is not good at filtering. Scry two is MUCH stronger. The reason people would include Opt would be for combo decks that are going to take the cheapest filtering they can get or decks that want to play draw-go. I could see 2-3 making it into Nahiri decks to find Nahiri or a Path when needed. But Opt doesn't do much digging. Sleight of Hand is a stronger digging effect.
Do you have some data to back up that scry one cantrip playset=go down a land?
If you play a playset of Ponder, brainstorm, preordain, and the like...yes.
Opt is not near as good at filtering as those cards. And, as I said, it might be good. I'm just very skeptical that this card can lower the land count in a jeskai deck with many four mana spells lower than 23 lands.
I'm not sure I agree. Comparing opt to peek makes zero sense. Scry 1 is actually relevant (especially because it comes before you draw).
Opt is more comparable to preordain. You loose one scry to get the spell at instant speed.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
That's semantics. My comparison is equally correct. You trade hand knowledge for a scry one.
The scry 2 effect is much more powerful than scry one. If scry one was very powerful you'd see a lot more people experimenting with Dissolve. Preordain is much more powerful than Opt. Comparing Opt to Preordain is likely farther from the truth than comparing it to Peek. The difference from scry one to scry 2 on a post scry draw is MUCH stronger and more reliable than the difference between see hand(no scry) and scry one. Especially considering everyone seems to think they can shave lands, which would be lending them to mainphase this effect much more often(making the instant speed clause less upside).
Scry 1 > hand knowledge assuming the cost of the spell is equal.
Also - you are using a fallacy logic. Dissolve doesn't see play not because scry 1 isn't good. It's because scry 1 isn't worth one extra mana. Three mana counter spells are largely unplayable in modern anyways. You'd need alot more than "scry" to make that spell playable. Even if the card was scry 2 or 3... it probably wouldn't see play.
I agree scry 2 is far more powerful than scry one. But trading one scry for instant speed is not inherently bad. It's actually better for control decks that want to keep one mana-removal available on the draw (a common thing in modern).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
You might need to look up what logical fallacy means, here you are misusing the term. People are playing 3-4 mana counters. Cryptic Command at 4 CMC and I keep seeing Disallow pop-up more and more at 3 CMC. If scry one was very valuable people would ALSO be trying out dissolve more. But it's clear people aren't valuing the scry as highly as other effects.
So the logical fallacy I am seeing is that you are trying to make an argument about 2 CMC counters vs 3 CMC yet you ignore that 3-4 CMC counters are already regularly played in these decks.
Cryptic Command has four effects and is arguably one of the most powerful counter spell ever printed.
Secondly - Dissalow is the ONLY three mana counter spell that occasionally sees play (and as a one of). It also has three modes on it. (counter target spell, activated, or triggered ability). It is versatile.
Whenever you evaluate a card, you have to ask your self why does this card cost more and is that extra cost worth it.
Dissolve Does not see play because scry 1 is not powerful enough to warrent an extra mana cost. That does not mean scry 1 is bad or not good enough (your fallacy that you are using). It simply means scry 1 is not strong enough to make a traditionally unplayable CMC slot playable.
Cryptic Command has extra abilities that are nearly always worth the extra two mana. (tap, draw a card, or bounce a trouble permanent).
Dissalow occasionally has abilities that are worth the extra mana cost (counter an ETB or cast trigger).
Scry 1 is substantially less powerful than either of those options.
To summarize - the only reason why you'd play a counter spell that costs more than 2 is if it has an effect that makes it worth it. Scry 1 is not good enough by itself on that type of card.
EDIT - The only question you really have to ask yourself with opt is loosing one scry worth gaining instant speed. I would argue yes. Especially when the stronger sorcery speed card is not available to us.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
You are speaking to the choir here, perhaps unwittingly.
I don't need to be told why Cryptic Command is a powerful card. I was pointing out your fallacy of 3 CMC can't be played because 2 CMC counterspells are so much more valuable by pointing out that 3-4 mana counterspells are, in fact, commonly played.
The point you are failing to realize is that scry 1 is much less pwoerful than scry 2 when you have a post-scry draw. There isn't much digging to be done. It doesn't see up to 3-4 cards like a Serum Visions, Brainstorm, or Ponder.
With all this said, I'm not saying it won't see play or that I wont play it. I was pointing out that a playset of Opt does not in any way justify lowering land count, especially in decks that are playing 4+ spells of 4 CMC.
The fact that scry 1 is less powerful than scry 2 (and then pointing out how dissolve sees no play) is the fallacy.
Even if dissolve was scry 2, it would still not see play. Not sure why you mentioned it at all.
No one is contesting scry 1 is less powerful than scry 2. But the power difference between scry 2 and scry 1 is not large enough to make a significant difference, especially given the fact that it gains instant speed which works more favorable with snapcaster mage.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
This is false. If Dissolve had scry 2 it would see lots of play. Scry 2 on a 3 CMC hard-counter is VERY strong.
This shows a very shallow understanding of the innate power level of cantrips, on your part. The power difference between scry 2 and scry 1 in this instance is so great that: U instant Scry 1 Draw a card is fine and U sorcery Scry 2 Draw a card is BANNED.
Please at least familiarize yourself with cantrips relative power-level before challenging others who have experience with Opt, Preordain, etc. Play legacy or vintage where Preordain is a 4 of.
Good ol' Frankie
Brainstorm and Ponder are much better at it of course, that is why you see tricolor decks in legacy go as low as 18 lands
Even by Frank's deduction that would only add .8 but that doesn't take into effect things like deck's spell inventory and average CMC which play a large role in land count. In legacy the average CMC is extremely low. Brainstorm also let's you put cards back and shuffle them away, ponder is insane at helping hit land drops. These are not factors in modern.
Perhaps in a low-curve delver deck but not in A Nahiri deck playing 4 x Nahiri, Emrakul, plus some number of Cryptics, Verdicts, etc. Three color decks also need to make sure they are hitting enough sources of each color. The lower on lands you go, the MORE LIKELY you mainphase Opt making it worse than Sleight of hand.
A control deck doesn't want to main phase sleight of hand either though...
I mean yea. If you want to tap out during your turn play serum visions. But being able to cast opt at instant speed is the strength of that card.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I really wish people would read before they replied. That was my ENTIRE point. I said, Opt DOESN'T allow you to drop lands (for many reasons) because that puts you in the position to need to main phase it to find those few lands in your deck. If you have to mainphase Opt too often you might as well be playing the slightly better effect of Slight of Hand.
If you want Opt to be good you slide it into a deck that is already good on lands. Because guess what, Opt let's you sry a land to the bottom if you need to at endstep. Instead of mainphasing it to find said land.
Opt will allow you to drop as many lands as serum visions would IMO. If you play both serum visions and opt, you can probably get away with 22 lands. If you play just one (either or) 23 is still the norm.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I just want you to take a look at this. A playset of SV vs. a playset of Opt (in the scenario you suggested above playing only four Opt) gives you 4 extra scry (double what the playset of Opt gives you). That is the important part. Those four extra scry give the deck a tremendous amount of extra consistency. Ponder would be quite a bit worse (unplayable) in Legacy if it was "Look at the top two cards".
Actually that depends. If ponder was instant speed, scry 2 would probably be fine.
In some cases actually better then sorcery speed scry 3.
I think you are undervaluing the instant speed.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA