I play disrupting shoal in RUG Delver, which functions much like Force of Will - Modern is a format of threatening 1 and 2 cmc spells - and Shoal is still underwhelming the majority of the time. FoW would be good against CoCo decks, Storm, Emeria Titan, and... I don’t know if there’s much else. People board out FoW in Legacy against fair decks, we’d do the same in modern. Maybe it could shut down a turn 2 Phoenix god-hand, but Shoal can already do the same.
I present to you my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! It currently has 420 cards. I know that's an off-number as far as cubing goes, but I will rarely ever be drafting with even 6 people, and I like the extra cards for variety in drafts.
I am not running any of the Power 9 Cards, but I am trying to make this cube as powerful as possible, within my budget. At the moment, if a strong card isn't in the cube it's because I [a] don't have it, [b] it's too expensive, or [c] I'm unaware of how good a card it is. That being said, please let me know of any overpowered cards that you think should be in here that aren't already!
The criteria for the cube is simple: It must have been printed in an old border; Modern cards with and old border from promotional printings don't count!
At the moment I'm still trying to balance the colors - the Gold section is a little off right now.
My concerns: Balancing hate cards. How many cards should I run that specifically take out enchantments and artifacts? Currently I have 6 cards that target artifacts, not counting sweepers that clear more and don't target. Currently there are 6 cards that target enchantments, again, not counting sweepers. Is this enough, when considering the power of the enchantments and artifacts that I've included?
I maintain an Old Border Nostalgia cube - 420 cards, 33 artifacts at the moment. It's running the best old border cards that it can, short of the power 9 and cards that cost just WAY too much that I don't already have (Juzam Djinn, I'm lookin at you!). Currently I don't have Tinker in the cube. There don't seem to be any good targets for it outside of Phyrexian Colossus. But then again, it can still be used for its original purpose - to simply cycle through artifacts and tinker for something a bit better.
How many artifacts would one need to run to justify Tinker? It it worth the inclusion without game-winning targets? What other artifacts do people like to tinker for? Again, this cube only runs old border cards.
Necromancy - I understand that it has been errata'd to have flash with a situational stipulation. But was there ever a time when the original wording of the card: "You may choose to play Necromancy as an instant, if you do, bury it at end of turn," was taken literally, allowing one to reanimate a creature with protection from Black? For example, would the stack be played in which Akroma, Angel of Wrath being targeted by Necromancy as an instant, she comes into play, the Aura attempts to stick to her, but she can't be targeted, so the Aura bounces and Akroma can stay without the "if Necromancy leaves play" clause triggering?
So what are we realistically looking for in Modern Horizons? I know Jordan in today's article cited the magical lala land, full of happy little elves, wish of Fire//Ice, Stifle, and Divert. Those all look sweet, but I don't know which of those would realistically be printed. We just saw Fire and Ice in UMA... The reason I like this deck is because it's got a Legacy vibe to it, and it certainly looks like Modern Horizons is intended to make Modern the new Legacy. From the looks of Cabal Therapist we could get some classic Legacy spells on legs, I'm wondering what spell of that sort might fit in Blue or Red's pie. We already sort of have Stifle on Legs in the form of Nimble Obstructionist. It seems we want a more flexible removal spell, I don't know what's in the old border that would fill that slot. I'm pretty sure Wizards won't give Modern "free spells" like Snap.
I keep an old boarder nostalgia cube. There are many cards in the cube that have recieved errata, or have gotten easier to understand oracle text, and a few cards in other languages that I need to provide translations for.
I'm essentially compiling a simple document that slips into my cube with all the answers about cards in the cube people might have.
I'm looking to add a few cards with banding, again, for the sake of nostalgia.
I know how banding works, but I'm trying to figure out the simplest, plainest way to explain banding to someone - so if someone comes across a card with banding in draft, and doesn't want to reveal the card to everyone, they can glance at the "rules" sheet to understand. Granted, I mostly play with people who have a good familiarity with the game, but even they may not have encountered banding before.
Can y'all help me figure out the simplest way to explain banding on the "rules sheet" that will go with the cube?
*There will be no "Bands with others" cards"
This is the oracle reminder text on banding cards:
"Any creatures with banding, and up to one without, can attack in a band. Bands are blocked as a group. If any creatures with banding you control are blocking or being blocked by a creature, you divide that creature’s combat damage, not its controller, among any of the creatures it’s being blocked by or is blocking."
I think that's pretty clear, but the final part of the clause feels a little confusing. Has anyone found an even simpler way to explain banding?
Also one rules question: does Banding use the stack? Like if I have priority and cast Errand of Duty before blockers are declared, and my opponent has no response to the spell, can I then band the knight token immediately, or does the banding action go on the stack and the op can respond to the banding trigger?
Had my first night playing Temur Delver! It was a blast, even if I went 1-2. They were all close matches! Everyone I played against said the games were some of the most exciting they had played in a while, it feels good to play a tempo-based, interactive deck!
Bant Spirits was a puzzler. They are certainly the beatdown, so I should have played more conservatively. Got blown out by a Settle the Wreckage, and they kept picking off my creatures with Path to Exile. I needed to keep up more counter magic.
The sideboard was designed for a meta I didn't actually see last night. The Spirits player is usually on tron, and there are usually 3 Tron players present.
I should have brought in all AGs against spirits, I think? Instead I made the mistake of bringing in 1 Grudge and 2 blood moons (They actually had too many basics to made Blood moon effective). I also brought in Drakes so I could block in the air. I'm thinking I should actually sideboard more sweepers?
Against Spirits, I felt like Spell Pierce and Stubborn Denial, in my main deck, kept being dead in my hand, though I never had them when I needed them - against Coco, Settle, and the paths. Should have brought in Dismember against Spirits too.
Any suggestions for this sideboard? I also see now how Huntmaster of the Fells would be pretty handy. But probably still wouldn't get there against Spirits.
It felt like there were a number of times where I would have rather had counter magic that hit creatures, rather than Pierces and Denials. Thoughts on 2 Mana leaks, or a remand? Am I playing wrong - how do we handle creature-heavy decks?
Nevertheless, this deck is a blast! I got a lot of compliments for playing it, and I think it created some play puzzles for my opponents. I'll mos def be playing it much more. Just gotta keep tweaking the SB.
You guys think they are just fishing an idea to "help" make the game more interactive?
I was thinking this myself. With the new rule it seems like silver bullets will become more prominent - or at least more reliable - shutting down some of the more linear decks in the format, allowing for interactive decks to gain more of a foothold.
Now another question (again, sorry for all the newb Qs, I'm just really green, and excited about this deck. I get to play it for the first time on Monday night!):
What are people's thought on Opt in this deck? It seems, in my mind, that the card would be great to dig for some instant speed answers. I know Thought Scour sort of takes this spot for us, since it overall is better for the mission of this deck, but it seems to lack the "searchabililty" that Opt provides.
I'm not suggesting I want to cut Thought Scour. Right now I run 4 flex slots. Those slots contain 2 Sleight of Hand, 1 Curious Obsession, and 1 Vapor Snag. The Sleights and the Obsession help feed Goyf, but I've seen lists that don't necessarily include these cards. It also seems like Curious Obsession might sometimes be a dead card in our hand. Is there any logic in running Opt in place of these cards? It seems like being able to dig for a counterspell off Opt is some of the reactive/interactive play that this deck wants, but I could be completely wrong.
Yeah, this seems like a very problematic mulligan rule for modern and legacy in general. It could potentially completely shut down Burn and graveyard strategy decks. It will also make Chalice more consistent. I really can't see it sticking as a rule in Modern. However, on the plus side, it might encourage more interactive decks to make a comeback - let's go Temur Delver!.
Can I get by without Surgical Extraction in like every sideboard of every deck I want to make? I'm looking at UW control, Blue Moon or Tron for MTGO and about half of the decks cost is the 2-3 copies of surgical. I remember when all the pros didn't even like this card... I quit for over a year and kind of like how things are looking right now, but this auto including surgicals in every deck and how expensive it is now is the one thing that really sticks out to me.
It obviously doesn't work the same, but I ran ravenous trap in paper for awhile until I picked up surgicals. Those or extirpate may help you out, otherwise, yea, surgical is pretty good right now.
It is a concern when Surgical begins to seem like the best answer to a lot of decks. It sort of feels like Modern's version of Force of Will - a free spell that functions to keep degenerate decks in check. I'd say Surgical Extraction can only be a good investment from here on out.
I've been watching a lot of RUG Delver games online, and it seems like there are 2 styles of deck in this archetype (3 if you count Faithless looting builds, but I'm over looting these days, I picked up this deck because I wanted to avoid looting decks) - Disrupting Shoal builds, and Traverse the Ulvenwald builds.
Disrupting Shoal decks seem to run a critical mass of blue spells, running fewer possible burn spells in the main deck. They seem intent on sticking a creature early then using counter magic to hold off the opponent.
Traverse the Ulvenwald builds seem to run 1-2 copies of Traverse, plus a few copies of Mishra's Bauble, it opens up slots for some more maindeck burn to control the field until we stick a creature, often finding one with Traverse. It seems to be quite flexible and toolbox-y. Also Bauble feeds Goyf.
What are people's thoughts on the pros and cons of these two archetypes? What would fit better into the shifting meta of more people playing Burn, Phoenix, and Dredge?
This is every deck in Modern.
I present to you my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! It currently has 420 cards. I know that's an off-number as far as cubing goes, but I will rarely ever be drafting with even 6 people, and I like the extra cards for variety in drafts.
I am not running any of the Power 9 Cards, but I am trying to make this cube as powerful as possible, within my budget. At the moment, if a strong card isn't in the cube it's because I [a] don't have it, [b] it's too expensive, or [c] I'm unaware of how good a card it is. That being said, please let me know of any overpowered cards that you think should be in here that aren't already!
The criteria for the cube is simple: It must have been printed in an old border; Modern cards with and old border from promotional printings don't count!
At the moment I'm still trying to balance the colors - the Gold section is a little off right now.
My concerns: Balancing hate cards. How many cards should I run that specifically take out enchantments and artifacts? Currently I have 6 cards that target artifacts, not counting sweepers that clear more and don't target. Currently there are 6 cards that target enchantments, again, not counting sweepers. Is this enough, when considering the power of the enchantments and artifacts that I've included?
Other cards I'm considering but don't own yet:
Chronatog, for the Stasis lols.
Stormbind
Desolation Angel
Fastbond
Tangle Wire
berserk
Pandemonium
Exploration - if I can find an old border copy, but maybe Fastbond is just better.
Thanks in advance for any feedback!
Best,
CatParty
I maintain an Old Border Nostalgia cube - 420 cards, 33 artifacts at the moment. It's running the best old border cards that it can, short of the power 9 and cards that cost just WAY too much that I don't already have (Juzam Djinn, I'm lookin at you!). Currently I don't have Tinker in the cube. There don't seem to be any good targets for it outside of Phyrexian Colossus. But then again, it can still be used for its original purpose - to simply cycle through artifacts and tinker for something a bit better.
How many artifacts would one need to run to justify Tinker? It it worth the inclusion without game-winning targets? What other artifacts do people like to tinker for? Again, this cube only runs old border cards.
Thanks,
CatParty
Someone above said True Name was confirmed, was that sarcasm? If not, where is that info?
I keep an old boarder nostalgia cube. There are many cards in the cube that have recieved errata, or have gotten easier to understand oracle text, and a few cards in other languages that I need to provide translations for.
I'm essentially compiling a simple document that slips into my cube with all the answers about cards in the cube people might have.
I'm looking to add a few cards with banding, again, for the sake of nostalgia.
I know how banding works, but I'm trying to figure out the simplest, plainest way to explain banding to someone - so if someone comes across a card with banding in draft, and doesn't want to reveal the card to everyone, they can glance at the "rules" sheet to understand. Granted, I mostly play with people who have a good familiarity with the game, but even they may not have encountered banding before.
Can y'all help me figure out the simplest way to explain banding on the "rules sheet" that will go with the cube?
*There will be no "Bands with others" cards"
This is the oracle reminder text on banding cards:
"Any creatures with banding, and up to one without, can attack in a band. Bands are blocked as a group. If any creatures with banding you control are blocking or being blocked by a creature, you divide that creature’s combat damage, not its controller, among any of the creatures it’s being blocked by or is blocking."
I think that's pretty clear, but the final part of the clause feels a little confusing. Has anyone found an even simpler way to explain banding?
Also one rules question: does Banding use the stack? Like if I have priority and cast Errand of Duty before blockers are declared, and my opponent has no response to the spell, can I then band the knight token immediately, or does the banding action go on the stack and the op can respond to the banding trigger?
Thanks!
CatParty
Weird Rakdos: 1-2
Bant Spirits: 1-2
Goblins: 2-0
The Rakdos build was janky, had it not been the first match i ever played with this deck, I probably should have won. They ran some burn, creatures like Fanatical Firebrand, Goblin Guide, Direfleet Daredevil, and janky spells like Blightning and Risk Factor.
Bant Spirits was a puzzler. They are certainly the beatdown, so I should have played more conservatively. Got blown out by a Settle the Wreckage, and they kept picking off my creatures with Path to Exile. I needed to keep up more counter magic.
Goblins was pretty budget and hardly a challenge.
Currently My sideboard is as follows:
1 dismember
3 Blood Moon
2 surgical extraction
1 anger of the gods
2 Ancient Grudge
3 Crackling Drake
1 engineered explosives
2 ceremonious rejection
The sideboard was designed for a meta I didn't actually see last night. The Spirits player is usually on tron, and there are usually 3 Tron players present.
I should have brought in all AGs against spirits, I think? Instead I made the mistake of bringing in 1 Grudge and 2 blood moons (They actually had too many basics to made Blood moon effective). I also brought in Drakes so I could block in the air. I'm thinking I should actually sideboard more sweepers?
Against Spirits, I felt like Spell Pierce and Stubborn Denial, in my main deck, kept being dead in my hand, though I never had them when I needed them - against Coco, Settle, and the paths. Should have brought in Dismember against Spirits too.
Any suggestions for this sideboard? I also see now how Huntmaster of the Fells would be pretty handy. But probably still wouldn't get there against Spirits.
It felt like there were a number of times where I would have rather had counter magic that hit creatures, rather than Pierces and Denials. Thoughts on 2 Mana leaks, or a remand? Am I playing wrong - how do we handle creature-heavy decks?
Nevertheless, this deck is a blast! I got a lot of compliments for playing it, and I think it created some play puzzles for my opponents. I'll mos def be playing it much more. Just gotta keep tweaking the SB.
-CatParty
I was thinking this myself. With the new rule it seems like silver bullets will become more prominent - or at least more reliable - shutting down some of the more linear decks in the format, allowing for interactive decks to gain more of a foothold.
Now another question (again, sorry for all the newb Qs, I'm just really green, and excited about this deck. I get to play it for the first time on Monday night!):
What are people's thought on Opt in this deck? It seems, in my mind, that the card would be great to dig for some instant speed answers. I know Thought Scour sort of takes this spot for us, since it overall is better for the mission of this deck, but it seems to lack the "searchabililty" that Opt provides.
I'm not suggesting I want to cut Thought Scour. Right now I run 4 flex slots. Those slots contain 2 Sleight of Hand, 1 Curious Obsession, and 1 Vapor Snag. The Sleights and the Obsession help feed Goyf, but I've seen lists that don't necessarily include these cards. It also seems like Curious Obsession might sometimes be a dead card in our hand. Is there any logic in running Opt in place of these cards? It seems like being able to dig for a counterspell off Opt is some of the reactive/interactive play that this deck wants, but I could be completely wrong.
Best,
CatParty
It is a concern when Surgical begins to seem like the best answer to a lot of decks. It sort of feels like Modern's version of Force of Will - a free spell that functions to keep degenerate decks in check. I'd say Surgical Extraction can only be a good investment from here on out.
I've been watching a lot of RUG Delver games online, and it seems like there are 2 styles of deck in this archetype (3 if you count Faithless looting builds, but I'm over looting these days, I picked up this deck because I wanted to avoid looting decks) - Disrupting Shoal builds, and Traverse the Ulvenwald builds.
Disrupting Shoal decks seem to run a critical mass of blue spells, running fewer possible burn spells in the main deck. They seem intent on sticking a creature early then using counter magic to hold off the opponent.
Traverse the Ulvenwald builds seem to run 1-2 copies of Traverse, plus a few copies of Mishra's Bauble, it opens up slots for some more maindeck burn to control the field until we stick a creature, often finding one with Traverse. It seems to be quite flexible and toolbox-y. Also Bauble feeds Goyf.
What are people's thoughts on the pros and cons of these two archetypes? What would fit better into the shifting meta of more people playing Burn, Phoenix, and Dredge?
Best,
CatParty