Oh it's really good. You can put it back with brainstorm to allow you to keep a good card, or you can discard it to lion's eye diamond. Plus they never think to chalice for 8, so you get an alternate win con.
Wasn't Kolaghan's Command also designed for modern? I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere, but I'm not sure.
Going back to the discussion on the last page about whether or not Merfolk, Grixis Shadow, etc. should be considered a "blue" deck, this is completely missing the point. IMO we should stop saying things like "blue is weak" or "white is only a splash color" because it's not really capturing what people are thinking. It's not the lack of certain colors that we don't like, it's the lack of certain styles of play. I want Counterspell reprinted for modern equally the same if merfolk is a 1% deck, or a 25% deck, because merfolk being viable doesn't allow me to play the kinds of decks that I want to play. If we start talking about archetypes, and stop talking about colors, the discussion becomes a lot clearer.
I also don't think it's fair to tell people "modern is a proactive format, stop trying to play control." We know modern is a "be proactive or lose" format. We're saying it shouldn't be. All archetypes should be represented at least decently in the top tiers, because that gives you the healthiest metagame and the most player choice.
Real talk, every time I take on UW Control (which is often because it is everywhere on MTGO), it feels like an impossible match-up. Has anyone seen success in devoting SB cards to the match-up? If so, which cards have helped? I usually go with the following.
I've actually yet to lose a game against UW control (admittedly, I'm not playing against the best players/lists, but still). I also played control almost exclusively in modern, which IMO gives you an enormous advantage playing against it.
For sideboarding, remember that at heart, we are a jund deck. In the traditional jund mirror, the best players would sideboard out all of their hand disruption. The basic theory is that if the game is going to go long, the most important thing is gaining card advantage. It doesn't matter as much if you can't protect your threats as well, per se, since you're guaranteed to just draw more. We want to take a similar approach - turn our deck into a card advantage machine.
So with that said, the first thing I would take out is temur battle rage, because this card is always card disadvantage. Then go down to 1 tarfire, because the only way this card isn't card disadvantage against them is killing snapcaster mage or v clique. Leaving in one for the goyf is probably fine. Then I would cut terminate, since push can kill all of their creatures. I only run 3 pushes, so I would leave in those three plus the abrupt decay, personally. Next, start cutting hand disruption. Thoughtseize is better than IoK here, so the rest of the cards that you need to cut should be IoK.
Bringing stuff in, you want to bring in everything that could be a 2-1 that you can. All three lingering souls, and the ranger of eos. The ranger is undoubtedly the best card in this MU. It's a 3-1! If you run Nihil spellbomb, bring those in too. Your goyf will be big enough with just your yard, it's worth it. Collective brutality is a tough one. You can get virtual card advantage by pitching lands to it, but I usually want my lands in this MU. Plus if it gets countered, you fall way behind. Personally I don't bring it in.
Even if you boarded perfectly, you'll still lose if you don't play against it correctly. I suggest sleeving up a proxy (or real, if you can) version of the UW deck and playing it against a friend, who is playing your death shadow deck. Just jam a bunch of games, then try switching.
The key here is to always deny them the 2-1. (1) Never have more than 1 threat on board, because board wipes. (2) Always try to overload their countermagic. Thought experiment. They have a hand full of cancels, you have a hand full of goyfs, and you each have four lands in play. If you play 1 goyf per turn for the rest of the game, you will draw. But if you play two goyfs per turn, and they always cancel the first one, you'll win. A common play that I make in this MU is cast traverse, grab a threat, then pass the turn with plenty of open mana. If they let the traverse resolve, they're just going to counter the threat. I want to wait until I can play two threats per turn to overload their cryptic commands. (3) Never run out of gas. If they have a cryptic in hand, and you only have one threat in hand, just don't play it. You'll draw a thoughtseize or other threat eventually. (4) Be mindful of thinning your deck of threats with traverse. This actually comes up. If you've drawn two threats already, then you only have 6 left. If you traverse twice, you've now reduced your number of threats by 33%. By nature of the decks, this game is going to go long, and we run 8+ cantrips. You will draw enough cards that the %'s add up. Wait to cast traverse until the situation demands it, not just willy nilly.
Nobody is measuring the entire set by Modern standards. People are hoping for a few modern playables and a group among them for a modern playable counterspell.
The latter has been hoping for a very long time. People thought Miscalculation would be of an appropriate (not unreasonable) power level and a possibility because its a set with cycling.
A degree of frustration and bitterness is hardly unexpected after not only missing out on that card but getting this garbage instead. That its an uncommon just annoys people even more.
If you're telling me Miscalculation is too strong for Standard I dunno what to say. Maybe you're right, but I'd bet that you're wrong.
Varyag, I agree 100%. This is what I don't get about standard: why are good cards bad for the format? With all of the problems in standard over the last few years, nobody could possibly argue that post-bolt standard has been consistently better than bolt standard. I started with M11 & Innistrad. I liked the game so much because it felt like I could do really powerful things. Everyone just assumes that cards like counterspell and bolt and thoughtseize are inherently bad cards that shouldn't be in standard. But that just doesn't fit with the reality of how we've seen standard evolve over the last decade, and how people have reacted to it.
True, people didn't like thoughtseize when it was in this most recent standard. But I would argue that this wasn't thoughtseizes fault, they just didn't put it in the right standard format. Obviously not every standard format should revolve around efficient counterspells, or hand disruption. But the beauty of standard is that they can change it. Maybe this year's standard has more powerful cards like counterspell and bolt, and next year's standard starts to shift back into midrange. What's so wrong with that?
I don't understand all of the hate on counterspells. Sure, some people don't like playing against control. Well I don't like playing grindy creature mirrors. If a game is designed well, then there should be a wide variety of viable strategies so that everyone can play a deck that they like. So long as they provide the tools for other strategies to combat control, it's not a problem.
Look at it this way: the "fun" in a game of magic comes from (1) your deck & (2) your opponent's deck. Proper game design allows everyone to play with a deck they like and sometimes play against decks that they don't like, rather than forcing some people to play with a deck that they don't like and always play against decks that they like. For example, in modern, I play control. I always get to play a control deck, so we could say that I'm always having 50% fun, at least. So my range of fun is 50% (I hate playing against burn) - 100% (against, say, other fair decks). If there wasn't a moderately viable control deck, I would probably play Jund, a deck I'm pretty meh about. So my range of fun would be something like 25% - 75%. That's why I would never want to ban burn out of the format, because I recognize that a lot of people do enjoy those aggro strategies, and I want them to be able to play a deck they enjoy too. Moreover, I think that having a diverse format vastly raises the skill ceiling. Being able to play against a wide variety of archetypes requires greater skill than just playing against a few.
I also think that it's fair to talk about modern here. New standard sets are the only source of new cards for modern, just like standard, so why can't we talk about modern here? I could say "don't talk about standard here, obviously this card was just designed for limited" and I'm making the exact same argument.
I'm really excited for this deck, as I've been slowly building into B/W tokens for a month now, and it's going to save me like $50 and I get a nifty spindown Here are my thoughts on how to tweak the deck to get something more competitive:
Mostly the same as the comments above. In the current meta at least 1 of ghost quarter MB will help against almost everything, so I'd leave in 3 caves to help offset the colorless from the quarter.
The disruption suite is one of the biggest problems with the event deck; it doesn't have enough. We're pretty reliant on disruption for combo matchups, and it's just good generally. Now that we've taken out three painlands, we can afford some thoughtseize. And there's just no excuse to not run 4 of path.
The sideboard is a bit of a mess. We definitely don't need dismember or duress anymore, and I happen to prefer rest in peace over the relic.
A few notes on budget: If you can't pick up the Thoughtseize, then Castigate is a fine substitute. If you can't afford replacing the painlands, then Timely Reinforcements is a much better solution than Soul Warden. Everything else should be relatively cheap or easy to come by.
Shadow of Doubt has been a pet card of mine since Ravnica. Part of me wishes it saw more play, but the other part likes the surprise factor it still brings.
2
...
OK, seriously, I think it's a mistake. I don't know what Brian DeMars is smoking. I pulled up the coverage from the event (http://series.magiccardmarket.eu/2017/04/30/robert-swiecki-storm/) and there's no ring. It looks like it should've been ad nauseum.
2
Going back to the discussion on the last page about whether or not Merfolk, Grixis Shadow, etc. should be considered a "blue" deck, this is completely missing the point. IMO we should stop saying things like "blue is weak" or "white is only a splash color" because it's not really capturing what people are thinking. It's not the lack of certain colors that we don't like, it's the lack of certain styles of play. I want Counterspell reprinted for modern equally the same if merfolk is a 1% deck, or a 25% deck, because merfolk being viable doesn't allow me to play the kinds of decks that I want to play. If we start talking about archetypes, and stop talking about colors, the discussion becomes a lot clearer.
I also don't think it's fair to tell people "modern is a proactive format, stop trying to play control." We know modern is a "be proactive or lose" format. We're saying it shouldn't be. All archetypes should be represented at least decently in the top tiers, because that gives you the healthiest metagame and the most player choice.
2
I've actually yet to lose a game against UW control (admittedly, I'm not playing against the best players/lists, but still). I also played control almost exclusively in modern, which IMO gives you an enormous advantage playing against it.
For sideboarding, remember that at heart, we are a jund deck. In the traditional jund mirror, the best players would sideboard out all of their hand disruption. The basic theory is that if the game is going to go long, the most important thing is gaining card advantage. It doesn't matter as much if you can't protect your threats as well, per se, since you're guaranteed to just draw more. We want to take a similar approach - turn our deck into a card advantage machine.
So with that said, the first thing I would take out is temur battle rage, because this card is always card disadvantage. Then go down to 1 tarfire, because the only way this card isn't card disadvantage against them is killing snapcaster mage or v clique. Leaving in one for the goyf is probably fine. Then I would cut terminate, since push can kill all of their creatures. I only run 3 pushes, so I would leave in those three plus the abrupt decay, personally. Next, start cutting hand disruption. Thoughtseize is better than IoK here, so the rest of the cards that you need to cut should be IoK.
Bringing stuff in, you want to bring in everything that could be a 2-1 that you can. All three lingering souls, and the ranger of eos. The ranger is undoubtedly the best card in this MU. It's a 3-1! If you run Nihil spellbomb, bring those in too. Your goyf will be big enough with just your yard, it's worth it. Collective brutality is a tough one. You can get virtual card advantage by pitching lands to it, but I usually want my lands in this MU. Plus if it gets countered, you fall way behind. Personally I don't bring it in.
Even if you boarded perfectly, you'll still lose if you don't play against it correctly. I suggest sleeving up a proxy (or real, if you can) version of the UW deck and playing it against a friend, who is playing your death shadow deck. Just jam a bunch of games, then try switching.
The key here is to always deny them the 2-1. (1) Never have more than 1 threat on board, because board wipes. (2) Always try to overload their countermagic. Thought experiment. They have a hand full of cancels, you have a hand full of goyfs, and you each have four lands in play. If you play 1 goyf per turn for the rest of the game, you will draw. But if you play two goyfs per turn, and they always cancel the first one, you'll win. A common play that I make in this MU is cast traverse, grab a threat, then pass the turn with plenty of open mana. If they let the traverse resolve, they're just going to counter the threat. I want to wait until I can play two threats per turn to overload their cryptic commands. (3) Never run out of gas. If they have a cryptic in hand, and you only have one threat in hand, just don't play it. You'll draw a thoughtseize or other threat eventually. (4) Be mindful of thinning your deck of threats with traverse. This actually comes up. If you've drawn two threats already, then you only have 6 left. If you traverse twice, you've now reduced your number of threats by 33%. By nature of the decks, this game is going to go long, and we run 8+ cantrips. You will draw enough cards that the %'s add up. Wait to cast traverse until the situation demands it, not just willy nilly.
I hope that helps some!
1
Varyag, I agree 100%. This is what I don't get about standard: why are good cards bad for the format? With all of the problems in standard over the last few years, nobody could possibly argue that post-bolt standard has been consistently better than bolt standard. I started with M11 & Innistrad. I liked the game so much because it felt like I could do really powerful things. Everyone just assumes that cards like counterspell and bolt and thoughtseize are inherently bad cards that shouldn't be in standard. But that just doesn't fit with the reality of how we've seen standard evolve over the last decade, and how people have reacted to it.
True, people didn't like thoughtseize when it was in this most recent standard. But I would argue that this wasn't thoughtseizes fault, they just didn't put it in the right standard format. Obviously not every standard format should revolve around efficient counterspells, or hand disruption. But the beauty of standard is that they can change it. Maybe this year's standard has more powerful cards like counterspell and bolt, and next year's standard starts to shift back into midrange. What's so wrong with that?
2
Look at it this way: the "fun" in a game of magic comes from (1) your deck & (2) your opponent's deck. Proper game design allows everyone to play with a deck they like and sometimes play against decks that they don't like, rather than forcing some people to play with a deck that they don't like and always play against decks that they like. For example, in modern, I play control. I always get to play a control deck, so we could say that I'm always having 50% fun, at least. So my range of fun is 50% (I hate playing against burn) - 100% (against, say, other fair decks). If there wasn't a moderately viable control deck, I would probably play Jund, a deck I'm pretty meh about. So my range of fun would be something like 25% - 75%. That's why I would never want to ban burn out of the format, because I recognize that a lot of people do enjoy those aggro strategies, and I want them to be able to play a deck they enjoy too. Moreover, I think that having a diverse format vastly raises the skill ceiling. Being able to play against a wide variety of archetypes requires greater skill than just playing against a few.
I also think that it's fair to talk about modern here. New standard sets are the only source of new cards for modern, just like standard, so why can't we talk about modern here? I could say "don't talk about standard here, obviously this card was just designed for limited" and I'm making the exact same argument.
1
Land Base
-2 City of Brass
-1 Caves of Kolios
-2 Swamp
+4 Godless Shrine
+1 Ghost Quarter
Mostly the same as the comments above. In the current meta at least 1 of ghost quarter MB will help against almost everything, so I'd leave in 3 caves to help offset the colorless from the quarter.
Creatures
-2 Soul Warden
-1 Sword of Feast and Famine
+1 Brimas, King of Oreskos or Sorin, Lord of Innistrad
The only reason this card needs to be here is to offset the painlands. Since we nixed half of those, that's not a problem anymore.
Anthems
-1 Honor of the Pure
Token Generators
-2 Shrine of Loyal Legions
It's just too slow and doesn't play nice with Honor of the Pure.
Disruption
+2 Inquisition of Kozilek
+2 Thoughtseize
+1 Path to Exile
The disruption suite is one of the biggest problems with the event deck; it doesn't have enough. We're pretty reliant on disruption for combo matchups, and it's just good generally. Now that we've taken out three painlands, we can afford some thoughtseize. And there's just no excuse to not run 4 of path.
Sideboard
-2 Dismember
-3 Duress
-3 Relic of Progenitus
+2 Stony Silence
+3 Rest in Peace
+2 Ethersworn Canonist
+1 Rule of Law
The sideboard is a bit of a mess. We definitely don't need dismember or duress anymore, and I happen to prefer rest in peace over the relic.
A few notes on budget: If you can't pick up the Thoughtseize, then Castigate is a fine substitute. If you can't afford replacing the painlands, then Timely Reinforcements is a much better solution than Soul Warden. Everything else should be relatively cheap or easy to come by.