It makes perfect sense for Emrakul to have pro instants. Cast Emrakul, it's guaranteed to be safe until opponent's turn, then you can burn all their sorcery speed removal on other stuff (if possible). Also people are overestimating the downside. A Mindslaver effect on a 13/13 is dumb, even if they get another turn. The only real problem is that they get an extra card but that's in exchange for all the other cards they have that you get control of for a turn.
Due to the popularity of Eldrazi and with plenty of aggressive decks in the current meta, I've adapted my deck to somehow combat the meta. Here's my 75.
I've decided to cut Atarka's Command and Wild Nacatl because of the strain it does on my manabase. We are forced to race most of the aggessive decks in the format and fetching an untapped Stomping Ground could be the difference between winning and losing. Wild Nacatl is just a bad top deck. I opted for full sets of Lightning Helix and Searing Blaze and the consistency of the deck has become better.
I placed 3 Ensnaring Bridge in the sideboard. The card is just very versatile! It's excellent not just against Eldrazi but also against Tarmogoyf, Merfolk and Zoo variants. With the addition of Ensnaring Bridge in the sideboard, I've cut all copies of Deflecting Palm.
Your maindeck is identical to the the one I'm planning to take to SCG Louisville, with the only exception being the manabase. I have -1 Sacred Foundry -1 fetch +2 Mountain.
My sideboard is a WIP but I'm testing the following:
The Searing Blood is sort of a flex slot. I like having an additional piece of creature removal that deals the opponent damage, but I've also considered a copy of Smash to Smithereens.
I'm not playing Kor Firewalker because I expect to face the mirror less and it costs a lot of life to cast on curve which is a major liability if the opponent has an immediate answer like Path to Exile. It's a proven sideboard option, but I personally don't think it's necessary right now. 4 Lightning Helix will also go a long way in the burn mirror.
Smash is easier to cast and deals +1 damage but I would personally max out on Revelry before resorting to more artifact hate. The card is just more diverse.
On the topic of mana bases, are 2 Stomping Ground necessary for builds running Atarka's Command? You never need to fetch for a second under normal circumstances so I assume the only purpose of it is to have an extra fetchable green source in case of LD/Spreading Seas effects.
I think it's bad, real bad. It might see play just on the grounds of being a dual tapland with upside, but Jeskai and Mardu decks will usually have other things to be doing with the mana - and that's in the few situations where the game state will be such that activating this is even a viable option. I realize this is irrelevant, but I much preferred the fake one that was previously spoiled (1RW for 4/2 first strike).
Re: mythic discussion, if there's still one mythic unspoiled it's probably Jace isn't it? 6 planeswalkers is more than we get in a typical block but it would be weird not having a card for him when what we've seen so far seems to indicate that him, Nissa, Gideon, and Chandra all play a particularly important role in the story and everyone else has a card.
The card has proven playable in Grixis and Jund decks, but outside of that it combines stupidly good with Restoration Angel. The winning UWR twin list from Pittsburgh played one in the sideboard and Jeff Hoogland played a Kiki-Chord deck at some recent modern open with P&KN in it.
Seems cool for Commander, but I don't think she currently has a home in Standard. Possibly another sac outlet option for 4-color Rally? I don't know if they really need her though.
Wear/Tear is better than both of those cards you mentioned by a long shot.
On another note: Does anyone have good (recent) Modern Burn articles I could add to the Articles section? I think Nevel0 wrote one a while back but I couldn't find it.
I'm currently working on putting burn together and this is the list I'm going off of for the most part because I think it's really solid. There are a few changes I plan on making though - namely cutting the Vexing Devil and changing the sideboard. I really don't like Electrickery and don't think Grafdigger's Cage is necessary. The third Skullcrack seems like a lot too.
I like the idea of playing Volcanic Fallout instead of some of these cards, but do you shave/sandbag your Goblin Guides when you board those in? Or just kind of not care about it hitting your Guides? Also, would you bring it in for the mirror if your opponent isn't playing Nacatls? Any other general sideboarding tips would be really helpful and much appreciated!
Basic Snow Lands are NOT a new basic type. They are a basic type with an added supertype. Read your rules. And the reason it would happen in Oath has been explained many times. BFZ/Oath were still finalizing development when the new block order was established. <> was likely slated for set 3(Large set) in the RTZ block, and got pushed to Oath because of this. With BFZ near completion, it wasn't able to fit in the large set BFZ, so it was put into Oath.
This was one of those perfect storm moments. Colorless matters block, so let's introduce the new symbol for colorless. Then: Oh crap, our initial plan to introduce it at the end of the block in a large set got changed. Put it in the small.
Haven't logged in for a couple of days, just saw this. Sorry if it's been discussed before, but do we actually know where BFZ block was in development when the two-block structure was established?
It seems like you think <> will become the new colorless symbol because you feel the rules accommodate that theory best, but the people who design this game are constantly finding new clever ways to create things that seem like they'd be difficult to fit within the rules; their job is to figure out how they can do this type of stuff. Your idea may fit best within the current set of rules, but it entails a massive design overhaul, and also makes a concept that very few players had trouble understanding more difficult to understand for no discernible reason.
I don't think this will be a parasitic set-specific mechanic, and I don't think that hundreds of cards which currently produce colorless mana are going to be errata'd to produce that much <> either. People are going too extreme in either direction. Is it so hard to believe that <> is equivalent to 1, with the exception that 1 cannot be used to pay for <> in costs?
If <> were to appear in Oath of the Gatewatch only (for the time being, but also potentially in future products such as a colorless Commander precon or Return to Return to Zendikar), how parasitic would it really be? We've only seen two cards that produce it and one which requires it. In the case of Kozilek outside of standard, how actually parasitic is it to have <><> in its casting cost? The card seems better suited as a reanimator target, which makes the symbols largely irrelevant. If you're looking to hardcast an Eldrazi, the original Butcher of Truth has the more consistent draw ability of the two.
As for anyone who thinks <> will replace 1 going forward, do you feel that all future sets will have their own take on Wastes in the basic land print run? More importantly, do you really believe that an arbitrary symbol is easier to grok because its existence would create a cosmetic difference between colorless and generic mana, even if that difference is perceptively irrelevant in 99% of gameplay situations?
W can be used to pay 1, but 1 can't be used for W. U can be used to pay 1, but 1 can't be used for U. S can be used to pay 1, but 1 can't be used for S.
<> can be used to pay 1, but 1 can't be used for...
Think about it.
I essentially agree with this post (aside from probably the stuff about parasitism*) and think this is a good way of looking at it. I also could be biased and easily wrong here, but I think people who find this more difficult to conceptualize than <> being a complete rebranding of colorless mana are in the minority.
*Just as an aside, I'm too lazy to fetch a source right now but Mark Rosewater has said before (I believe on his Tumblr) that if they were ever to create a sixth color it would not affect the design of all sets and would be a block-specific thing. I see <> more as "special colorless mana" than a "sixth color", but it still makes ya think.
Like what someone said earlier, a lot of you guys don't want there to be a very specific new 'colorless color', or eldrazi mana, that you guys are speculating things to the extreme.
Replacing 1 with <> across the board? Errata all colorless mana producers? How would that even work with Mox Lotus:p?
Cmon now, you all know deep inside that this is just a very parasitic mechanic that basically makes Kozilek unplayable outside of standard unless given enough support from the same mechanic from this one set that is strong enough to step into eternal formats.
And I know, I don't want to accept that too, new Kozi looks dope as shiz, and I'm making my own theories as well, but at the end of the day, that's the most likely case in all of this. That it's just another parasitic ability, and we just have to live with the battle for disappointment block the way that it is.
Basic Land. That is all the proof I need for <> to be the new 1 as colorless symbol. If it wasn't that simple, it wouldn't have been on a basic land.
Basic lands are key components of the game, they would NOT add one for a one-off in a small set.
Sure they would. Wizards does new set-exclusive gimmicks and mechanics like this all the time, this is probably specifically related to the Eldrazi. I think it would make more sense than them unnecessarily complicating the way colorless mana works currently. Flavorfully, it fits - the Eldrazi being such confusing and alien beings that they have their own type of mana related to them.
Also, if they were going to permanently retool colorless mana being <> they probably would have done it in the large set, BFZ, it makes no sense to wait until Oath for such a big change to the game.
It feels like some people in this thread have never heard of Basic Snow Lands.
Your maindeck is identical to the the one I'm planning to take to SCG Louisville, with the only exception being the manabase. I have -1 Sacred Foundry -1 fetch +2 Mountain.
My sideboard is a WIP but I'm testing the following:
3 Path to Exile
3 Ensnaring Bridge
2 Deflecting Palm
2 Skullcrack
1 Searing Blood
The Searing Blood is sort of a flex slot. I like having an additional piece of creature removal that deals the opponent damage, but I've also considered a copy of Smash to Smithereens.
I'm not playing Kor Firewalker because I expect to face the mirror less and it costs a lot of life to cast on curve which is a major liability if the opponent has an immediate answer like Path to Exile. It's a proven sideboard option, but I personally don't think it's necessary right now. 4 Lightning Helix will also go a long way in the burn mirror.
Smash is easier to cast and deals +1 damage but I would personally max out on Revelry before resorting to more artifact hate. The card is just more diverse.
Let me know what you think.
For what it's worth I think him and Andy Boswell did a better job than Craig last weekend.
Pretty sure the Izzet Boilerworks are supposed to be Charms.
Jasper Johnson-Epstein actually has a more recent decklist that he Top 8ed GP Oklahoma City with not too long ago. http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1249106
I'm currently working on putting burn together and this is the list I'm going off of for the most part because I think it's really solid. There are a few changes I plan on making though - namely cutting the Vexing Devil and changing the sideboard. I really don't like Electrickery and don't think Grafdigger's Cage is necessary. The third Skullcrack seems like a lot too.
I like the idea of playing Volcanic Fallout instead of some of these cards, but do you shave/sandbag your Goblin Guides when you board those in? Or just kind of not care about it hitting your Guides? Also, would you bring it in for the mirror if your opponent isn't playing Nacatls? Any other general sideboarding tips would be really helpful and much appreciated!
Haven't logged in for a couple of days, just saw this. Sorry if it's been discussed before, but do we actually know where BFZ block was in development when the two-block structure was established?
It seems like you think <> will become the new colorless symbol because you feel the rules accommodate that theory best, but the people who design this game are constantly finding new clever ways to create things that seem like they'd be difficult to fit within the rules; their job is to figure out how they can do this type of stuff. Your idea may fit best within the current set of rules, but it entails a massive design overhaul, and also makes a concept that very few players had trouble understanding more difficult to understand for no discernible reason.
I essentially agree with this post (aside from probably the stuff about parasitism*) and think this is a good way of looking at it. I also could be biased and easily wrong here, but I think people who find this more difficult to conceptualize than <> being a complete rebranding of colorless mana are in the minority.
*Just as an aside, I'm too lazy to fetch a source right now but Mark Rosewater has said before (I believe on his Tumblr) that if they were ever to create a sixth color it would not affect the design of all sets and would be a block-specific thing. I see <> more as "special colorless mana" than a "sixth color", but it still makes ya think.
Sure they would. Wizards does new set-exclusive gimmicks and mechanics like this all the time, this is probably specifically related to the Eldrazi. I think it would make more sense than them unnecessarily complicating the way colorless mana works currently. Flavorfully, it fits - the Eldrazi being such confusing and alien beings that they have their own type of mana related to them.
Also, if they were going to permanently retool colorless mana being <> they probably would have done it in the large set, BFZ, it makes no sense to wait until Oath for such a big change to the game.
It feels like some people in this thread have never heard of Basic Snow Lands.