All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Magic Market Index for April 20th, 2018
 
Pauper Review: Dominaria
 
The Limited Archetypes of Dominaria
  • posted a message on [Primer] Amulet Titan
    Hexproof effects are medium against burn. The tend to bring in some combination of Revelry/Path/Deflecting Palm to deal with this deck, which can take care of things like Sigarda. On the same note, things like Thragtusk or Obstinate Baloth are medium-bad against burn as well. They sniff it out and Skullcrack it. The actual best cards against burn are Radiant Fountain + Bouncelands and Courser of Kruphix.
    Posted in: Big Mana
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from Colt47 »


    Different parts of the color pie interact in different ways. It's like the flavor text of Null Rod: sometimes something doing nothing is actually doing something; or in the case of certain keywords, answering something.


    Right. There exists a scenario where Null Rod has a function, an interactivity value, but that scenario is not independent of other cards or outside a game.
    It has no interactivity value in a vacuum.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)


    So not interacting is interaction???
    That seems incredibly backwards and counter to the entire discussion here.
    Just because that blanks opponents cards (by design) it is entirely context based. In another match up that delve fatty still dies, nothing to do with how it is individually so it's interaction levels never change.

    If you think this reeks of elitism then I suggest you reread the last 3 pages because this is not about strength or whining about decks you lose to. It's about working out how interactive a deck is (ignoring context eg bolt 80%+ going to face).


    There is no interaction without context. A card requires a scenario to function. A card outside of a game does nothing.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    .


    Trying to assign a numerical value to a deck based on interactivity is really an effort in futility. Say my opponent has Bolt and Push in hand. His interactive score is +2. I play a Hollow One, which is interacting with the Bolt and Push in my opponent's hand by negating their usefulness. Does this make Hollow One's interactive score +2 for me then? Perhaps -2 for my opponent? You can't assign numbers to this type of value gained in an "This card can target X things" kind of way.

    Playing a card that effectively blanks your opponents cards is interaction. I am using one card in my deck to negate X cards in my opponents deck. Lightning Bolt does the same thing to Wild Nacatl, playing one card to negate an opponents card. My Primeval Titan makes all my Jund opponent's creatures bad. Is Primeval Titan +18 or so interactivity?

    However,

    The whole discussion smells like veiled "my midrange/control pile lost to the faster/bigger/more explosive pile and I need to quantify my rage/disappointment somewhere on the internet but people don't like outright whining" and I don't feel like there is any value for anyone to be gained by re-re-re-re-retreading the feelsbads of midrange/control players any further.

    Why are their feelings given such recognition? Where are the Affinity players complaining about Pyroclasm effects or the Scapeshift players complaining about counterspell effects? The whole conversation reeks of bias and entitlement.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Quote from tronix »
    at this point im starting to believe that peoples qualms are about the color pie itself, and not the format.


    People who think having more variety in color representation is worth more than variety in strategy representation aren't worth your words mate. The strongest indicator of format health is how many different strategies are viable. Currently, modern is great.

    You want aggro? Bogles, BR Hollow One, Humans
    Aggro + Combo? Affinity, Infect
    Ramp? Tron
    Ramp + Combo? Valakut, Amulet
    Combo? Storm, Griselydad, Ad Nauseam
    Midrange? Jund, Eldrazi, Ponza, Mardu
    Midrange + Combo? Dredge
    Midrange + Aggro? Shadow
    Control? Blue Moon, UWR, Lantern
    Control + Combo? Breach

    This is what matters. Not whether or not an abundance of purple or yellow cards see play.

    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on [Primer] Amulet Titan
    Quote from daviusminimus »
    @ Earthbound21 - I think people are just looking at your list and saying "why isn't the 4th gemstone there" more than anything. I dunno if you need Grove or the 4th basic, but the 4th gemstone seems like it'd be a good fit.
    in terms of coloured sources, im the same as fpawlusz. I run 8 and dont struggle. I dont think you need an extra red or an extra green, but gemstone is pretty good, so perhaps you want to find room for the 4th (for help with t-wests).


    Do you also run 3 Firespout? My local meta consists of midrange grind decks and creature aggro decks. If I become concerned with blue sources, I would sooner add Temple or Botanical or Vestige than Gemstone, I think.
    Posted in: Big Mana
  • posted a message on [Primer] Amulet Titan
    Quote from resmaster »
    I would not play only 3 Gemstone Mines. It reduces the chances of having G on your first turn to play either Scout or Stirrings.


    You understand that the replaceable lands in my list are Basic Forest and Grove of the Burnwillows right? You know both of them make Green on the first turn right?

    Quote from fpawlusz »
    @earthbound21 Honestly, not running the full 4 Gemstones has always felt like a mistake to me. I feel like it's the best non-bounceland land in the deck, and if I could I'd probably run 5 or even 6 to make our mana more smooth. I play a total or 8 red sources (4 Gemstones, 3 Turfs, 1 Garrison) and I haven't had much of an issue. Adding the Grove is nice, but I've just been super happy with 4 basics.


    I have 8 Red sources - 1 Boros, 3 Gruul, 3 Gemstone, 1 Grove. The 4th Gemstone Mine would increase the number of Blue sources without changing the number of Green sources. My question was, "How many Red sources do I need to run 3 Firespouts", so if the answer is 8, then I'm covered. If the answer is 9, I would cut a Forest. If you don't know the answer, that is okay as well. How many Firespouts do you run?
    Posted in: Big Mana
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Why do we still have people coming with anecdotal or theoretical evidence about skill? Didn't KTK disprove all myths regarding skill many pages okay? Like, okay Foodchains, you can think what you like, but it's been disproven. If a skilled pilot plays his deck skillfully, he will do well. Fact. Mathematically proven to be truth. I don't understand why you and others continue to assert that skill is irrelevant after being factually proven wrong.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Can confirm that UWR has some pretty lopsided victories. Affinity? Easy. Elves? Easy. Humans? Fish? Easy easy easy. Every deck in Modern should have good and bad matchups. A metagame that cycles from Combo/Aggro > Ramp > Midrange > Combo/Aggro is a much better than a meta game with a few 50% decks in it.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Patrick Sullivan is a smart man.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from idSurge »
    Who is complaining? ktk asked for some opinions on why people are 'frustrated spikes' based on an article.

    There are good decks for everyone, quite literally.

    10 Tier 1 Decks, across the spectrum of archetypes.
    15 Tier 2 Decks, across the spectrum of archetypes.

    Some of these 'decks' are not even a single deck, UWR Tempo, is not UWR Control, is not UWR Kiki.

    If you dont like the angle of the conversation, why post?

    ktk asked why people are frustrated, he is getting answers.


    Nothing in my post is directed at KTK.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    I still get the feeling that many people on this forum and across the internet continue to complain, as they have for years, that X deck has bad matchups against Y because Twin ate the bullet and they can't have a 50/50 oops I win tempo/combo/control deck. They romanticize 2014-15ish Modern, like it's some golden age or something. It's not. It wasn't fun at all to not be able to tap out on turn three. It wasn't fun at all when they top decked Twin on turn 7 and killed you. It wasn't fun at all how many other UR decks weren't played because Twin was around. Take off the rose tinted glasses. If you can't win at Modern, its on you. It's not the cards, its not the matches, its not the ban list, no. The one consistent thing in your games is you.

    If what you are interested in is a format with 1-5 decks total where you can leverage all your skills and all your copy pasted from CFB/SCG/wherever sideboard tech, let me tell you about Standard. You want a format where you can play goodstuff pile and be safe against nearly everything, but with more decks than Standard? Friends, Legacy is a format.

    But you know what makes Modern special? In Modern, we don't have a 5 deck format. We don't have Deathrite Shaman vs Combo decks the format. We have the largest variety of competitive decks available to play in one format. If what you want is diversity, have I got a format for you!

    It blows my goddamn mind that we have people arguing for less diversity after just a year ago arguing for more diversity. What in the actual f-

    Let me give you some tips. If you suspect Tron is going to be at your event, try playing some of these: Grapeshot, Glistener Elf. Arcbound Ravager, Boros Charm, Ad Nauseam, Scapeshift. You think creature decks are going to be good? How about some of this Supreme Verdict, Maelstrom Pulse, Pyroclasm, Oblivion Stone. You think Midrange is going to be good? How about your old buddies Primeval Titan, Stinkweed Imp or Karn Liberated. Or if you absolutely must ruin everyone's fun, try out some of these: Cryptic Command, Thoughtseize, Logic Knot, Ensnaring Bridge.

    The meta has reached a cyclical point. Pay attention and you'll stop losing.

    But the amount of continued tolerance given to the same people in this thread, whining and complaining constantly for year, YEARS about the same trite drivel about how Jund isn't the best is completely absurd and getting quite sickening. Literally all of the numbers we are capable of procuring point to Modern being great, whether it's personal winrates of top players, format breakdowns by deck variety or strategy, color representation, whatever. It's all here and it's all okay. Last year alone we saw the rise (and fall) of Shadow, Eldrazi, Storm, Humans, UWR, and Tron. That's 4 new decks and two decks that were on their deathbeds.

    It's so incredibly frustrating that some of you are complaining just to complain. You complained when Twin made you hold up mana the whole game, you complained when you chose Jund (you greedy 50/50 seeking spikenugget) and got paired against Tron and you complained most of all when you lost. Enough is enough. There are archives of this very forum, literally thousands of pages, of the same garbage arguments about how unhappy you all are with Modern, but how incapable so many of you are at adapting or furthering discussion in a meaningful way. Seriously, stop.

    Really, honestly, truly - Enough.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    I haven't seen too much buzz about the top GP Santa Clara Modern decks: Dredge, UW Control, 4C Death's Shadow, and Mardu Midrange. Right behind that at 5-8 we had Lantern, 2 Affinity, and ETron. On the one hand, I hear that it's not a conventional Modern GP and N is smaller. On the other hand, it's not a unified format so deck choices matter, and the Modern field is narrowed to the format specialists. Seems like a great source of data for top decks going into the PT (at least, a stage 1 dataset). Where's the love for these finishes?


    It's questionable how actionable data is from unified events. If a match features six decks (3v3) only two of those six decks can play Fatal Push or Scalding Tarn or whatever. I would think that skews the deck choices too much to be exceptionally worthwhile data points. Am I wrong?
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on [Primer] G/W Auras (Bogle)
    Quote from bradstone »
    I'm not sure it's necessarily one or the other, but Spirit Mantle guarantees you're going to push damage through when facing creatures which is definitely relevant. It also allows you to have a really strong blocker if need be.

    I'm looking to come out of left field at a Sunday event soon with UW boggles. Curious Obsession is totally insane and I'm surprised more people aren't buzzing over it.


    This is functionally the same card as Keen Sense which was played in the past, but is dropping from lists for being slow. I don't think the additional +1 makes up for the off color.

    Edit: Didn't see you mentioned UW Bogles. I don't know anything about UW, other than I could not be convinced to play without Gladecover or Rancor. GW Bogles is already on the slow end of non interactive Modern decks, replacing a one drop creature for Invisible Stalker or whatever is not a sound choice I think.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.