Magic Market Index for March 15th, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2019
  • posted a message on Print this Wizards (so I can play it in modern)
    Land destruction is just one of those mechanics that is either too weak or seriously oppressive and doesn't function in between very easily. I think many people would describe counters similarly, but, as I linked to a bunch of cards before, Counters have plenty of holes. Land destruction does not.

    You've probably laid out a drawback that would make it fair, but honestly I don't think Ponza would be okay with sacrificing 2 permanents on T2. Exile the top 20 means virtually nothing, library as a resource isn't a very big cost very often and can easily be turned into card draw if you know what you're doing. Destroy a land draw a card? Uh, no. Tap two lands for 1 card? The difference between one turn and two turns is probably the difference between "too weak" and "seriously oppressive". Can't play lands is another affect that's really hard to judge between the two extremes, not to mention the question that comes with Scry 3. RG Raze is probably also boarder line the same way the other one is.

    Anyway, the point is that WotC has said that Land destruction is not something they want to be encouraging. While nearly every set has some kind of land denial, it is never at 2cmc unless it returns them an untapped basic, it's rarely at 3cmc with minimal up side or restrictions, and is represented at 4cmc+ a majority of the time. Their preferred method has clearly been higher 4cmc+ for general land destruction or non-basic replacement for less than 4cmc.

    I think those trends are fairly clear if you compare when Stone Rain, Molten Rain, and Blood Moon "entered" the format compared to what has been printed since then.

    I'm clearly no fan of any kind of land denial though. You can look through my history and see that I would have Blood Moon banned in a heartbeat, so trying to convince me that 2cmc land destruction is going to be okay is going to be a fairly decided exchange.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Print this Wizards (so I can play it in modern)
    Counterspell stops one spell in a 1 for 1, maybe. Land destruction aims to stop all spells with a couple 1 for 1s. We're talking Control vs Prison, they're not the same.

    2cmc land destruction is just way too fast. Ponza players, from what I have seen, are only asking for another 3cmc spell, they wouldn't dare ask for a 2cmc spell. As far as restrictions go, 10 life means nothing if you can't do anything.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Modern Horizons Discussion Thread
    Eradicate would probably see some fringe play right now if it could hit Gurmag and Shadow. Remove that clause and add walker and it's probably playable at sorcery speed for 2BB.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 11/03/2019)
    I actually think Back to Basics is what Blood Moon should be. I just see a striking difference in how they affect the next few turns. With Moon there is next to zero chance to get the mana you need to recover, with BtB you can at least drop single lands untapped to do something in a few turns. Moon is just a non-game, BtB gives you a chance- however slim it may be. I would also say that Counterspell could bring a permission deck forward to actually reliably hold off a T3 Moon.

    And to make a point that I'm not just arguing for Blue, I would be 100% okay if it were Red.

    I do agree with most of what you (idSurge) laid out, but KCI does still stick out as an issue to me. Find a less resilient deck that combos like that and I have no issue, but KCI was beating Extirpate while it was on the stack as well as permanent based hate; I don't think Planar Void would close that loop, and I'm not sure what would close that loop.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 11/03/2019)
    I'm curious what everyone thinks will happen after we print better answers. (As seems to be the consensus.)

    I can't get away from the idea that better answers beget better threats and better threats beget better answers. I just see a spiral into "not-legacy-but-it's-legacy". If someone could drive me off this thought process, I would very much appreciate it, but often the discussion stops at "bans vs answers" and we never get into the second and third order affects of that choice.

    I don't want bans either, but if the idea is to avoid becoming legacy (in whatever long run time frame) then bans are probably very necessary at a certain point. I would also assume a very large and careful amount of thought be put into them.

    As far as answers do actually go, how do we improve on what we have? Are we willing to see a better Bolt, Path, Push, Thoughtseize, or Terminus? I would venture the answer comes with some hesitation.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on WAR Crazy Idea with Planeswalkers in limited
    Rosewater says walkers with static abilities are "a when". I would bet that this is on the table for this set, especially if we see walkers at uncommon for limited purposes. They could easily just be strong enchantments that you can attack now. Kind of frustrating in my opinion because it leaves the door fairly open to interpretation as to how they will be used.

    And as a joke, the first thing they should spoil on April 1st is RRR Tibalt with Blood Moon stapled to him and a +1 that makes 1/1 devils or something absurd.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Modern Horizons Discussion Thread
    Counterspell will matter in the meta, but it won't be back breaking.

    If anything, and I might get some raised eyebrows for this one, I think it'll even out the Tron match a bit.

    After playing with Silumgar's Scorn for a few weeks, I think I've got a reasonable bearing on how Counterspell would interact with the meta. Good not great; winner in some matches, loser in others. The difference is that it's a loser where all 2cmc counters are already losers opposed to randomly because your opponent is playing creatures into your Negate or you have no fetch to fuel your Logic Knot on T2.

    I'll be ecstatic to see it get a printing here in a few months and... probably fairly crushed if it doesn't. Y'all are buildin up my hopes with things like "it should be a lock at this point".
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 11/03/2019)
    She may have some impact against Dredge, maybe not a dominating impact, but spending one of the precious few anti-hate pieces on RIP may leave the door open for a Batterskull to slow the game down. Or the opposite, a Batterskull turned Trophy may be followed by a RIP. Could just be about not having enough answers opposed to how impactful the card actually is.

    It's a fairly significant "if", I know, but "if" it forces Dredge to overload on anti-hate, then it could dilute them enough to drop a percent here or there.

    I do still agree with many that think she doesn't fit in any current deck lists well.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [WAR] Planeswalker rarity speculation
    Quote from Will-98 »
    Given that there will be a planeswalker in each booster, we can confirm that there are planeswalkers at uncommon. No way we would have 2 rare+ guaranteed in each pack (regular+planeswalker). Those planeswalkers at uncommon shall be niche ones, like Nissa Revane, as others pointed out.
    Mmmm, I don't know about "niche". I'm willing to bet they take a page out of Dominaria and use them as figure heads of Limited archetypes. Pidgeon holing an uncommon walker into just elves, as with the Nissa card you link, would not make for a very inspiring Draft unless the set was very tribal- which is not something I think we expect to see here in WAR.

    Unless that was what you meant by niche and the Nissa card just threw me.
    Posted in: Baseless Speculation
  • posted a message on Print this Wizards (so I can play it in modern)
    U - Sorcery
    Draw a card, Scry 2.
    Suspend 2: UU
    When you Suspend ~, return up to one target creature to it's owner's hand.

    G - Instant
    Target creature you control fights target creature you don't control.
    Suspend 2: GG
    When you Suspend ~, put two +1/+1 counters on up to one target creature.

    W - Instant
    Creatures you control gain +1/+0 and First Strike until your next upkeep.
    Suspend 2: WW
    When you Suspend ~, create two 1/1 White Soldier tokens with Lifelink.
    (I honestly can't think of a cool White card for this design, I'm just not a fan of playing white.)

    R - Sorcery
    Deal 2 damage to any target.
    Suspend 2: RR
    When you Suspend ~, draw two cards, then discard two cards.

    B - Instant
    Return target creature from your graveyard to your hand.
    Suspend 2: BB
    When you suspend ~, each player sacrifices a creature.

    According to the MtG wiki, Suspend checks for timing restrictions of when you can cast the card as a rule for when you can suspend the card, so you can suspend the instants at instant speed.

    Some of these are done with the idea that another card would have to "leave". The Blue one would just overwrite Serum Visions entirely, for example. I mostly just like the design and think a ton can be done with suspend to give spells an odd modal feel to them.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Modern Horizons Discussion Thread
    I feel like most of what I want to see in Horizons I should just be posting in the "Please print this" thread. I keep coming back here to post a dream and stop to remember the other thread.

    I'm trying to dream up deck sift that Control wants, but Xerox would hate. I'm thinking of trigger to do something tempo-y on suspend, then draw cards 2 turns later. Or the Ice Age delayed draw. Combine it with other colors and you can dream up some cool cards.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 11/03/2019)
    20% of the meta being Phoenix is certainly stunning, but I still think Dredge is the scary one here. I'm partially on Gokurou's side with the Dredge question, but we certainly differ on Looting.

    I just can't accept a 1cmc card with such a high potential card advantage and no drawback. At it's worst it upgrades 2 cards in your hand, at it's best you discard 2 Phoenix for what is essentially "Draw 4".
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 11/03/2019)
    Quote from The Fluff »
    How about just banning the phoenix instead of looting?

    Just like how they did with banning KCI instead of the opal.
    We're still left with Dredge showing 3 top 8s in this GP vaulting over a deck with more than 4 times it's representation in a field that knows it needs to fight graveyard strategies. Is that acceptable?
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 11/03/2019)
    Wow... Phoenix only got 2 copies in? I'm in shock! It's okay though because the real culprit brought Dredge with it.

    I've had it in the back of my head that Looting at it's worst is "replace your worst 2" and at it's best is "draw 4". If it's putting up these kind of numbers at tournaments then it probably leans towards "draw 4" more than the other (with "draw 3, pitch 1" being the middle). That's just head and shoulders above Opt and Serum Visions.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 11/03/2019)
    Not that I hate Phoenix specifically, but do we beat the drum for Looting now?

    How about now?

    How about now?

    I'll be interested in the top 8. If there's any less than 3 Phoenix there, I'll be surprised. I bet if a ban happens in relation to this, it's Phoenix that is forced to take a seat. They'll save Looting because it hits too many decks.
    Posted in: Modern
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.