I see where you're coming from. I'd welcome you to check out the first link in my sig and join the bogles discord server; we have a handful of players testing out seasons and the data from ~50+ matches so far is very exciting. Lots of folks brainstorming around it in the brew channel and differing opinions/feedback is much appreciated in the discussion.
Yes. Spiritdancer is a glorified lightning rod; any relevant Modern deck can easily deal with her in games 1, 2, and 3. Enchantment hate isn't uncommon out of the SB, but it's far less prevalent than creature removal and sure as ***** doesn't get mainboarded often. Silhana Ledgewalker is a more than adequate replacement creature, but on paper it seems as though keeping 1-2 spiritdancer would be a good call just to make it more difficult for opponents during sideboarding, wondering whether or not you're playing any Kors. I'm actually baffled that anyone wouldn't want to play this. How many creatures/auras do we play in a typical game? This is the card draw engine we've desperately needed.
Yeah, I realized that pretty quick after starting the server. I'm going to leave up the mtgs server for anyone who wants to use it as a place to gather while the new site gets ironed out. However, the dedicated Bogles server is much easier to maintain so I'm going to spend some time spreading the word to other dying forums, reddit, FB, etc with some kind of bogles-specific discussions/threads. I prefer actual forums to social media/reddit type discussion mediums and definitely don't want to detract from this thread or any future continuation of it. However, I've been on quite a few servers dedicated to various other modern archetypes and I can't deny the wealth of information and accessibility that a dedicated discord offers. Unfortunately, the rise of reddit, discord, and general social media groups have shifted much of the discussion away from traditional forums. I'll certainly continue to frequent mtgs/any future successor; I just want to help the bogles conversation evolve and made accessible to folks who've never posted on a forum, prefer to contribute via mobile, etc.
Not fun to see in your opening hand, but maybe it has a place in the SB?
We can't afford to play any colorless lands so this would have to go in a spell slot and it doesn't really seem worth it. We're quite limited on mana so very difficult to return something and play it in the same turn even. Just way too slow and don't see many cases where this would win you a game where a powerful aura like Unflinching Courage wouldn't do better.
Also new removal spell:
Could potentially be interesting if you want more removal spells than 4 Path to Exile. Only working if you fetch a basic land is a bit awkward though, so who knows. Also not great against Ghost Quarter or other basic land destruction.
Hmm. Yeah, awkward seems like a perfect word to describe this one. I don't think the slim chance of an opponent having a way to destroy basics is much of concern, but it's more so the logistics as you mentioned. I'm always up for testing an enchantment with some potential just to try and squeeze out max value from ethereal armor, but not sure the the best way to go about it. Maybe up the fetch count a few and try a 2/2 MB split? Either way I know trying to play this would temp me to give Open the Armory yet another chance and that's always just a road of disappointment.
No doubt; that pump spell is bonkers. I suppose we'll have to wait and see where the chips fall; I think I was just expecting more actual reprints entering the format rather than unproven experiments. Either way, you're absolutely correct in saying wotc has little incentive to specifically give bogles a bump. That's why I never expected MH to give us some bomb aura or a third 1-drop hexproofer, rather, I was hoping we'd indirectly benefit from the addition of some enchantments-matter cards or some kind of card filtering effect in our colors. The deck is pretty solid as-is as far as auras go, but getting something like a sylvan lib, practical card filtering, or 1 cmc aura/enchant tutor would go a long way helping us grind out a few more percentage points when it comes to consistency.
Yeah, we've gotten zero love from these initial spoilers. Good news is there's still ~3/4 of the set left to be spoiled, so I'm still hoping WotC throws us a bone. IMO the majority of spoilers thus far have been pretty mediocre and seemingly more geared toward EDH, so maybe we'll start seeing some Modern bombs being dropped in the next few days of spoilers. The Horizon land cycle is relevant to almost every major Modern archetype and will provide them with some sort of boost, so it's just unfortunate that our deck already takes advantage of the original : | Oh well, silver lining is the price of Canopies should start dropping for anyone who still needs some!
The problem with that is figuring out what to drop in order to make room for a relevant number of Noxious. I agree that it blows whenever an opponent counters/destroys an Ethereal Armor or something, but our suite of [important] auras is fairly redundant; Noxious is great for decks with literally 1-2 cards that can win them the game, but not so much for Bogles unless you're in a corner case scenario like a Burn opp destroying your only Spirit Link.
Should Sterling Grove grace the format, it would essentially serve the same purpose of preserving our enchantments in addition to providing other utility.
Yeah, the Modern playables from WAR haven't been very kind to us. If you're running into multiple decks running Blast Zone, I think it'd be appropriate to pack some interventions in the SB; like you mention, it has enough versatility that you can justify the spots. Another option might be Solemnity depending on which one covers more bases for your particular meta. Swapping out a SPiritdancer for a Silhana Ledgewalker, playing full sets of both umbras, & 2+ Mantles might also be something to consider. Certainly not ideal, but may help lessen the damage from both Blast Zone and Chalice on 1.
[quote from="Pedro Rocha »" url="/forums/the-game/modern/established-modern/aggro-tempo/220251-g-w-auras-bogle?comment=2723"]I'm crossing my fingers for Sterling Grove. This card is amazing and would become a great tool box for Bogles.
It's a great card but I think it would still be too slow as a tutor. The Shroud effect could be interesting though, but I am not sure how much it is really needed.
I hope that they put a Steelshaper's Gift in Modern Horizons that searches for an Aura instead of an Equipment card.
An aura-centric Steelshaper's would be excellent and seemingly much more likely than Enlightened Tutor entering Modern.
I think we'd benefit from almost any sort of efficient card advantage/filtering and/or tutor effect. I still think Sylvan Library would be a fair addition to the format and give us some filtering/painful CA while juicing up Ethereal; with the exception of DS decks moving into green, I don't see many ways it could end up being degenerative. I definitely agree with Grove being a slow tutor, but I think there's potential there if we can take advantage of shrouding our enchantments. There could be some utility in running it out of the SB either alone or with some kind of misc non-aura enchantment package (e.g. Suppression Field, Ghostly Prison) to slow down/turn off any enchant hate by tutoring up another copy in response to removal. I suppose it would allow us to drop a Daybreak with only 1 other aura attached without needing to worry as much about losing both to a removal spell. Might not ultimately pan out, but thinking back to when Open the Armory was printed and desperately trying make it work, I'd definitely like to give it a whirl if it should enter the format.
Interesting read regarding the London mulligan, how it benefits decks like Bogles and just a lot of solid statistics to consider. A few noteworthy excerpts:
-----------------
"If you are willing to mulligan into oblivion, then you were only 86.5% to find a Leyline under the Vancouver mulligan rule, with an average starting hand of 5.22 cards. Under the London mulligan rule, you’re 97.2% to find a Leyline, with an average starting hand of 5.55 cards. Another way to put it: the odds of missing seven hands in a row with the Vancouver mulligan is 13.5%, but the odds of missing seven hands in a row with the London mulligan is only 2.8%. That’s a huge difference".
"Consider the following model of a combo deck:
20 lands
8 copies of combo piece A
8 copies of combo piece B
24 other spells
Lots of Modern decks can be modeled in this way. For example:
In Bogles, combo piece A could be a hexproof creature (Slippery Bogle or Gladecover Scout), and combo piece B could be one of the best Auras (Ethereal Armor or Daybreak Coronet). The specifics of the deck don’t really matter, but the mulligan strategy does. I assume that we keep if and only if our hand contains at least one of each combo piece and at least two lands. This is what I define as a good opening hand.
If you use this mulligan strategy but keep any four card hand, then you would keep 5.08 cards on average under the Vancouver rule, compared to 5.32 cards on average under the London rule.
So under the London rule, you will be able to sculpt a perfect opening hand (i.e., a hand with one of each combo piece and at least two lands) substantially more often, and you end up with larger hands on average. If you mulligan aggressively, you’re 70.46% to end up with such a perfect opening hand".
"Under either mulligan rule, you have a 39.9% to find at least one of your four Leylines in your starting seven. But if you are willing to mulligan down to a certain number of cards, then the odds of finding a Leyline go up dramatically"
---------------------
Obviously as a deck that often lives/dies on mulligans, Bogles would instantly benefit from the London mull as the chance of us finding just a functional opening hand increases dramatically. In our particular situation, the new mull would afford the opportunity for some selectivity in addition to the inherent increased consistency. After game 1, arguably all decks benefit from the London mull assuming effective SB answers are in place. However, it would seem as though the rule would lean in our favor (as well as any other deck where finding their particular leyline G2/G3 can make a significant difference) more so than others. Similarly, as a deck that can be crippled by T1 Thoughtseize, the chance to find an opening hand with redundancy G2/G3 can make a significant difference when we're on the draw.
Something that wasn't specifically touched on in the article was how/if the London mull would affect the construction of SBs. Theoretically, a greater chance to find our hate cards would suggest the possibility of running less copies of X in favor of including one copy of Y in order to cover more bases. However in regards to Bogles specifically, I'm curious if it'd be wiser to stick to the typical SB plan and enjoy the increased probability of finding something ran as a 4-of or potentially trimming down the SB in order to accommodate a wider variety of options? Overall, I'm really looking forward to seeing how this plays out should WotC officially declare the London mull law in the paper world, but also a bit worried that problematic cards such as Serum Powder or Leylines could be axed from the format in order to accommodate the change. Interested to hear what yall think about how the the London mull could benefit/harm our overall gameplan/place in the meta.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Yes. Spiritdancer is a glorified lightning rod; any relevant Modern deck can easily deal with her in games 1, 2, and 3. Enchantment hate isn't uncommon out of the SB, but it's far less prevalent than creature removal and sure as ***** doesn't get mainboarded often. Silhana Ledgewalker is a more than adequate replacement creature, but on paper it seems as though keeping 1-2 spiritdancer would be a good call just to make it more difficult for opponents during sideboarding, wondering whether or not you're playing any Kors. I'm actually baffled that anyone wouldn't want to play this. How many creatures/auras do we play in a typical game? This is the card draw engine we've desperately needed.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Bogle-gasm
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Hmm. Yeah, awkward seems like a perfect word to describe this one. I don't think the slim chance of an opponent having a way to destroy basics is much of concern, but it's more so the logistics as you mentioned. I'm always up for testing an enchantment with some potential just to try and squeeze out max value from ethereal armor, but not sure the the best way to go about it. Maybe up the fetch count a few and try a 2/2 MB split? Either way I know trying to play this would temp me to give Open the Armory yet another chance and that's always just a road of disappointment.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Not fun to see in your opening hand, but maybe it has a place in the SB?
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Should Sterling Grove grace the format, it would essentially serve the same purpose of preserving our enchantments in addition to providing other utility.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
It's a great card but I think it would still be too slow as a tutor. The Shroud effect could be interesting though, but I am not sure how much it is really needed.
I hope that they put a Steelshaper's Gift in Modern Horizons that searches for an Aura instead of an Equipment card.
An aura-centric Steelshaper's would be excellent and seemingly much more likely than Enlightened Tutor entering Modern.
I think we'd benefit from almost any sort of efficient card advantage/filtering and/or tutor effect. I still think Sylvan Library would be a fair addition to the format and give us some filtering/painful CA while juicing up Ethereal; with the exception of DS decks moving into green, I don't see many ways it could end up being degenerative. I definitely agree with Grove being a slow tutor, but I think there's potential there if we can take advantage of shrouding our enchantments. There could be some utility in running it out of the SB either alone or with some kind of misc non-aura enchantment package (e.g. Suppression Field, Ghostly Prison) to slow down/turn off any enchant hate by tutoring up another copy in response to removal. I suppose it would allow us to drop a Daybreak with only 1 other aura attached without needing to worry as much about losing both to a removal spell. Might not ultimately pan out, but thinking back to when Open the Armory was printed and desperately trying make it work, I'd definitely like to give it a whirl if it should enter the format.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
-----------------
"If you are willing to mulligan into oblivion, then you were only 86.5% to find a Leyline under the Vancouver mulligan rule, with an average starting hand of 5.22 cards. Under the London mulligan rule, you’re 97.2% to find a Leyline, with an average starting hand of 5.55 cards. Another way to put it: the odds of missing seven hands in a row with the Vancouver mulligan is 13.5%, but the odds of missing seven hands in a row with the London mulligan is only 2.8%. That’s a huge difference".
"Consider the following model of a combo deck:
20 lands
8 copies of combo piece A
8 copies of combo piece B
24 other spells
Lots of Modern decks can be modeled in this way. For example:
In Bogles, combo piece A could be a hexproof creature (Slippery Bogle or Gladecover Scout), and combo piece B could be one of the best Auras (Ethereal Armor or Daybreak Coronet). The specifics of the deck don’t really matter, but the mulligan strategy does. I assume that we keep if and only if our hand contains at least one of each combo piece and at least two lands. This is what I define as a good opening hand.
If you use this mulligan strategy but keep any four card hand, then you would keep 5.08 cards on average under the Vancouver rule, compared to 5.32 cards on average under the London rule.
So under the London rule, you will be able to sculpt a perfect opening hand (i.e., a hand with one of each combo piece and at least two lands) substantially more often, and you end up with larger hands on average. If you mulligan aggressively, you’re 70.46% to end up with such a perfect opening hand".
"Under either mulligan rule, you have a 39.9% to find at least one of your four Leylines in your starting seven. But if you are willing to mulligan down to a certain number of cards, then the odds of finding a Leyline go up dramatically"
---------------------
Obviously as a deck that often lives/dies on mulligans, Bogles would instantly benefit from the London mull as the chance of us finding just a functional opening hand increases dramatically. In our particular situation, the new mull would afford the opportunity for some selectivity in addition to the inherent increased consistency. After game 1, arguably all decks benefit from the London mull assuming effective SB answers are in place. However, it would seem as though the rule would lean in our favor (as well as any other deck where finding their particular leyline G2/G3 can make a significant difference) more so than others. Similarly, as a deck that can be crippled by T1 Thoughtseize, the chance to find an opening hand with redundancy G2/G3 can make a significant difference when we're on the draw.
Something that wasn't specifically touched on in the article was how/if the London mull would affect the construction of SBs. Theoretically, a greater chance to find our hate cards would suggest the possibility of running less copies of X in favor of including one copy of Y in order to cover more bases. However in regards to Bogles specifically, I'm curious if it'd be wiser to stick to the typical SB plan and enjoy the increased probability of finding something ran as a 4-of or potentially trimming down the SB in order to accommodate a wider variety of options? Overall, I'm really looking forward to seeing how this plays out should WotC officially declare the London mull law in the paper world, but also a bit worried that problematic cards such as Serum Powder or Leylines could be axed from the format in order to accommodate the change. Interested to hear what yall think about how the the London mull could benefit/harm our overall gameplan/place in the meta.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.
Link to Discord server where anybody from MTGS can keep up with thread topics while everything is being sorted out with the new site.