I have no idea which is better. Obviously, Snag has its benefits - but it has anti-synergy with Snapcaster Mage (as it exiles the Snag on the way out). In a control deck, which do you think is better?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Temporarily retired from the game
Thanks a bunch to Rivenor from Miraculous Recovery Signatures for the awesome sigpic!
I like Rune Snag a little bit more in decks that want to drag the game out. Unfortunately, there aren't very many of those in Modern right now, so Mana Leak seems to be better positioned.
Snag is the best late game (w/o snapcaster) however if you are going to be obliterating your graveyard without heavy refreshments then mana leak will be your best bet. I honestly think however that Familiar's Ruse will get a hold within specific decks and be a power house that no one saw with the viability of snapcaster right now.
If you're running Snappy the choice is clear. If yes, Leak.
If you aren't running him for whatever reason ask yourself the following question, "Will I ever board out 1, 2, or 3 Rune Snags but not all 4?" If yes, Leak.
The third and final question is do you want to win more? Yes? :-P
The other thing to consider is whether you will have four slots. Rune Snag should only be used if you will be running four so as to make drawing more than one more likely. Mana Leak will be more reliable if you are only running 3. The exception is decks that self mill, as they can get more power from Snag.
Snag is better against Discard spells, in general. If your opponent is trying to take this countermagic out of your hand, he's risking feeding you mana efficiency for the midgame.
Rune Snag is also stronger in any deck with graveyard synergy, regardless of Snapcaster's presence. This means Desperate Ravings, Gifts Ungiven, Loam-dredging, Thirst For Knowledge, etc. If you're playing control in this format, chances are extremely high that you will be using one of those kinds of graveyard engines in your deck. I'm especially fond of Snag with Gifts Ungiven; throwing one into a pile is nearly always beneficial.
I think the Snapcaster + Rune Snag un-synergy is often blown way out of proportion.
Is your snapcaster deck running other instants and sorceries? Then you probably won't be spending all your snapcasters flashing back your 2 mana counterspells.
Also consider the situation that you have a copy of your 2 mana counter in your graveyard and have 4 mana available.
With Mana leak, your opponent always knows that to resolve the spell they need to save 3 extra whether that card you have is a snapcaster or another mana leak. With Rune snag in the yard, they might need to pay 2 if one of your cards is a snap caster, but if you have another runesnag, they need 4.
If you are building a guantlet deck, sure, just rock the mana leaks and call it a day. But if you are working on your own deck, you really should try both to see which works better in your deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I support WotC's goal of shaping Modern in favor of diversity.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
No, it's not. Jund manabases suck. Often, they can't even recast it that turn.
Jund Manabases aren't any worse than any other 3 color deck in the format. They were bad in standard... but naturally, the standard manabase isn't used.
Remand is what it's always been. Great against anything that costs 2 or more, and terrible against anything that's more efficient than it is. Better in tempo or combo than control. Not much else needs to be said really.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
I like Rune Snag a little bit more in decks that want to drag the game out. Unfortunately, there aren't very many of those in Modern right now, so Mana Leak seems to be better positioned.
Well, I'd say that's actually exactly what esper teachings does: drag the game out until you can secure the win. But that's not really why rune snag isn't as good. Rune snag just isn't as efficient because you rarely have more than one or two in a graveyard, and when you get to late game, they don't typically have a problem paying 4 or 6 mana (possibly even 8) for their 1 or 2 cost spell. The only way to really guarantee it's efficiency is to use your mystical teachings for it, which is also not really relevant because you could just mystical teaching for the appropriate counter spell instead.
I think in the end it still comes down to preference, but this is why I use mana leak over rune snag (also because I only have 2 rune snags).
Well, I'd say that's actually exactly what esper teachings does: drag the game out until you can secure the win.
This isn't true at all. The point of Teachings is to draw all of the relevant cards in your deck systematically over the course of however many turns it takes. To the untrained eye, it's a lot of stall tactics. To someone who understands the deck philosophy, it's a gradual combo deck.
But that's not really why rune snag isn't as good. Rune snag just isn't as efficient because you rarely have more than one or two in a graveyard, and when you get to late game, they don't typically have a problem paying 4 or 6 mana (possibly even 8) for their 1 or 2 cost spell.
I would like to see more evidence supporting these statements because this contradicts about half a decade of experience I have had playing with and against Rune Snag in dozens of tournaments. All it takes is for you to draw 2 Rune Snags in a game, and it's suddenly better than Mana Leak. The difference you should be considering is the difference between 2 and 3, not between 3, 4, and 6.
The only way to really guarantee it's efficiency is to use your mystical teachings for it, which is also not really relevant because you could just mystical teaching for the appropriate counter spell instead.
Please don't use examples of poor play to justify an argument.
I think in the end it still comes down to preference, but this is why I use mana leak over rune snag (also because I only have 2 rune snags).
I'm getting the impression that your logic is built on sand, and that you probably haven't actually played with Rune Snag (since you somehow only have 2 of a common, even though you're willing to speak with authority about it). Maybe I'm wrong about this, but if I'm not--you really should try to know what you're talking about. I've played probably a few thousand games with Rune Snag, and about twice that many games with Mana Leak. How many have you played with each card? Then you can start thinking about personal preference.
This isn't true at all. The point of Teachings is to draw all of the relevant cards in your deck systematically over the course of however many turns it takes. To the untrained eye, it's a lot of stall tactics. To someone who understands the deck philosophy, it's a gradual combo deck.
Can you expand on this a little more? I think I understand what you mean but I'm still a little confused about the relationship between teachings and combo decks.
Is this thinking correct? A combo deck wants to create some condition that will cause them to win and a control deck gradually builds up to that position through card advantage and the flexibility to draw into/teachings for blowout cards from their deck?
Can you expand on this a little more? I think I understand what you mean but I'm still a little confused about the relationship between teachings and combo decks.
Is this thinking correct? A combo deck wants to create some condition that will cause them to win and a control deck gradually builds up to that position through card advantage and the flexibility to draw into/teachings for blowout cards from their deck?
When I play Storm Combo, my goal is to draw the bulk of my deck and then decisively win the game with whatever I'm using, be it Brain Freeze, Tendrils, Grapeshot, or Blue Sun to the face for 50.
When I play Dredge, my goal is to draw my deck by flipping it over into my graveyard and using my graveyard as my hand. Then I win with whatever reanimation/recursion engine works against the present opponent.
When I play Teachings, my goal is to chain draw spells and Teachings together to find everything I need in order to lock my opponent in a prison. Then I use the last parts of the chain to find my endgame and put a literal finish to the game in combo-like fashion.
They are definitely different archetypes with different timing windows for aggression, but all of these types of decks are interested in drawing a critical mass of cards systematically through a chaining process. People care way too much about finishers when they should instead be focusing on the draw engines.
When I play Storm Combo, my goal is to draw the bulk of my deck and then decisively win the game with whatever I'm using, be it Brain Freeze, Tendrils, Grapeshot, or Blue Sun to the face for 50.
When I play Dredge, my goal is to draw my deck by flipping it over into my graveyard and using my graveyard as my hand. Then I win with whatever reanimation/recursion engine works against the present opponent.
When I play Teachings, my goal is to chain draw spells and Teachings together to find everything I need in order to lock my opponent in a prison. Then I use the last parts of the chain to find my endgame and put a literal finish to the game in combo-like fashion.
They are definitely different archetypes with different timing windows for aggression, but all of these types of decks are interested in drawing a critical mass of cards systematically through a chaining process. People care way too much about finishers when they should instead be focusing on the draw engines.
lately we haven't been seeing eye to eye, but the point about the card draw is so true. If you play the deck right you could drop a chimney imp and win the game. In the real world though obviously you want to have the best of whatever is possible and you will never be able to control every game this how you finish the game does have some bearing....just not as much as your card draw suite which is why I have been so stubborn to drop white. In my 5cc deck I have 4 charms, 4 desperate ravings, and 2 teachings. Also I have 2 ultimatums, and a couple cards that can 2 for 1(command and sweepers)
Card draw is king in control. It is the fundamental foundation from which you build your deck. Spells such as counterspells are the nails and beams that hold things together. The finisher is siding that covers the rest of the building.
Keeping this in mind this argument is not quite as important, however most pros choose mana leak over rune snag. I have played with both and the differences aren't astounding, but they will both often be dead after turn 5 and before that point leak has a slight edge in my mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
When I play Storm Combo, my goal is to draw the bulk of my deck and then decisively win the game with whatever I'm using, be it Brain Freeze, Tendrils, Grapeshot, or Blue Sun to the face for 50.
When I play Dredge, my goal is to draw my deck by flipping it over into my graveyard and using my graveyard as my hand. Then I win with whatever reanimation/recursion engine works against the present opponent.
When I play Teachings, my goal is to chain draw spells and Teachings together to find everything I need in order to lock my opponent in a prison. Then I use the last parts of the chain to find my endgame and put a literal finish to the game in combo-like fashion.
They are definitely different archetypes with different timing windows for aggression, but all of these types of decks are interested in drawing a critical mass of cards systematically through a chaining process. People care way too much about finishers when they should instead be focusing on the draw engines.
If I am reading this right then all decks are combo decks. All decks want to draw a series of quality cards and then use them to win, right?
If I am reading this right then all decks are combo decks. All decks want to draw a series of quality cards and then use them to win, right?
I think that the difference is how you draw. Aggro decks seem to just want to top deck some business and combo/control decks use actual draw spells to make a chain.
I think that we might just be looking at this too abstractly. The further we step back the more everything is going to look the same.
I don't believe it possible to look at anything in the universe with too abstract an eye.
Ultimately, the issue at hand is that we are looking at different decks and labeling them as a 'control deck' or an 'aggro-control deck' or a 'combo deck,' when the truth is that decks don't actually fall under one particular category as a constant. All decks fulfill different roles in different times across match-ups. It's a matter of positioning.
This is why we even talk about the merits of cards like Rune Snag, Mana Leak, Thoughtseize, Dismember, and Kitchen Finks. They can all be conceived as 'stall tactics,' but I prefer to think of them as 'maneuvers of position,' just like castling in Chess. And while the overall strategy of a player is greater than the sum of those maneuvers, their collective can point us in the direction of what was happening in his mind. To me, this is what makes a strategy game so interesting. Watching the way a player acts in a situation; seeing the way he things for himself under pressure--that speaks volumes of someone's being.
I'm proud to say this is my 1500th post on this forum!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Temporarily retired from the game
Thanks a bunch to Rivenor from Miraculous Recovery Signatures for the awesome sigpic!
Rage quit reason of the moment:
If you aren't running him for whatever reason ask yourself the following question, "Will I ever board out 1, 2, or 3 Rune Snags but not all 4?" If yes, Leak.
The third and final question is do you want to win more? Yes? :-P
L1 Judge
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Rune Snag is also stronger in any deck with graveyard synergy, regardless of Snapcaster's presence. This means Desperate Ravings, Gifts Ungiven, Loam-dredging, Thirst For Knowledge, etc. If you're playing control in this format, chances are extremely high that you will be using one of those kinds of graveyard engines in your deck. I'm especially fond of Snag with Gifts Ungiven; throwing one into a pile is nearly always beneficial.
Is your snapcaster deck running other instants and sorceries? Then you probably won't be spending all your snapcasters flashing back your 2 mana counterspells.
Also consider the situation that you have a copy of your 2 mana counter in your graveyard and have 4 mana available.
With Mana leak, your opponent always knows that to resolve the spell they need to save 3 extra whether that card you have is a snapcaster or another mana leak. With Rune snag in the yard, they might need to pay 2 if one of your cards is a snap caster, but if you have another runesnag, they need 4.
If you are building a guantlet deck, sure, just rock the mana leaks and call it a day. But if you are working on your own deck, you really should try both to see which works better in your deck.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog
Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
And conversely, Snapcaster makes them worse by removing the copy from the grave.
I still like using Remand, but that's just me. Draw 2 and troll your opponent for two turns? Count me in!
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Current post- Grand Prix KC Modern Postmortem (7/7/13)
It feels pretty bad using it on a Inquisition / Thoughtseize
It's real good against free BBelf spells, though.
Current post- Grand Prix KC Modern Postmortem (7/7/13)
No, it's not. Jund manabases suck. Often, they can't even recast it that turn.
Jund Manabases aren't any worse than any other 3 color deck in the format. They were bad in standard... but naturally, the standard manabase isn't used.
Remand is what it's always been. Great against anything that costs 2 or more, and terrible against anything that's more efficient than it is. Better in tempo or combo than control. Not much else needs to be said really.
Well, I'd say that's actually exactly what esper teachings does: drag the game out until you can secure the win. But that's not really why rune snag isn't as good. Rune snag just isn't as efficient because you rarely have more than one or two in a graveyard, and when you get to late game, they don't typically have a problem paying 4 or 6 mana (possibly even 8) for their 1 or 2 cost spell. The only way to really guarantee it's efficiency is to use your mystical teachings for it, which is also not really relevant because you could just mystical teaching for the appropriate counter spell instead.
I think in the end it still comes down to preference, but this is why I use mana leak over rune snag (also because I only have 2 rune snags).
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
This isn't true at all. The point of Teachings is to draw all of the relevant cards in your deck systematically over the course of however many turns it takes. To the untrained eye, it's a lot of stall tactics. To someone who understands the deck philosophy, it's a gradual combo deck.
I would like to see more evidence supporting these statements because this contradicts about half a decade of experience I have had playing with and against Rune Snag in dozens of tournaments. All it takes is for you to draw 2 Rune Snags in a game, and it's suddenly better than Mana Leak. The difference you should be considering is the difference between 2 and 3, not between 3, 4, and 6.
Please don't use examples of poor play to justify an argument.
I'm getting the impression that your logic is built on sand, and that you probably haven't actually played with Rune Snag (since you somehow only have 2 of a common, even though you're willing to speak with authority about it). Maybe I'm wrong about this, but if I'm not--you really should try to know what you're talking about. I've played probably a few thousand games with Rune Snag, and about twice that many games with Mana Leak. How many have you played with each card? Then you can start thinking about personal preference.
Can you expand on this a little more? I think I understand what you mean but I'm still a little confused about the relationship between teachings and combo decks.
Is this thinking correct? A combo deck wants to create some condition that will cause them to win and a control deck gradually builds up to that position through card advantage and the flexibility to draw into/teachings for blowout cards from their deck?
When I play Storm Combo, my goal is to draw the bulk of my deck and then decisively win the game with whatever I'm using, be it Brain Freeze, Tendrils, Grapeshot, or Blue Sun to the face for 50.
When I play Dredge, my goal is to draw my deck by flipping it over into my graveyard and using my graveyard as my hand. Then I win with whatever reanimation/recursion engine works against the present opponent.
When I play Teachings, my goal is to chain draw spells and Teachings together to find everything I need in order to lock my opponent in a prison. Then I use the last parts of the chain to find my endgame and put a literal finish to the game in combo-like fashion.
They are definitely different archetypes with different timing windows for aggression, but all of these types of decks are interested in drawing a critical mass of cards systematically through a chaining process. People care way too much about finishers when they should instead be focusing on the draw engines.
lately we haven't been seeing eye to eye, but the point about the card draw is so true. If you play the deck right you could drop a chimney imp and win the game. In the real world though obviously you want to have the best of whatever is possible and you will never be able to control every game this how you finish the game does have some bearing....just not as much as your card draw suite which is why I have been so stubborn to drop white. In my 5cc deck I have 4 charms, 4 desperate ravings, and 2 teachings. Also I have 2 ultimatums, and a couple cards that can 2 for 1(command and sweepers)
Card draw is king in control. It is the fundamental foundation from which you build your deck. Spells such as counterspells are the nails and beams that hold things together. The finisher is siding that covers the rest of the building.
Keeping this in mind this argument is not quite as important, however most pros choose mana leak over rune snag. I have played with both and the differences aren't astounding, but they will both often be dead after turn 5 and before that point leak has a slight edge in my mind.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I think that the difference is how you draw. Aggro decks seem to just want to top deck some business and combo/control decks use actual draw spells to make a chain.
I think that we might just be looking at this too abstractly. The further we step back the more everything is going to look the same.
Ultimately, the issue at hand is that we are looking at different decks and labeling them as a 'control deck' or an 'aggro-control deck' or a 'combo deck,' when the truth is that decks don't actually fall under one particular category as a constant. All decks fulfill different roles in different times across match-ups. It's a matter of positioning.
This is why we even talk about the merits of cards like Rune Snag, Mana Leak, Thoughtseize, Dismember, and Kitchen Finks. They can all be conceived as 'stall tactics,' but I prefer to think of them as 'maneuvers of position,' just like castling in Chess. And while the overall strategy of a player is greater than the sum of those maneuvers, their collective can point us in the direction of what was happening in his mind. To me, this is what makes a strategy game so interesting. Watching the way a player acts in a situation; seeing the way he things for himself under pressure--that speaks volumes of someone's being.
I'm proud to say this is my 1500th post on this forum!