Quote from Jund Em In »Im going to test out the manamorphose builds, but im cutting stubborn denials and blue completely out of the 75.
Stub feels bad with all the humans, hollow ones, jund decks around, and the rest of blue cards in the side were usually to fend off tron, control and big mana decks which are on the down low at the moment. Instead ill be running lingering souls package out of the side which feels better against jund, mardu and humans.
1. Is this thought process right? is stub and blue still good enough to keep in the 75 vs white?
2. How do you usually fare with the manamorphose build when it comes to running 17 lands? Do you ever fall short in hitting your second land? 18 felt good enough to consistently keep 1 landers. Do you even run out manamorphose as soon as you hit 2 lands for the cantrip, without knowing if you can draw into anything to make use of the 2 mana?
3. Im debating if I should keep in 2 lotv or add 2 bolts instead. or if i should scrap that completely and bring back 2 stubs into the main.
Quote from BadMcFadden »Im not sure which I would prefer, ban cavern of souls or make counterspell modern legal. Control is still a joke. Try casting jtms in this format using an actual blue deck with cryptics and knots. The creature decks smoke you with a zero opportunity cost land (cavern) and the combo decks chortle with glee as you pay four mana for nothing and proceed to lose the game as you flounder around with your one cryptic command or logic knot that you hoped would get there.
Cavern should have cost life to use like boseiju and/or come in tapped like boseiju. Playing it should have had a cost that you would weigh vs the benefits. People play unclaimed territory in modern - that tells you all you need to know about having uncounterable slapped on for free on this land.
And no, tapping out t3 to field of ruin it doesnt help. They get gross tempo and can ust draw another one as they invariably play four.
Quote from ktkenshinx »I'm always skeptical when we start speculating about whether Deck A has a good/bad matchup vs. Deck B. These speculations are almost always off-base. I think Ari Lax coined that as one of the cardinal sins of Modern. Unless someone has access to hundreds of game datapoints in a complete tournament/MTGO dataset, I don't think anyone here can speak to the MWP of any deck against any other deck. The exception would be if you track your own games and somehow account for possible influences that might skew your results negative or positive, and even that would only give us an idea of your personal deck's MWP.
Quote from FoodChainGoblins »I mean as a disclaimer, this is my own anecdotal evidence. I don't play online. I play 3-4 times during the weekdays and 1-2 days on weekends, including local 1Ks, but no recent GPs since Santa Clara Modern side events.
A good Humans player will have a positive matchup vs. Jund. The games can be very tempo oriented and outside of super early Fatal Pushes or sweepers after SB when the disrupting dudes are not drawn, Humans will get there before all those extra cards drawn matter. The Humans players that I know are mostly just above average, but most have had a positive Jund matchup. It is similar to how Affinity beats Jund, with brute speed, except Humans sacrifices some speed for disruption.
It can also be compared to Affinity vs. Jeskai. Some players feel like Jeskai is strongly favored, yet I know some super good Affinity players (I'm looking at you mtgs member, kodieyost) that have had a really good matchup vs. Jeskai. I'm personally not quite there yet on this matchup, but even I have had a positive matchup vs. Jund as a Humans' player.
I admit though, that Humans cannot beat Elves. That matchup is probably pretty close to 70/30 for Elves.