Hey Team,
I was wondering if I could have some opinions on how to sideboard against Storm w/ my current list. My maindeck is pretty standard except that I still keep Cursecatcher's in:
I played Azorious Control over the weekend and went 12-0 (every player kept forgetting that I could sac Cursecatcher to stop Cryptics and also that I could activate a Mutavault (buffed by Lords and MoW) during my Begin Combat step after they used Cryptic to tap down my board at the beginning of the step) and I did fine against Jund. I saw no Phoenix decks, and I did OK against Hardened Scales but without a Chalice or a Hurkyl it was tough). But then I came up against Storm and I got smoked. Every time.
I swapped Spreading Seas for Echoing Truth. That seems right. But beyond that, it's not clear to me what else I can do.
Does anyone have advice on how I should sideboard against Storm given my sideboard and main deck? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Hi Meelman,
That's an excellent response-thank you so much! I hadn't considered the mirror and completely forgot that Mutavault can suck when you have it and an island and need a second blue source.
Hey Meelman,
I'm sorry; I must not have been clear. I understand the desire to play around Choke and that Wanderwine sates this desires. I just wouldn't think it prevalent enough to warrant a play-around and also it's usually the case that many Merfolk deck lists already have Minamo and Oboro to play around Choke (and also Boil, Blood Mood). I also understand that Conclave is an evasive man-land. But again, I was curious as to its inclusion since being evasive is something that the deck achieves by having Islandwalk creatures and Mutavault's, which function as evasive man-lands (just not in virtue of flying) that also get buffed by Lords. So, it's not that I don't understand what the cards are good for. I was more curious why they were included given that avoiding Choke/Boil/Blood Man and having evasive man-lands is something that most iterations of the deck usually accommodate.
Am I to understand your response like this?: "Joker wanted more play arounds for the Chokes/Boils of the world and moreevasive man-lands than the deck currently has?" If so, I apologize for being slow to understand your response.
Can I ask a quick question about your lands, though? Why is it you have a Wanderwine Hub and a Conclave? With respect to the latter, I would think the latter's having an evasive body is the reason, but Merfolk gets evasion from island walk and Seas and Mutavault in being Merfolks gets buffs from Lords (it also cost less to activate). So, why have Conclave? Is it just to have another evasive body? With respect to Wanderwine, after I saw it in there I was expecting a white splash. But I don't see any on your list.
Again, really well done. Congratulations jokester and I'm glad that you're feeling awesome about your results!
Hi Rothgar,
It seems part of your reply involves reasoning like this:
Premise: What I say with respect to (wrt) is false (suppose that this is true; I said false things).
Conclusion: So, I must be new to Merfolk.
That's neither a valid nor sound inference.
Now, enough about your comments that seemingly are meant to disparage me.
About MOW: What I claimed is that it's not clear that "MOW great against Grixis Deathshadow at least insofar as it has protection from red.(my emphasis." Then I recanted that, as you can see in my original post (where I was thinking out loud). So, we seem to agree about the utility of MOW with respect to Deathshadow. So, you telling me that MOW is good against Deathshadow is not inconsistent with what I say. It is inconsistent only with a view that I later came to reject. So, we agree about MOW's utility in that matchup.
About MOW wrt Burn, my reasoning was roughly this (I'll even skip a few steps to make the argument shorter):
Assumption 1: Burn is a quick deck in a quick format.
Assumption 2: Merfolk gets better the later in the game it goes.
Assumption 3: Kirra/Kopala and MOW are high cost and both help with tempo against burn.
Assumption 4: Against a quick deck in a quick format, gaining tempo is a good thing.
---
Premise 1: It's good for Merfolk to have creature cards that help with tempo.
Premise 2: If two cards provide tempo boosts, it's not necessarily true that choosing one in lieu of the other is best.
Conclusion 2: So, it's not necessarily true that choosing MOW over a Kopala/Kirra is best.
Your response is roughly this:
Premise 1: There's ways to buy time against burn (implicit: that are independent of Kopala/Kirra).
Premise 2: It's good to have a finisher against burn that "slams the door shut".
Implicit: If one can buy time without Kopala/Kirra with card that "slams the door shut", then there is reason to play it against burn.
Conclusion: So, there's reason to play it against burn.
(you also think that (Conclusion) above explains why players traditionally keep MOW in the deck against burn).
Again: I can grant you everything that you say. I'll even tell you explicitly: You said all true things. But this is not to show that I have any false premises or a conclusion that does not validity or soundly follow from its premises.
I'm merely trying to convince you that it's non-crazy to prefer certain creatures over MOW against BURN. I'm not arguing that MOW is completely useless in the matchup. I'm also not arguing that MOW ought not ever be played in the matchup. I'm not arguing that MOW has not historically been played in the matchup, not arguing that both cannot be played simultaneously, etc. My view is this: looking at Burn lists and building a Merfolk deck, if I have MOW in one hand and either Kopala or Kirra in the other (and I can only pick one) it's not necessarily correct to pick MOW.
So, we seem to agree.
You might object: Maybe your view is this. MOW makes the game go longer than a Kopala or a Kirra. Why is that? MOW makes tokens. And it has protection from red. And having multiple things come out onto the board gains tempo. Those are all true. I grant you that. But as I said before, that MOW late in the game makes the game go much longer assumes that there's some non-trivial amount of devotion on the board to make some. But that's not necessarily going to be the case with burn. For given burn's removal aspect it's plausible that the Merfolk player's board is relatively clear by Turn 4-5.
So, against Burn on turn 4 or 5 I'd rather pull a Kopala than MOW.
You might object that by turn 4 or 5 the Burn player has enough mana to, say, pay Kopala's tax. This is because their removal suite is low-cost. So, having Kopala that late doesn't help. But as I said previously, that's not obvious to me. Why is that? Making a burn player's whole turn consist in only playing one piece of removal at that stage of the game (to kill Kopala) is still a tempo boost.
You might respond that by that turn my Kopala is gone, though. Yet if I had MOW instead on that turn the Burn player spent a turn killing Kopala, even without any other devotion on the board the Merfolk player would only have lost one token to a burn spell.
That, to me, is the best case for preferring MOW over Kopala on turn 4-5. But it's not clear to me that that's your avowed view.
My meta game claims are from https://mtgdecks.net/Modern. I agree that MOW is good against spot red removal like seen in burn. But just because it has protection of read doesn't mean it's good against the deck in general. I'd still rather have a card that gains tempo and/or stops a burn player from emptying their hands of bolts, chainwhirlers, etc. than have red-immune MOW. After all, if all the other creatures get burned and we play MOW we won't get many tokens. So, God forbid the burn opponent toasts our board MOW will only come in late in the game and get us one token (easily removed) and MOW (not easily removed). 4 late-game creatures immune from red that more likely than not will generate few tokens seems less impressive than 4 creatures I can play a turn earlier than gain significant tempo against a deck that wants to burn us quickly.
It's also not clear to me that MOW is great against Grixis Deathshadow at least insofar as it has protection from red. As far as I know, most decks run fewer than 4 bolts and far fewer than that for Kolighan's Command and (some run Anger of the Gods, Terminate and it is true that they'll get more than that many uses if they get Snapcasters out...) Now that I say it, that's a lot. Even though MOW's protection is moot against Fatal Push or Dismember it does seem like it'd survive a lot than can appear. So I take it back: I'll concede that MOW is good against Death Shadow insofar as it can stay on the board. But again: I'm always trying to make any game go longer in Modern, and it seems like a reason that MOW makes the game go longer later in the game is if it *****s out a lot of tokens. But if we cannot develop a board and built up devotion s.t. MOW keeps the game going past turn 5 I'd rather have a creature (e.g., Kira, Kopala) that either protects the board or gains a hell of a lot of tempo or some other card with a similar tempo-gaining affect (e.g., Monastery Siege)
1) In Modern? Yeah. Standard? Nah.
2) That's unclear. Burn either tops or is close to topping the meta. And MOW has protection from Red. So, obvi it won't die to the plethora of red spells. But it's a host cost creature. If you're worried about burn, I'd wonder whether MOW is too clunky and evaluate cards based on how well they can keep the game going past turn 4 (our goal against burn is survive long enough to go wide). I'd rather have Kopala than MOW against burn. The former is cheaper and slows down the burn clock big time, which favors us.
Jund is also up there in the meta. And MOW still survives bolt/ terminate, kolaghan's command but not fatal push. Still, it survives like half the removal suit. And if your other fellas do not, MOW's can help destabilize the board. I'd have 4 MOW against Jund w/ maybe a single kopala/kira.
But I'd also prefer Kopala against MOW against UW control. A lot of their late-game instants/sorceries are expensive (e.g., cryptic command, terminus, supreme verdict) and with kopala's tax on the board they control player either (i) pays the tax and thus is prevented from doing a lot more else that turn; (ii) or cannot afford to. Either way, that's good for us. True, if they get a terminus down it's good to have MOW to get it and a token so we're not defenseless. But it's not clear that having MOW to re-stabilize after a terminus buys more time than have a koplala or Kira down early on to make an expensive board swipe more expensive such that the opponent either cannot play it or will not pay the tax at the expense of wasting an entire turn just to play one terminus.
So, against the probably top-3 decks in the modern meta I'd only really love 4 MOW against burn. Idt its going to help the game go long against UW control or Jund, but it can still help stabilize a board in either match up. But in these cases, I'd rather protect the board well for a creature that cost one less mana than MOW than have to attempt to re-stabilize it after a board wipe with MOW and get it plus a token or two.
If I only ever played attrition placed matchups, I'd pick Ben. But I want my one-drop Merfolk to disrupt (like Harbinger, Trickster, Tidebinder) to make the game one turn longer and thus get us to the part of the game where we're favored (in more match ups). I see no convincing reason to switch from Cursecatcher given how fast modern is and what decks are big/will be big in the meta (given the banning on KCI). I think you're right to re-consider Cursecatcher atm.
I worry; Merfolk is a ca. turn 6 deck. Many archetypes in modern are Turn 3-4 (or quicker). So, surviving the early game is huge for us. But having Ben out and initially getting him a counter via adept to loot takes up early turns that should be spent developing a board or, if not, holding up mana for interaction (or player a lord to help the rest of the critters). It'd be better in the late game to help cycle through cards (which allows us to have counters in the main; if we don't want em, we just use Ben to get rid of them) but Merfolk is favored some in the late game against a lot of archetypes.
I'd rather have a one-drop that interacts, like a better Cursecatcher (maybe with a higher-tax or the same tax with no restrictions on the cards it can be sacced to counter). I also still like Cursecatcher over Ben because I think people abuse the line "the easier a tax is to pay the less value the tax has." I'd rather have Cursecatcher on turn 2 and make burn pay 1 more mana for Bolt (of their 2 available)and make their turn exclusively about paying for Bolt (and (earn tempo that way) then Ben in the same situation. [I feel the same way about Spell Pierce; I always hear "play it early before it's useless". But just because your opponent can pay a tax for a card doesn't mean the card's effect cannot benefit the caster. If your opponent has 6-7 mana up and plays Kolighan's Command, make them pay 2 with Spell Pierce and limit the rest of what s/he can do that turn to what costs 1-2 mana, which is a big tempo gain.]
Hey Team,
I have a quick question about the Trickster-Goyf interaction to make sure that I understand.
If the Goyf comes in all jacked up and Trickster taps and it down and thus weakens the Goyf, because of the "end of turn" phrase on Tricker the weakened Goyf will get its strength and toughness back next turn, yes? I just want to be sure.
Hey Team,
Can someone help me understand how the interaction between a Mistcaller and an opponent's creature that is being vialed-in works?
Say I have a Mistcaller down. It's my opponent's turn.
My opponent activates Aether Vial to vial-in a creature.
I sac Mistcaller.
Nikachu says at this point the opponent can choose whether or not to play a creature. If they do, it gets exiled. If not, they waste an activation.
I don't see why that is; why does the opponent get to decide whether to put a creature in? I thought if you activate the ability for x you do not get to choose whether x obtains after the activation.
Hey Team,
I'm new in MTG Salvation, newish to MTG again (I was into it during Invasion, took some time, bought a few packs of Shards, now I'm back) and as you can guess I'm getting into Modern by getting into Fish. I have a deck, but I'm wondering if anyone has any resources wrt current archetypes that I can read up on before bringing my deck to a FNM. (I watch Nikachu's awesome stuff when I can, and I'm only acquainted with how Tron and, like, 8-Whack Goblins works (and what cards they typically run).
Does anyone know where else I can primers for the big archetypes in modern right now so I can study up before walking into a FNM for the first time in 15 years with a Merfolk deck? Any info would be greatly appreciated!
I was wondering if I could have some opinions on how to sideboard against Storm w/ my current list. My maindeck is pretty standard except that I still keep Cursecatcher's in:
Maindeck:
4 Cursecatcher
4 Harbinger
4 Trickster
4 LoA
4 MoPT
4 Silvergil
4 Spreading Seas
4 Aether Vial
4 Deprive
2 Spell Pierce
4 MoW
1 Oboro
1 Minamo
4 Mutavault
Islands
Sideboard:
2 Tidebinder
2 Wizards Retort
4 Relic
4 Echoing Truths
1 Spell Pierce
2 Dismember
I played Azorious Control over the weekend and went 12-0 (every player kept forgetting that I could sac Cursecatcher to stop Cryptics and also that I could activate a Mutavault (buffed by Lords and MoW) during my Begin Combat step after they used Cryptic to tap down my board at the beginning of the step) and I did fine against Jund. I saw no Phoenix decks, and I did OK against Hardened Scales but without a Chalice or a Hurkyl it was tough). But then I came up against Storm and I got smoked. Every time.
I swapped Spreading Seas for Echoing Truth. That seems right. But beyond that, it's not clear to me what else I can do.
Does anyone have advice on how I should sideboard against Storm given my sideboard and main deck? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
If you don't mind, could you explain a little more?
That's an excellent response-thank you so much! I hadn't considered the mirror and completely forgot that Mutavault can suck when you have it and an island and need a second blue source.
I'm sorry; I must not have been clear. I understand the desire to play around Choke and that Wanderwine sates this desires. I just wouldn't think it prevalent enough to warrant a play-around and also it's usually the case that many Merfolk deck lists already have Minamo and Oboro to play around Choke (and also Boil, Blood Mood). I also understand that Conclave is an evasive man-land. But again, I was curious as to its inclusion since being evasive is something that the deck achieves by having Islandwalk creatures and Mutavault's, which function as evasive man-lands (just not in virtue of flying) that also get buffed by Lords. So, it's not that I don't understand what the cards are good for. I was more curious why they were included given that avoiding Choke/Boil/Blood Man and having evasive man-lands is something that most iterations of the deck usually accommodate.
Am I to understand your response like this?: "Joker wanted more play arounds for the Chokes/Boils of the world and moreevasive man-lands than the deck currently has?" If so, I apologize for being slow to understand your response.
That's really interesting; why not use Minamo instead of the Wanderwine, though?
Can I ask a quick question about your lands, though? Why is it you have a Wanderwine Hub and a Conclave? With respect to the latter, I would think the latter's having an evasive body is the reason, but Merfolk gets evasion from island walk and Seas and Mutavault in being Merfolks gets buffs from Lords (it also cost less to activate). So, why have Conclave? Is it just to have another evasive body? With respect to Wanderwine, after I saw it in there I was expecting a white splash. But I don't see any on your list.
Again, really well done. Congratulations jokester and I'm glad that you're feeling awesome about your results!
It seems part of your reply involves reasoning like this:
Premise: What I say with respect to (wrt) is false (suppose that this is true; I said false things).
Conclusion: So, I must be new to Merfolk.
That's neither a valid nor sound inference.
Now, enough about your comments that seemingly are meant to disparage me.
About MOW: What I claimed is that it's not clear that "MOW great against Grixis Deathshadow at least insofar as it has protection from red.(my emphasis." Then I recanted that, as you can see in my original post (where I was thinking out loud). So, we seem to agree about the utility of MOW with respect to Deathshadow. So, you telling me that MOW is good against Deathshadow is not inconsistent with what I say. It is inconsistent only with a view that I later came to reject. So, we agree about MOW's utility in that matchup.
About MOW wrt Burn, my reasoning was roughly this (I'll even skip a few steps to make the argument shorter):
Assumption 1: Burn is a quick deck in a quick format.
Assumption 2: Merfolk gets better the later in the game it goes.
Assumption 3: Kirra/Kopala and MOW are high cost and both help with tempo against burn.
Assumption 4: Against a quick deck in a quick format, gaining tempo is a good thing.
---
Premise 1: It's good for Merfolk to have creature cards that help with tempo.
Premise 2: If two cards provide tempo boosts, it's not necessarily true that choosing one in lieu of the other is best.
Conclusion 2: So, it's not necessarily true that choosing MOW over a Kopala/Kirra is best.
Your response is roughly this:
Premise 1: There's ways to buy time against burn (implicit: that are independent of Kopala/Kirra).
Premise 2: It's good to have a finisher against burn that "slams the door shut".
Implicit: If one can buy time without Kopala/Kirra with card that "slams the door shut", then there is reason to play it against burn.
Conclusion: So, there's reason to play it against burn.
(you also think that (Conclusion) above explains why players traditionally keep MOW in the deck against burn).
Again: I can grant you everything that you say. I'll even tell you explicitly: You said all true things. But this is not to show that I have any false premises or a conclusion that does not validity or soundly follow from its premises.
I'm merely trying to convince you that it's non-crazy to prefer certain creatures over MOW against BURN. I'm not arguing that MOW is completely useless in the matchup. I'm also not arguing that MOW ought not ever be played in the matchup. I'm not arguing that MOW has not historically been played in the matchup, not arguing that both cannot be played simultaneously, etc. My view is this: looking at Burn lists and building a Merfolk deck, if I have MOW in one hand and either Kopala or Kirra in the other (and I can only pick one) it's not necessarily correct to pick MOW.
So, we seem to agree.
You might object: Maybe your view is this. MOW makes the game go longer than a Kopala or a Kirra. Why is that? MOW makes tokens. And it has protection from red. And having multiple things come out onto the board gains tempo. Those are all true. I grant you that. But as I said before, that MOW late in the game makes the game go much longer assumes that there's some non-trivial amount of devotion on the board to make some. But that's not necessarily going to be the case with burn. For given burn's removal aspect it's plausible that the Merfolk player's board is relatively clear by Turn 4-5.
So, against Burn on turn 4 or 5 I'd rather pull a Kopala than MOW.
You might object that by turn 4 or 5 the Burn player has enough mana to, say, pay Kopala's tax. This is because their removal suite is low-cost. So, having Kopala that late doesn't help. But as I said previously, that's not obvious to me. Why is that? Making a burn player's whole turn consist in only playing one piece of removal at that stage of the game (to kill Kopala) is still a tempo boost.
You might respond that by that turn my Kopala is gone, though. Yet if I had MOW instead on that turn the Burn player spent a turn killing Kopala, even without any other devotion on the board the Merfolk player would only have lost one token to a burn spell.
That, to me, is the best case for preferring MOW over Kopala on turn 4-5. But it's not clear to me that that's your avowed view.
It's also not clear to me that MOW is great against Grixis Deathshadow at least insofar as it has protection from red. As far as I know, most decks run fewer than 4 bolts and far fewer than that for Kolighan's Command and (some run Anger of the Gods, Terminate and it is true that they'll get more than that many uses if they get Snapcasters out...) Now that I say it, that's a lot. Even though MOW's protection is moot against Fatal Push or Dismember it does seem like it'd survive a lot than can appear. So I take it back: I'll concede that MOW is good against Death Shadow insofar as it can stay on the board. But again: I'm always trying to make any game go longer in Modern, and it seems like a reason that MOW makes the game go longer later in the game is if it *****s out a lot of tokens. But if we cannot develop a board and built up devotion s.t. MOW keeps the game going past turn 5 I'd rather have a creature (e.g., Kira, Kopala) that either protects the board or gains a hell of a lot of tempo or some other card with a similar tempo-gaining affect (e.g., Monastery Siege)
2) That's unclear. Burn either tops or is close to topping the meta. And MOW has protection from Red. So, obvi it won't die to the plethora of red spells. But it's a host cost creature. If you're worried about burn, I'd wonder whether MOW is too clunky and evaluate cards based on how well they can keep the game going past turn 4 (our goal against burn is survive long enough to go wide). I'd rather have Kopala than MOW against burn. The former is cheaper and slows down the burn clock big time, which favors us.
Jund is also up there in the meta. And MOW still survives bolt/ terminate, kolaghan's command but not fatal push. Still, it survives like half the removal suit. And if your other fellas do not, MOW's can help destabilize the board. I'd have 4 MOW against Jund w/ maybe a single kopala/kira.
But I'd also prefer Kopala against MOW against UW control. A lot of their late-game instants/sorceries are expensive (e.g., cryptic command, terminus, supreme verdict) and with kopala's tax on the board they control player either (i) pays the tax and thus is prevented from doing a lot more else that turn; (ii) or cannot afford to. Either way, that's good for us. True, if they get a terminus down it's good to have MOW to get it and a token so we're not defenseless. But it's not clear that having MOW to re-stabilize after a terminus buys more time than have a koplala or Kira down early on to make an expensive board swipe more expensive such that the opponent either cannot play it or will not pay the tax at the expense of wasting an entire turn just to play one terminus.
So, against the probably top-3 decks in the modern meta I'd only really love 4 MOW against burn. Idt its going to help the game go long against UW control or Jund, but it can still help stabilize a board in either match up. But in these cases, I'd rather protect the board well for a creature that cost one less mana than MOW than have to attempt to re-stabilize it after a board wipe with MOW and get it plus a token or two.
I'd rather have a one-drop that interacts, like a better Cursecatcher (maybe with a higher-tax or the same tax with no restrictions on the cards it can be sacced to counter). I also still like Cursecatcher over Ben because I think people abuse the line "the easier a tax is to pay the less value the tax has." I'd rather have Cursecatcher on turn 2 and make burn pay 1 more mana for Bolt (of their 2 available)and make their turn exclusively about paying for Bolt (and (earn tempo that way) then Ben in the same situation. [I feel the same way about Spell Pierce; I always hear "play it early before it's useless". But just because your opponent can pay a tax for a card doesn't mean the card's effect cannot benefit the caster. If your opponent has 6-7 mana up and plays Kolighan's Command, make them pay 2 with Spell Pierce and limit the rest of what s/he can do that turn to what costs 1-2 mana, which is a big tempo gain.]
I have a quick question about the Trickster-Goyf interaction to make sure that I understand.
If the Goyf comes in all jacked up and Trickster taps and it down and thus weakens the Goyf, because of the "end of turn" phrase on Tricker the weakened Goyf will get its strength and toughness back next turn, yes? I just want to be sure.
Can someone help me understand how the interaction between a Mistcaller and an opponent's creature that is being vialed-in works?
Say I have a Mistcaller down. It's my opponent's turn.
My opponent activates Aether Vial to vial-in a creature.
I sac Mistcaller.
Nikachu says at this point the opponent can choose whether or not to play a creature. If they do, it gets exiled. If not, they waste an activation.
I don't see why that is; why does the opponent get to decide whether to put a creature in? I thought if you activate the ability for x you do not get to choose whether x obtains after the activation.
I'm new in MTG Salvation, newish to MTG again (I was into it during Invasion, took some time, bought a few packs of Shards, now I'm back) and as you can guess I'm getting into Modern by getting into Fish. I have a deck, but I'm wondering if anyone has any resources wrt current archetypes that I can read up on before bringing my deck to a FNM. (I watch Nikachu's awesome stuff when I can, and I'm only acquainted with how Tron and, like, 8-Whack Goblins works (and what cards they typically run).
Does anyone know where else I can primers for the big archetypes in modern right now so I can study up before walking into a FNM for the first time in 15 years with a Merfolk deck? Any info would be greatly appreciated!
-Shoebaccha