I still maintain it's difficult to get through your *entire* mana base. You can do it but not reliably. The strategies being posted that seek only partial (from Sunhome doublestrike and such) seem much stronger than those that require essentially every land. Valakut just doesn't seem viable here.
I didn't see anyone mention this yet, but you guys are aware Knight of the Reliquary can't sacrifice any land, right? It has to be a Forest or a Plains. You only cycle through every land in your deck like OP said if every land minus one is a Forest/Plains...
I don't see how you can build a strong mana base for Valakut, like someone mentioned. The deck would be 4 colors and require the lands to basically all be mountains and plains/forests.
Being capable of playing 5 colors is a lot different than "ridiclously easy consistent 5 colors." That is way overstating the case. If you are constructing a five color deck with fetch lands and BFZ duals you're not leaving yourself opportunity to have enough basics to have those come into play untapped. There are real, tangible drawbacks to this.
I'm not saying 5 color decks can't exist, but the idea that every deck is going to be 5 colors because there is no drawback is quite insane.
This card is nice, it has versatility of not NEEDING multiple colors to get play, but increasing in power the more colors you get. I'm sure it will see play. Let's just not go insane with unsubstantiated claims.
I'm really not a fan of Collected Company in this deck. It's amazing in Zoo because it just hits big, beefy threats. It's amazing in Anafenza because it hits their combo pieces and they can win out of nowhere. It's amazing in Elves because they have so much redundancy that it's basically going to do much of the same thing every time you cast it. In this deck it doesn't hit anything super threatening, just silver bullet guys that might not be the right bullet in this match-up and, most importantly, it doesn't hit the combo pieces.
Collected Company is an awesome card, it just doesn't fit in this deck.
I don't expect to see many combo decks outside of Twin, and I think the match-up is reasonable against them anyway. My sideboard has a lot of cards trying to gain an advantage in each of the "fair" decks, particularly Grixis variants and Zoo. I also wanted to have options for defeating Elves (hence the Fiery Justice and Pyroclasm) that were also good against affinity and some versions of burn.
I like the innovation you guys have trying out Fauna Shaman and the like, but I am still not convinced that those interactions are strong enough to make up for it being a little slow to turn on.
The match has begun, just not the game. Fixing this problem is easy because you're still resolving mulligans. It's not like you have to deal with people having made gameplay decisions because of false information or something.
That judge did follow the rules to the letter, but there is special allowances for head judges of events to downgrade penalties if they suspect it is not intentional in order to make the tournament more enjoyable and to encourage fair play. My main points are (1)it stinks to end a tournament on a game loss violation and (2) the way the judge handles this encourages people to not report infractions in the future. Players are much more likely to turn themselves in when that means the judge will reward them for honesty by giving them a warning instead of a loss. The goal of these infractions is to make sure people aren't sloppy or cheating. If he hadn't made that mistake this tournament before then it isn't indicative of a sloppy player, just an honest mistake. And turning himself in shows he wasn't doing it in an attempt to cheat. If I was the head judge and this situation played out the way red baron is describing it I would have downgraded it and I talked to some level 2s today that felt the same way.
It is the head judge's discretion though, so you're right in that there isn't really anything to argue about. I just feel bad for baron.
He wasn't shuffling before the game had started. He had drawn his 7 and then taken a mulligan. The game had already begun. The situation did suck, but he chose, in the spirit of fair play, not to be a cheater.
The game had not begun. They were still resolving mulligans.
And he did the right thing by turning himself in. I'm saying the judge made a poor decision and punished a player for being honest. If someone turns themselves in and it was clearly not to gain an advantage you should not decide a tournament based upon that infraction, not unless there is some pattern of behavior with that player. It's a horrible ruling and encourages dishonesty. The entire reason they decided to let head judges be able to deviate from strict guidelines is for situations like this one.
I appreciate your good nature and willingness to accept the consequences of your mistake, but that still is a bad way to go about HJing a tournament.
As for G3, well: after taking a mulligan to six, I noticed I had only 59 cards in my deck while 7 stack shuffling my deck. I called the judge to confirm that, and found the 60th card still in my sideboard. I logically took a GL for presenting an illegal deck. I dont sleeve my SB so things like that cant happen, but it looks like its not 100% guaranteed when you've been playing for 7 hours straight. Lesson learned, always count your SB guys!
GG to him anyway, I wish him good luck for the PTQ.
Well, I dont rage, thats Magic! I've had a good time this sunday, plus i came home with 6 MM2015 boosters and opened Emrakul, primeval titan and etched champion.
The final game of the entire tournament and you call a judge on yourself while shuffling before the game has even begun and they give you a game loss? That's really crappy. The head judge is allowed to lower that to a warning and let you guys play the game and unless you had done similar things earlier in the tournament he really should have. You called it onyourself and it was the deciding game of the whole event.
I know technically it's your mistake, but I'd still be pissed at the judge if I was in your place. This kind of ruling just encourages people to not call judges. It's against the spirit of fair play.
[quote from="zerodown »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/developing-competitive-modern/221769-fateseal-control-top-control-lantern-control?comment=2464"]
i broke my lurking status just to say how much i love this storyline. brilliant.
I had an idea a while back to build a deck that main decked both Blood Moon and Choke to be annoyingly disruptive against a large number of decks. A naya deck seemed obvious, but I could never find a satisfying shell. Today, after a little inspiration I've come up with:
Just a rough draft, but Idyllic Tutor, while slow, seems a bit more playable in a deck with 1-mana acceleration. And along with the awesome trio of creature-based enchantments(Splinter Twin, Worship, Evolutionary Leap) maybe this would be a possible deck for it. There are obvious issues of, you know, drawing Choke against Jund, say, but then awesome upsides of drawing, say, Evolutionary Leap against the same.
Anyways, hopefully the idea is at least entertaining.
I like your brewing and I encourage you to keep exploring. One thing, though, is Evolutionary Leap actually any good? You're running 9 mana creatures. It's going to draw you another mana creature a significant amount of the time. It seems low impact in a deck like this.
I'm adding a single Nissa, Vastwood Seer to the list. I've always been a fan of Borderland Ranger and I think it is just slightly to weak to be playable in modern. Nissa is not quite as good as Ranger by herself, but the upside of being a card draw engine in a longer, grindy game is worthwhile.
I have added 1 Archangel of Tithes. I was scared of the mana requirement, but it hasn't been a problem in the few games I played. It's a beating. Against Twin and Grixis Control I'm almost tempted to sideboard a Cavern of Souls (naming Angel for Resto, Archangel, and Linvala) but maybe that is getting too ambitious. Those 2 match-ups feel like they take night and day.
I might be misunderstanding you, but Archangel of Tithes doesn't do anything against Twin. They just use their last trigger to tap the Angel and the tithing aspect no longer applies.
I'd be a little wary of relying heavily on these sideboarding guides. They all seem correct in general, but specific sideboarding choices aren't entirely based on metagame, they are based on the specifics of the two decks. Basically, your opponent's deck isn't guaranteed to be an exact stock list so you don't want to always sideboard based on that.
Additionally, some cards (specifically Remand) have differing value being on the play or on the draw. Use your sideboarding guide as a reference, don't use it as instructions.
any help? I'm beginning to thinking into board OUT the combo against so MUCH hate... I lost in the semifinals of a GPtrial with 52 players
It's Modern so any top deck you can generally beat any specific other deck if they dedicate enough attention to it. That dude is using 12 sideboard slots against you. You're not going to end up with a great match-up pretty much no matter what if he is that intent on beating you specifically.
That said, what is he taking out of his own deck to fit 12 cards in? Tron doesn't have an enormous amount of flex spots. That is just such a crazy amount of cards to bring in, I'm kind of in awe. He has to be gimping his own plan in some way in order to fit all that.
It is definitely Ancient Grudge, not Ancient Stirrings. Double Negative, if transcribed correctly, could have been designed to counter pacts after Hive Mind I guess? That's the only scenario I can think of where it is better than Counterflux.
This is just my opinion, others may disagree, but I think the strength of the creature SB package is that it means your opponents mainboard removal spells are blanked during game 1 and then they have to decide what to keep in their deck for game 2. You can sometimes 'get them' by making them sideboard out their removal and they you have haymaker creatures being the win condition game 2.
I don't like creatures (other than snake and snapcaster of course) in game 1 because it means their otherwise dead cards are now good. Better to blank parts of their deck.
You said "I understand it blanks removal" and the proceeded to keep talking as if that wasn't a big deal. It's an ENORMOUS deal.
I still maintain it's difficult to get through your *entire* mana base. You can do it but not reliably. The strategies being posted that seek only partial (from Sunhome doublestrike and such) seem much stronger than those that require essentially every land. Valakut just doesn't seem viable here.
I don't see how you can build a strong mana base for Valakut, like someone mentioned. The deck would be 4 colors and require the lands to basically all be mountains and plains/forests.
I'm not saying 5 color decks can't exist, but the idea that every deck is going to be 5 colors because there is no drawback is quite insane.
This card is nice, it has versatility of not NEEDING multiple colors to get play, but increasing in power the more colors you get. I'm sure it will see play. Let's just not go insane with unsubstantiated claims.
Collected Company is an awesome card, it just doesn't fit in this deck.
4x Birds of Paradise
3x Wall of Roots
2x Wall of Omens
1x Spellskite
1x Qasali Pridemage
2x Scavenging Ooze
2x Course of Kruphix
1x Eidolon of Rhetoric
1x Sin Collector
1x Spike Feeder
2x Eternal Witness
4x Restoration Angel
1x Linvala, Keeper of Silence
1x Archangel of Thune
2x Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker
3x Path to Exile
4x Chord of Calling
Planeswalkers (2):
2x Domri Rade
Lands (23):
3x Forest
1x Mountain
1x Plains
1x Ghost Quater
4x Wooded Foothills
4x Windswept Heath
2x Fire-Lit Thicket
2x Stomping Ground
1x Temple Garden
1x Sacred Foundry
1x Overgrown Tomb
1x Razorverge Thicket
1x Copperline Gorge
1x Magus of the Moon
1x Burrenton Forge-Tender
1x Fiery Justice
2x Ghostly Prison
1x Kataki, War's Wage
1x Kor Firewalker
1x Path to Exile
2x Pyroclasm
1x Qasali Pridemage
2x Stony Silence
2x Valorous Stance
I don't expect to see many combo decks outside of Twin, and I think the match-up is reasonable against them anyway. My sideboard has a lot of cards trying to gain an advantage in each of the "fair" decks, particularly Grixis variants and Zoo. I also wanted to have options for defeating Elves (hence the Fiery Justice and Pyroclasm) that were also good against affinity and some versions of burn.
I like the innovation you guys have trying out Fauna Shaman and the like, but I am still not convinced that those interactions are strong enough to make up for it being a little slow to turn on.
That judge did follow the rules to the letter, but there is special allowances for head judges of events to downgrade penalties if they suspect it is not intentional in order to make the tournament more enjoyable and to encourage fair play. My main points are (1)it stinks to end a tournament on a game loss violation and (2) the way the judge handles this encourages people to not report infractions in the future. Players are much more likely to turn themselves in when that means the judge will reward them for honesty by giving them a warning instead of a loss. The goal of these infractions is to make sure people aren't sloppy or cheating. If he hadn't made that mistake this tournament before then it isn't indicative of a sloppy player, just an honest mistake. And turning himself in shows he wasn't doing it in an attempt to cheat. If I was the head judge and this situation played out the way red baron is describing it I would have downgraded it and I talked to some level 2s today that felt the same way.
It is the head judge's discretion though, so you're right in that there isn't really anything to argue about. I just feel bad for baron.
The game had not begun. They were still resolving mulligans.
And he did the right thing by turning himself in. I'm saying the judge made a poor decision and punished a player for being honest. If someone turns themselves in and it was clearly not to gain an advantage you should not decide a tournament based upon that infraction, not unless there is some pattern of behavior with that player. It's a horrible ruling and encourages dishonesty. The entire reason they decided to let head judges be able to deviate from strict guidelines is for situations like this one.
I appreciate your good nature and willingness to accept the consequences of your mistake, but that still is a bad way to go about HJing a tournament.
The final game of the entire tournament and you call a judge on yourself while shuffling before the game has even begun and they give you a game loss? That's really crappy. The head judge is allowed to lower that to a warning and let you guys play the game and unless you had done similar things earlier in the tournament he really should have. You called it onyourself and it was the deciding game of the whole event.
I know technically it's your mistake, but I'd still be pissed at the judge if I was in your place. This kind of ruling just encourages people to not call judges. It's against the spirit of fair play.
Aren't you the guy from...
I like your brewing and I encourage you to keep exploring. One thing, though, is Evolutionary Leap actually any good? You're running 9 mana creatures. It's going to draw you another mana creature a significant amount of the time. It seems low impact in a deck like this.
I might be misunderstanding you, but Archangel of Tithes doesn't do anything against Twin. They just use their last trigger to tap the Angel and the tithing aspect no longer applies.
Additionally, some cards (specifically Remand) have differing value being on the play or on the draw. Use your sideboarding guide as a reference, don't use it as instructions.
It's Modern so any top deck you can generally beat any specific other deck if they dedicate enough attention to it. That dude is using 12 sideboard slots against you. You're not going to end up with a great match-up pretty much no matter what if he is that intent on beating you specifically.
That said, what is he taking out of his own deck to fit 12 cards in? Tron doesn't have an enormous amount of flex spots. That is just such a crazy amount of cards to bring in, I'm kind of in awe. He has to be gimping his own plan in some way in order to fit all that.
I don't like creatures (other than snake and snapcaster of course) in game 1 because it means their otherwise dead cards are now good. Better to blank parts of their deck.
You said "I understand it blanks removal" and the proceeded to keep talking as if that wasn't a big deal. It's an ENORMOUS deal.