Видео

Mana drain is a time walk, the others felt right but this one felt off

I wasn't impressed with most of the MDFCs from MH3. Overcosted on the front, so the back wasn't worth it. However, I do play Rush of Inspiration in my Lilah, Undefeated Slickshot deck. 3 mana to draw 2 cards isn't ideal, but it could be worse. And if she's out, I get to cast it again later for free. Worst case scenario, I get a tapped dual land, which is not the worst thing. I'm OK with that being the worst outcome in that deck.

The Spree cards, and modal cards like Collective Resistance, I just like playing these cards. There's something about looking at these cards in my hand and having more options in more scenarios that I really enjoy. I know that individually the modes are over-costed, but while you're staring at that very cost-efficient Tamiyo's Safekeeping in your hand, I've removed an opponents Rhystic Study with my Collective Resistance and prevented him from refilling his hand. Versatility at the expense of slower play seems like a reasonable trade-off for a casual format, I leave the hyper-efficient plays to the cEDH folk, they probably would have had a Nature's Claim in hand instead or something.

The way I view the MDFCs is that they are a land. They aren't a good land, but they are inherently a land, and they fill a land slot. I'm willing to accept that this is a potentially slower land for the advantage of reducing the chance for a dead draw in the late game, in which the additional cost of the spells often doesn't matter. The additional advantage is that you can manipulate these with bounce lands; use the MDFC as a land in the early game, then use a bounce land later in the game so you can play the MDFC as a spell. It sounds like a rare interaction, but I've done it enough times that it does matter. One game I used Elvish Reclaimer to get a bounce land to bounce a Sink into Stupor to hand, then cast it to counter a Gary win off the stack and completely turned the game around. My playgroup still talks about that game now months later, and to me that's what EDH is all about.

In what world is Collective Resistance inefficient? You can only run one Nature's Claim.

Demo seems pretty down on modal cards here. The rates on modal cards is higher because you're paying for the flexibility aspect of multiple options in a single card slot. If the floor of a modal spell doesn't jive very well with your deck, I'd agree with his assessment to probably skip it. If however, most or all of the modes offered are usually great in your deck, it can be worth it to keep in the 99. For example, both of the blue modal counterspells mentioned here are typically great in a spell slinger shell, because a counterspell that can do other things for the deck (card draw, "ramp", or clone effects) is often worth the slot if it's a redundant effect found elsewhere in the deck. You wouldn't want these to be your only counters, but they can make pretty good 5th or 6th counter effects if they're also your 10th or 11th card draw effect, say. The benefit of modal spells (besides the "veggies" effect of MDFC lands specifically smoothing out hands / draws) is you are opening up an additional slot for more synergy, an extra win con, another value engine, etc. If you can collapse your 8th removal effect into a land slot with an MDFC land, you're not only looking at the other removal spell or land it's replacing, but you're also thinking about the opportunity it creates for what can now be included. I don't think decks should run a ton of these effects - for the reasons Demo points out. I do think decks should run a couple to a few of them, though - because veggies can be boring; fun, interesting decks are fun and interesting to pilot. I'm looking to modal effects to open up the possibilities for the "core" of the deck itself. Collapse some card slots into modal effects to have a few extra options for the core of the deck to shine. Season to taste, of course; add too many and the deck won't hum.

I've generally found that those double effect cards aren't that great unless you're always going to get value out of the second effect - they're usually more expensive to cast or too limited by comparison. I disagree about Mana Drain - assuming you are willing to shell out the money. It's strictly better than a Counter Spell. But if people are using as ramp then they're not using optimally. The MDF lands aren't auto-includes, but the fact that it is a land on the back does make it a bit more useful, but it depends on a variety of factors. A worse removal spell is still better than a dead land in your hand when you really need removal, but it can slow you down. The more colors you have, the less you can afford to fiddle with your mana base for utility effects and flexibility, making MDF lands less useful. Collective Resistance is a strictly better Naturalize, and provides the same effect as several different commander protection spells for a similar cost, especially since it can give you extra card efficiency out of it. Those kinds of cards tend to get used the most because there are usually easy choices to pick for hot swaps. Two mana isn't terrible for single target removal in many color combinations - especially if you don't have White and/or Black. A deck can only run one Nature's Claim.

The problem you find with any card is that it's too played... ultimate magic hipster. I respect it. I like weird cards too but but be honest about it.

I totally agree - I see people put cards in decks without reasons to make them good. I find a lot of these multi-purpose/modal cards are traps. The test is I only use them if I am happy paying that CMC for ONE of the effects in that particular deck. But also, I think the cards you mention are often bad not because how people play it, but because how people play them. Like in my saproling deck (I don't play aura mutation, because I have better ways of gettign rid of enchantments), but if I did I would be happy to get 1 saproling off it. But a lot of people hold off for more value - a lot of people don't play removal enough. Mana drain should be played as a counterspell, not a ramp piece or ritual. But as you mentioned people run them. I totally agree on MDFC's, there are youtubers who advocate for them and I think a lot of people don't think for themselves and build really bad decks without knowing it. I don't run most of them unless I really needed a high density of the effect - but they're often the very last one. Fell the profane I wouldn't play... I wouldn't cast a 4cmc removal. It's like taking a turn off to cast it. The only deck I might run them in is a landfall deck which bounce lands back to hand, but in general they're bad cards. The modality is a trap in my opinion. They need to be put into a deck for a very very good reason.

I always say you want about 2 - 3 lieutenants in your deck. Creatures (or some kind of permanent) that synergizes with what your deck wants to do so you have alternatives.

Totally disagree with you. You talk like you tutor every card instead of drawing a random one. Variance is the nature of magic. Most of the time, it is more important to have a answer or the resource you need at that time than the best card for of a certain time that it's useless for the moment.

I promise you that I will use mana drain correctly when I have one! XD For real though I'm happy you brought that card up. Good food for thought!

I use mana drain in 2 of my 4 blue decks, I have been guilty of countering a big ish spell just for the mana. But normally I just treat it as “Counterspell” with an upside 😆 Plus! There is nothing more fun then being the blue deck, and having two untapped blue mana sitting there making the rest of the table think

I like your thinking here, even if the population seem to disagree 😂. It makes me rethink some cards I sandbag in my hand because they are too much mana intensive.

For every 2 mdfcs, remove 1 land and 1 spell. They act as buffer for mana screw and mana flood. They're lands in 2-land hands and gas in 6-land hands

I play aura mutation in my galadriel light of valinor deck because it enables me more triggers in my opponents turns.

Never thought id have anyone ask me why I play mana drain

The understanding of the value of MDFCs in this video is kind of weird. Hating on Collective Resistance because it costs a *whopping* 2 mana seems silly... it is a 2 mana *Green* card... cast at *instant speed* ... it is one of the *best* removal spells in the entire format. For 3 mana it destroys both an Artifact *and* an Instant. (or protects your Commander or your best creature rom boards wipes or targeted removal). Bridgeworks Battle is (effectively) a creature removal spell and a buff spell that is great with the popular Green stompy stompy theme. Witch Enchanter is a fine mid-game spell to remove combos or potential combos, and also provide a body. Bojuka Bog is subjectively, a better card for Graveyard Hate than Boggart Trawler (without providing a {goblin} body)... but in a 100 card, singleton format, one can't always rely on on drawing the one in a hundred card we want to "do the thing we need"... that is why we build redundancies into our decks. (Hint - play both i Graveyard hate is important to you). Three Steps Ahead is also a fine card... but don't expect it to be a better Counter Spell, *and* Clone, *and* Ancestral Recall, that would make it the best card in MTG.

I respectfully disagree about the mdfc lands. That is just taking the place of a land that in the late game is a spell. Yes, its a worse land, but what land lets you remove a creature in a bind? or what removal spell can you use as a land?

Not sure the video was "misunderstood" rather than just weirdly framed. It seems like your point is that card choices should be made with intention, which, yeah. Kind of the whole point of deckbuilding. The answer to your question of "why would you put these in your deck" or "what reason are you putting these cards in your deck" is, as people have pointed out, that versatility is generally worth the extra cost to them. If I have to choose between Get Lost or Generous Gift, I'm taking the latter because I don't mind paying an extra mana to have the option to destroy any permanent on the board. But your frustration seems more about how people are using these cards in games, which is more a play issue than a deckbuilding issue. Yes, Mana Drain can be a ramp spell or a counter spell, but the problem is the analysis paralysis during play preventing people from using the card most effectively, not countering the thing that's going to kill them because they were waiting for the ramp payoff or vice versa. I think you would've gotten a less negative response by using the framing of how to play these modal cards correctly over pointing to a bunch of useful cards people like and talking about them in a way that makes people feel like they're wrong to be playing them (even if you say that's not your intent.) And to humor you, I run Witch Enchanter and Razorgrass Ambush over two basic Plains in my Pearl-Ear deck because I'm gaining enough life during play to handle a bolted land in a pinch while also enjoying their removal effects in the event that I have plenty of land on board, or have drawn enough additional lands with Pearl-Ear's ability. But I do not run Ondu Inversion because the land would always come in tapped and the spell is less useful than the more one-sided board wipes I have access to in a mono-white voltron deck.

Algo

I got three Bolt Lands for my Marchesa the Black Rose deck b/c they help Dethrone triggers. The spell side of the lands are bonus.

Mana drain is a ramp spell with the upside of screwing another player lol

You dont put Fell the Profane in as a Removal spell, you put it in as a land that CAN be a Removal Spell, it's not a "worse land" is the exact same thing as a swamp but essentially for 3 life you can have it act as a removal spell. 3 life isn't a huge downside, it's pretty okay for it to ALSO be a spell.

Since the removal of Mana Burn from MTG, Mana Drain is definitively better than Counter Spell (ie the gold standard of all countering spells). 🤷‍♂

i might be in the minority here, but i was always very skeptical of how good these MDFC cards actually were when they came out. the only one i can remember putting in a deck is malakir rebirth in strategies where i want to keep a card around, i don't have better options, and because i can abuse LTB and ETB type effects. ideally the spell side would always be a good option when i chose to put it in, but it could be a tapped land if i'm struggling to hit lands. not trying to be a hipster. i'm just later to jump on the bandwagon due to the rate at which we're getting new pieces of cardboard for this game. i see some through spoilers, but most i see in my playgroup and think to myself if i like that card or not. happy magic everyone <3

The point here is not the card, its the pilot. If u not counter a Remora or a Dockside with your Mana Drain because they have low mana value; the problem is the pilot. The card its a counterspell with an upside but the pilot decide how to us it. If a player decides not to use the Mana Drain in these cases, he dont understand threath assestments.

Mdfc you can do both if you have bounce lands

Ruinous Intrusion is a fine spell in a *singleton* format (otherwise just run 4 x Nature's Claim). It does have a high casting cost... but Green generates tons of mana.... it also *exiles* cards (which can wreck an opponents combo strategy). Additionally, it adds +1/+1 tokens, (which suits Green stompy/trample decks). It isn't so good at removing an opponent's first round Sol Ring... but is solid mid or late game.

For manadrain it depends: -What are my oppenents are playin? \->it there a card I will really need to counter in the matchup? \->Yes-> I will keep my counter for that moment ( for example vs the hexproof Narset) I really need to counter the commander \->No ->I will counter a spell that will put me ahead of my opponents. like a dark ritual would Late game -> It is just a counterspell For deck building Manadrain will fitt where I need mana early because my commander is expensive or so... For MDFC land's for example I remove lands For my raffine deck I put +1/+1 counters if I discard nonland (wich is the case with mdfc ) and still the mdfc spells are not that bad! removal instead of lands, even bad removal is still good even though you have to pay 3life. and I think boggart if Far much stronger than bojuka bog, because, it is a body, you never need to exile a gy T1 or T2 and if you need an untap black mana it is still better than bojuka bog. The mdfc from mh3 are just bunker whenerver I needed a bojuka bog, I yould love to pay 3 mana instead and have a creature instead of a sad tap land bojuka bog is in fact not that good of a land Same is true for the witch that kill enchantment, if you can blink them at instant speed, they are just unmatch with other taplands For three step ahead, I realy like this card because for 6 mana you can counter a threat and make a clone, that is not terrible. and instant give you the opportunity to chose latest moment. I think it is a ok counterspell that also make you a clone whenever needed I play a lot of brawl on arena and this card is never a dead card, it saved me some games Do not hesitate to debate with me ;) Thanks for the video, I like your stuff!

mdfc increase my mana-avg thus increasing my avg hit on yuriko triggers

Aura Mutation has so many possibilities.... Your opponent board wipes but leaves only their commander.... You blow up the Mystic Remora for a 1/1 and save yourself from dieing on their turn. There's always a pesky enchantment these days that needs wiping out at instant speed... Getting a 1/1 token isn't a bad tradeoff for 2 mana. For Collective Resistance.... Well you're playing green.... What's mana?.... You might only do 1 option in a game but do all 3 in another.... Prevent a Board Wipe killing your commander while blowing up two things the Board Wiper has throwing them off balance for 4 mana.... Seems like what I would consider to be a great "Casual Commander Card".....

Oooh Aura Mutation looks awesome

To much mdfc is bad but a few replacing a basic land ives you a spell when you have enough lands or a land if you need a land drop. But you are right dat you need one mode very much to include these cards

I've seen players pay for mystic remora, it was mine and I was happy that they were paying.

If people refuse to use Mana Drain as a counter spell just cause it’s Counterspell with upside, they need to take a lesson on threat assessment

Excellent vid, a good thing to add would be the competetive level of your play group. If your playing a cedh group every piece of mana is going to be used more efficiently. In a casaul group versatility would benefit you more and you might not care if those spells cost a little more.

but instants are just good... almost everycard you mentioned was an instant

I play Mana Drain pretty religiously, but as a non-conditional card that can counter anything that can be countered. I never even think of using it for ramp, and I will not think twice before using my Mana Drain on a low mana value card. If I put a versatile card in my deck I am picking one choice as the default, and if I wouldn't happily choose one of the options then I don't play it. I don't need every option to be a good one, I need one good option and everything else just needs to be feasible within the deck. I am an MDFC believer, at least any of the MDFCs that you can pay 3 life for it to come in untapped if needed. I play them as lands, but I won't put them in if don't want the effect on the other side. I like to have 40 lands in my decks unless they call for something outside the norm, so MDFCs help keep me from flooding out. It depends on how much damage I'm taking from my opponents, but most of the time I can spare 4-6 life to make sure my lands come in untapped on the turns I need, but I don't need every land to come in untapped every turn of the game, so there is a threshold number for each deck and each situation. In a lot of the cases where I would cast the spell side I'm in panic mode, so I might not have anything else to do with my resources anyway, or I want the effect enough I'll pay whatever cost to get it.

I'd usually like the basic land over the potential upside at the price of a land that turn.

Dauthi embrace is handy... shadow is limiting otherwise.

MDFC cards replace lands not spells in my deckbuilding experience…I don’t agree with going so hard into fell the profane being a bad card becuz 95% of the time it’s going to be a land and the opportunity cost of that 5% being a late game removal spell if you don’t need to hit a land drop is super nice…also there’s factors into using MDFCs like if you can afford having a one color land with 3+ color decks and if your mono color deck cares about basic land count(i.e cabal coffers) but if you can use an MDFC there’s almost no downside

It took me until I looked through the comments to realise that the title wasnt just a rhetorical question. I think a lot of people took this as an argument on why you just shouldn't play these cards rather than an invitation for discussion

My thoughts on this is in decks that have less draw but lots of ramp, mdfcs or other modal cards get better, because you get more options on a single card. Faster decks with lower curves get the efficient options, especially if I can draw through the deck fairly quickly

You are against paying slightly worst card for flexibility. I can't get on board with you on that. If I wanted to play super efficient, I would be playing CEDH

Im never sad to top deck a MDFC even if its not amazing its never bad, honestly if we ever get to the point where we have enough MFDC lands there will be no normal lands in most of my decks.

Good points made here

i think a better example is the 1G mdfc mana dork, and the answer is, do you have a way to utilize the mdfc AFTER it leaves the battlefield? i often bring tangled florahedron up as an example because yes, its good because after it dies it becomes a land in graveyard, same with fell the profane. the reason why is the card maintains extra value by having extra card types, so yeah, fell the profane is a permanent and can be returned to your hand with permanent regrowth effects like evolution witness

My philosophy on cards like this is moderation and needs. It's like sugary foods, in that If you cram too much of it in there, you're just diluting the really good stuff around it. However, if you run 3-7 cards like this in your deck for the sake of flexibility, it can really round out an otherwise too hyper-focused deck. I just brewed a $120 budget Kinnan deck that is focused on interaction-first wincon-second. There are several cards in the deck like this where they can either synergize with what the deck is doing or be removal and it really goes a long way to helping the deck do what it needs to do when it needs to do it.

3:30: Sunburst is the stronger enchantment, going for Rhystic is the troll game 5:50: Get ypur point, but people dont use the original counterspell for a mystic remora //that mana drain got bad plays is that many people just greedy. // 8:50 Fell the profane and the other stuff are mostly auto-include just for a saver land curve and have a backup card when you are flooded. The problem actualy that are you talking about, is that most single target removal are bad or I better say there is a for cclose every single removal another removal that hit every opponent. It is also an outclast sentimental beliving, that cards that were good in the time when they were printed (like hero downfall). Foraxample, your nature`s claim: Long played card even in side board in 60 card format. Many people know it. For some month pick your poison was printed and do so much more in edh, but just a few people know it. But the stronge MDFCS in edh that ist actualy auto-include is Disciple of Freyalise // Garden of Freyalise.