Vapor Snag or Path?
Modern Deck Help forum
Posted on Jan. 5, 2017, 11:48 a.m. by Servo_Token
Hey guys,
So i've been tinkering with this deck for almost two weeks now. Started out as a budget build that i'm sure no one is surprised at, but as i've upgraded it i've found that it's capable of doing some real work in a competitive setting.
Jeskai Flying Bros
Modern
SCORE: 4 | 3 COMMENTS | 363 VIEWS | IN 1 FOLDER
There's one slot that i'm still trying to figure out, and it's whether or not the Vapor Snags should be Path to Exiles or not.
The pros to VS are obviously the one damage which has stolen a couple of games for me, as well as the marginal usage of protecting one dude from a wrath effect. Cons being that it's a temporary fix to a big problem creature.
Pros to path are obviously that it's permanent removal, with the downside being that it shifts the mana to be more white-focused than blue, and at the moment the deck is very blue splash red/white focused.
So basically i'm just looking for some other opinions on the two cards and which you would slot in in this instance.
Thanks!
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #3
Obviously this would influence your mana curve, but have you considered Reality Shift? It's blue, it's a permanent solution, it doesn't give them a land fetch. Cons are obviously that it's 2cmc, and the manifest can be good or bad, depending.
I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but Reality Shift has served pretty well in my experience.
Otherwise I agree with Scouty, Path is almost certainly a better fit than Snag.
January 5, 2017 1:53 p.m. Edited.
Servo_Token says... #4
This isn't really a control deck though, it's an aggressive sort of tempo deck. There's really no sign that this is even a control build at all. It can play the control role in certain matchups, sure, but it isn't a dedicated control deck.
So with that, I would say is Snag better for when the deck needs to be the aggressive deck than path is when it needs to be the controlling deck?
Also, this really needs to be a one mana card. Bumping this slot up to two is way to slow. The deck curves out at three, and is already heavy on 2 drops as it is, I don't want to add to that and be forced to play off curve ever.
January 5, 2017 3 p.m.
Maybe if you'd actually link your list, we could help.. Either way though. Theres no reason to run Snag over actual removal like path
January 5, 2017 3:13 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #6
Well now I disagree with Scouty. Firstly, DevoidMage did link the list in the OP. And there are distinct advantaged to Snag. The one life ping may seem irrelevant, but it's really not, and you can steal entire turns by bouncing the same thing over and over if they keep trying to play it, not to mention not feeding them mana in the process.
I still think I'd run Path, but Snag is certainly not without its merits.
January 5, 2017 3:16 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #7
Alright, so two things, the first of which is that I'm just not going to give the time to someone who didn't read the original post. Second is that I'm just not going to give the time to someone trying to help but doesn't understand the difference between control and tempo. If i'm asking a question that's above your skill level, please don't waste my time if you don't actually know what you're talking about.
I'm going to be trying out path, but the utility that snag provides is keeping me away from adding path permanently.
January 5, 2017 3:21 p.m.
Well if you're just going to insult my skill level here, i see absolutely no reason in even attempting to help you any further
January 5, 2017 3:32 p.m.
WizardOfTheNorthernCoast says... #9
I lol'd at this thread ahah.
DevoidMage don't be all salty man Scouty was just trying to help you out. Also, don't start a thread if you end up closing it with your own arguments. Take a moment to think about your problematic and try and solve it by yourself before you bother people and literally waste their time ;)
Scouty says... #2
As a control deck, there is absolutely no reason to run Snag over Path. You want things gone, plain and simple
January 5, 2017 1:31 p.m.