I am torn over Tetsuko. On one hand he only applies to like 8 creatures and has anti synergy with might of old krosa and exalted triggers. On the other hand, unblockability can just win the game at the right time. He's cute but requires an amount of building around that I am not sure a deck this tight can afford.
Speaking of sideboarding, I could also use some feedback. I can't afford Mindbreak Trap or Force of Will currently, so I have to make due with what I have. Here's my current SB:
I'll be playing at a new venue starting next week, so I have no idea what the meta there is like. So generally speaking, is my current SB passable in terms of competitiveness?
Why is chancellor side? He can buy essential turns so we have time to go off. Whats your main list? The rest looks ok, I might swap iona for another ashen rider depending on meta.
It's fun to be able to play real removal and you have discard effects, but the unblockabilty of blighted Agent is just too good. I attempted to switch to GB in a reaction to the meta becoming more grindy, but the amount of games you just lose because they had a blocker is the deciding factor for me.
Thought it was hot garbage a year ago. Thought it was hot garbage last week. Still think it's hot garbage today and will continue to think that even if the winning deck has 4 copies of Vexing Devil in it.
I think that Vexing Devil is worth approximately 2 damage on average, and I'd rather play Shock than something that averages to Shock but has a large standard deviation.
i understand everyone has their own opinion and experience but when i played it, it was always 4 to the dome. i think thats changed with there being bolt, path, and push. not to mention the plethora of other ways to kill it currently so its less likely they just take 4
I think your experience implies you were playing it against a meta that never plays removal, which is extraordinarily atypical, or it's confirmation bias. I've done the math on this against typical amounts of removal from typical decks. The answer is about 2 damage on average for a turn 1 devil, and it goes down from there.
It got played in a pro tour deck that did very well on Day 1. It can't be that much garbage. I have always thought because of it being a punisher card, it did better in less competitive or skilled metagames and worse at higher levels of play, I may have to reevaluate this.
It's a mistake to attribute the success of the deck as a whole to 4 cards. Nothing about this suggests that devil is a good card that should be reevaluated and that everyone else for the last 5 years has been wrong about it. It's still hot garbage and the performance of a single deck doesn't imply that it's not.
At best, this just means that a bunch of people will come to the conclusion that it's fantastic because of a single deck and they'll play it, evaluate it by using confirmation bias, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread. It'll be Shrine of Burning Rage all over again: hot garbage that people claim isn't hot garbage because "look at that one time it was played and the player won!"
I am not attributing it to only this result, it has been a card in the "maybe" category for burn decks since it was printed and tons of people have played/play it. You can call it garbage all you want but its mediocre at worst. 4 damage for 1 mana is nothing to laugh at. just because the card has a downside doesn't make it unplayable.
It got played in a pro tour deck that did very well on Day 1. It can't be that much garbage. I have always thought because of it being a punisher card, it did better in less competitive or skilled metagames and worse at higher levels of play, I may have to reevaluate this.
While I have enjoyed playing Infect in the past, I have struggled with the deck lately, which is unfortunate. With so much Thoughseize and Inquisition, you may not even have access to an infect creature by the time you get to cast one. Then, Liliana makes you get rid of your single infect creature after you actually come across another one. Without Gitaxian Probe (I even had the special art foil ones), it becomes more difficult to see if the way is clear before you go all in on pumping a creature, and its harder to fuel Become Immense. Fatal Push is a huge threat. Now with Solemnity, it seems as though we have to entirely change the Infect package in order to actually have a viable win condition. Is it insurmountable? Not sure, but it seems like the necessary adjustments to deal with all of these conditions forces us to either abandon the deck, or change it significantly in order to keep it viable. That might not be such a bad thing, but then again, the cards might not be there to support it. Each pump spell you remove to actually deal with the variety of new conditions weakens the ability to win with our 1/1 creatures. Maybe in the next set, there will be a card that enables "Proliferate x9" and then we are back in action!
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The only way for infect to come back to Tier 1 or 2 is for WotC to print some strong "Mid range" infect creatures. Maybe a 3 drop 3/4 that can be regenerated for 2G.
Without better creatures, Infect is done for.
And you are still wrong. Metagame shifts affect modern vastly and infect does best in faster formats.
Why is chancellor side? He can buy essential turns so we have time to go off. Whats your main list? The rest looks ok, I might swap iona for another ashen rider depending on meta.
I am not attributing it to only this result, it has been a card in the "maybe" category for burn decks since it was printed and tons of people have played/play it. You can call it garbage all you want but its mediocre at worst. 4 damage for 1 mana is nothing to laugh at. just because the card has a downside doesn't make it unplayable.
And you are still wrong. Metagame shifts affect modern vastly and infect does best in faster formats.