Harness the Storm is amazing in a slower format. I'm not sure if it's worth it in modern unless we see a more midrange spell heavy deck form and right now Modern is just insanely fast. It feels like an enchantment someone would want one turn earlier than turn 3 is the problem, and the only way to do that is to ramp into it. One play I could see being done is build around using manamorphosedesperate Ritual, power out the enchantment, then run another Desperate Ritual to explode into something big.
The other option is run token producing spells like Hordeling Outburst. It basically doubles the value from the card late game so that you end up with a six token rush instead of a three token rush. Add in Young Pyromancer and Goblin Dark-dwellers and things start looking interesting. Heck, it makes Dragon fodder a 4 cmc make 4 1/1 goblin tokens.
This card is complete garbage because in order to use it you need a copy of a card in your graveyard. That would be fine if the card was copied for free but the fact that you have to pay the mana cost, it makes this card so bad. Put it this way imagine your opponent has a scavenging ooze or a relic of progenitus out, it makes this card beyond useless.
That's why it's costed where it's at, most likely. I'm thinking of decks that force discard for card draw, which is common for red via cards like faithless looting. If someone wasn't running those, then they'd have to have already cast some of the spells in question. Personally, I don't think it's a garbage card for play, it's just that any deck that can make use of it probably has a better option available right now in modern.
Modern is a very fast format that demands that you answer decks that want to kill you fast. The only way that this card is playable is if it gave you the card for free. Because it doesn't reward you for getting the card on the battlefield at all. The best thing you can do is get a repeat bolt in the graveyard. Like brain in a jar it takes to much setup to be good. If you want a better card isochron scepter is a lot better and requires a lot less setup.
Times like these make me wish they had something like the commander deck series for adding new cards to the modern card pool.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
How's the testing with Thing in The Ice been going for you? I started it with moderate expectations since it's the typical card that seems much better on paper than on real games, and it's fallen within the "average" range.
I still need to try it much more, but overall I've felt that, indeed, 4 triggers can be quite card to pull off (and as a comparison by the time you get 4 tokens with Pyromancer you are already very ahead). It is true that bolt immunity is very relevant, but the fact that it doesnt hit for 2 and still gets decayed, etc, it's concerning.
As for the transformation itself, I've felt it's very powerful, but even more because you get to return your Snapcasters than anything else, hah. And it can "help" the opponent this way sometimes. The body is amazing though, 7/8 is huuuge.
I think if this thing (pun indended) triggered like Prowess (Baubles included) it would be a top-tier card. As of now, I think I may be playable but I'm not convinced yet.
I've gone as far as to build a deck around Thing and I've been extremely impressed, but I definitely think that it takes it's own special kind of shell. YP is definitely an interesting comparison because YP thrives on decks that can enable it and it in return gives passive advantage, meaning a deck doesn't have to be geared to protecting YP to get value out of it - as you pointed out though this isn't the case with Thing as it's all or nothing for those triggers, so the support shell around it needs to be changed up a bit. I DO feel like it's worth it though because the raw power level is through the roof. People jamming 4 of them into non 'thing' optimized shells though are going to be pretty let down.
I've been testing TitI with the Phyrexian mana cards, and I'm amazed at how well they answer my problems, from damage, to pumps, threat removal, recycling/delay, and card draw. Throw in Thoughtseize/IOK for disruption, and it does well. [card]Marrow Shards is the weakest, as it is an entirely conditional card, and I'm removing it for Young Pyromancer. I need a 4th creature to solidify. Other than that, my only request is more card draw.
Perhaps Day's Undoing?
I am running Guttersnipe as a way to make them pay equally for my use, and I', on instants for the most part. Guttersnipe has actually won me games before TitI can flip.
I'm not sure if Westvale Abbey will be modern playable at all. This format has many types of removal that make a 0cmc creature never get its payoff. Path to Exile or simple removal as Vapor Snag or Repeal leads to blowouts where only one mana has to be paid to dilute the expenses of 5 creatures and 5 mana. I can't imagine it being fast enough either to be effective against decks that run low on removal or have no efficient removal against the demon since it will still be good enough to kill the creatures required to summon it.
It may be viable in some Token decks. But as I said, only against few decks that don't run white or blue. Often you are able to win the game by itself if you are banking 5 creatures. Please think about it.
No I agree, it feels very risky against anything that has exile or bounce effects to remove creatures. It's strong against black, red, and green removal due to indestructible, so I'd imagine it would fair better vs those decks that focus into those colors.
I like the card a lot because of its flavor. I also honestly happen to like devour because im silly (its a flavorful mechanic). But how much different is this really from devour? The only part seems to be the fact that it cant be countered. But it's just as easily removed...am i missing something?
Eldritch Moon spoilers don't start until Monday, so I decided to dig around mtgtop8 to find the best cards of Shadows over Innistrad before that takes over my time. Below is a list of some of the more hyped cards from SoI, and the number of decks they saw play in (regardless of maindeck/SB; as long as at least 1 copy was included in a deck, it counts as 1 deck). Disclaimer: the number of decks says nothing about the number of copies of the card that are played in that deck. I left out reprints (Lightning Axe) - it's not fair to compare something that has had 5 years in the format with things that have only had 3 months.
Archangel Avacyn: 9
Bygone Bishop: 1
Declaration in Stone: 4
Eerie Interlude: 2
Open the Armory: 4
Thalia's Lieutenant: 1
Thraben Inspector: 1
Topplegeist: 0
Town Gossipmonger: 0
Engulf the Shore: 0
Epiphany at the Drownyard: 5
Geralf's Masterpiece: 0
Invasive Surgery: 3
Jace, Unraveler of Secrets: 0
Pieces of the Puzzle: 3
Rattlechains: 0
Rise from the Tides: 0
Stitchwing Skaab: 9 Thing in the Ice: 10
Welcome to the Fold: 0
Asylum Visitor: 5
Heir of Falkenrath: 0
Mindwrack Demon: 0
Pick the Brain: 0
Relentless Dead: 0
Tooth Collector: 0
Triskaidekaphobia: 0
Avacyn's Judgment: 0
Dual Shot: 0
Falkenrath Gorger: 0
Goldnight Castigator: 0
Harness the Storm: 0 Insolent Neonate: 30
Sin Prodder: 4
Skin Invasion: 0
Stensia Masquerade: 0
Vessel of Volatility: 0
Autumnal Gloom: 0
Crawling Sensation: 0
Cryptolith Rite: 0
Howlpack Resurgence: 0
Seasons Past: 0
Silverfur Partisan: 0
Tireless Tracker: 7
Traverse the Ulvenwald: 5 Anguished Unmaking: 13
Arlinn Kord: 5
Fevered Visions: 0
The Gitrog Monster: 2 Nahiri, the Harbinger: 54
Olivia, Mobilized for War: 0 Prized Amalgam: 29
Sigarda, Heron's Grace: 0
Sorin, Grim Nemesis: 0
Brain in a Jar: 0
Choked Estuary: 0
Drownyard Temple: 2
Foreboding Ruins: 0
Fortified Village: 0
Game Trail: 0
Port Town: 0
Westvale Abbey: 6
Only five cards made it to, or past, the 10-deck mark. Nahiri is the clear winner (54 decks). Second place goes to the Dredge cards: Insolent Neonate (30 decks) and Prized Amalgam (29 decks). Third is Anguished Unmaking (13 decks), and last of all Thing in the Ice (10 decks).
I didn't see Nahiri coming, but I correctly predicted that Thing in the Ice and Traverse the Ulvenwald were overhyped. Nahiri did much more for blue control than Thing did. Traverse the Ulvenwald was just a case of people thinking only of the best-case scenario. It's not even a "better Green Sun's Zenith": even if you somehow had delirium on turn 1, you can't put a Dryad Arbor into play with it, unlike GSZ.
Werewolves, Vampires and Zombies went nowhere. The best Vampire was Insolent Neonate and the best Zombie was Prized Amalgam. Both of them were used in Dredge, not tribal decks. Madness (closely related to Vampires) was also a bust.
Humans got some hype, but turned out to be much better in Standard than Modern.
Spirits weren't expected to make much of an impact, but certain Spirits taught me valuable lessons about spoiler season. Topplegeist taught me that people will always overrate the first few cards to be spoiled. Rattlechains taught me that people will always overrate any 2/1 flier that costs 1U (see also: Stratus Dancer, Dimensional Infiltrator).
Sin Prodder is bad. There are few exceptions to the 3 mana dies to Bolt test, and Sin Prodder fails another playability test (punisher cards suck) on top of that.
The duals were bad, but that was about as easy to see as Aberrant Researcher.
Eldritch Moon spoilers don't start until Monday, so I decided to dig around mtgtop8 to find the best cards of Shadows over Innistrad before that takes over my time. Below is a list of some of the more hyped cards from SoI, and the number of decks they saw play in (regardless of maindeck/SB; as long as at least 1 copy was included in a deck, it counts as 1 deck). Disclaimer: the number of decks says nothing about the number of copies of the card that are played in that deck. I left out reprints (Lightning Axe) - it's not fair to compare something that has had 5 years in the format with things that have only had 3 months.
Archangel Avacyn: 9
Bygone Bishop: 1
Declaration in Stone: 4
Eerie Interlude: 2
Open the Armory: 4
Thalia's Lieutenant: 1
Thraben Inspector: 1
Topplegeist: 0
Town Gossipmonger: 0
Engulf the Shore: 0
Epiphany at the Drownyard: 5
Geralf's Masterpiece: 0
Invasive Surgery: 3
Jace, Unraveler of Secrets: 0
Pieces of the Puzzle: 3
Rattlechains: 0
Rise from the Tides: 0
Stitchwing Skaab: 9 Thing in the Ice: 10
Welcome to the Fold: 0
Asylum Visitor: 5
Heir of Falkenrath: 0
Mindwrack Demon: 0
Pick the Brain: 0
Relentless Dead: 0
Tooth Collector: 0
Triskaidekaphobia: 0
Avacyn's Judgment: 0
Dual Shot: 0
Falkenrath Gorger: 0
Goldnight Castigator: 0
Harness the Storm: 0 Insolent Neonate: 30
Sin Prodder: 4
Skin Invasion: 0
Stensia Masquerade: 0
Vessel of Volatility: 0
Autumnal Gloom: 0
Crawling Sensation: 0
Cryptolith Rite: 0
Howlpack Resurgence: 0
Seasons Past: 0
Silverfur Partisan: 0
Tireless Tracker: 7
Traverse the Ulvenwald: 5 Anguished Unmaking: 13
Arlinn Kord: 5
Fevered Visions: 0
The Gitrog Monster: 2 Nahiri, the Harbinger: 54
Olivia, Mobilized for War: 0 Prized Amalgam: 29
Sigarda, Heron's Grace: 0
Sorin, Grim Nemesis: 0
Brain in a Jar: 0
Choked Estuary: 0
Drownyard Temple: 2
Foreboding Ruins: 0
Fortified Village: 0
Game Trail: 0
Port Town: 0
Westvale Abbey: 6
Only five cards made it to, or past, the 10-deck mark. Nahiri is the clear winner (54 decks). Second place goes to the Dredge cards: Insolent Neonate (30 decks) and Prized Amalgam (29 decks). Third is Anguished Unmaking (13 decks), and last of all Thing in the Ice (10 decks).
I didn't see Nahiri coming, but I correctly predicted that Thing in the Ice and Traverse the Ulvenwald were overhyped. Nahiri did much more for blue control than Thing did. Traverse the Ulvenwald was just a case of people thinking only of the best-case scenario. It's not even a "better Green Sun's Zenith": even if you somehow had delirium on turn 1, you can't put a Dryad Arbor into play with it, unlike GSZ.
Werewolves, Vampires and Zombies went nowhere. The best Vampire was Insolent Neonate and the best Zombie was Prized Amalgam. Both of them were used in Dredge, not tribal decks. Madness (closely related to Vampires) was also a bust.
Humans got some hype, but turned out to be much better in Standard than Modern.
Spirits weren't expected to make much of an impact, but certain Spirits taught me valuable lessons about spoiler season. Topplegeist taught me that people will always overrate the first few cards to be spoiled. Rattlechains taught me that people will always overrate any 2/1 flier that costs 1U (see also: Stratus Dancer, Dimensional Infiltrator).
Sin Prodder is bad. There are few exceptions to the 3 mana dies to Bolt test, and Sin Prodder fails another playability test (punisher cards suck) on top of that.
The duals were bad, but that was about as easy to see as Aberrant Researcher.
Traverse the Ulvenwald is ridiculously good, by far the best card of the set and not even close. It needs a pretty dedicated shell, tho. Also, chaining Snaps can outvalue pretty much any midrange deck.
I would advise people to buy them btw, the spike is inevitable and they are only like 1 Tix ;)ç
As for Thing, I've found it can make creature mathcups a bye and is s'ecially good against Bogles, but it also needs a very dedicated shell, possibly even with Manamorphoses. Very fun card too
He wasnt saying it was a bad card... Its just not a green sun zenth like people overhyped it to be. And the lack of use also goes to show that its not nearly as applicable as said card.
And yeah, the Nahiri thing got one over on me too, Diff will eat my words on that.
There's a term called "pigeon chess": if you try to play chess with a pigeon, it will knock over the pieces, ***** on the board, and strut around like it won.
I don't find playing pigeon chess a meaningful use of my time, so I'll keep this short. I trust in results. Traverse the Ulvenwald has very few results. Hence it's a bad card (you don't have to defend me on this Lantern). If you think it's good, go 5-0 a few leagues so that your results will be displayed for the world to see.
There's a term called "pigeon chess": if you try to play chess with a pigeon, it will knock over the pieces, ***** on the board, and strut around like it won.
I don't find playing pigeon chess a meaningful use of my time, so I'll keep this short. I trust in results. Traverse the Ulvenwald has very few results. Hence it's a bad card (you don't have to defend me on this Lantern). If you think it's good, go 5-0 a few leagues so that your results will be displayed for the world to see.
Hmmmm.
For me that's exactly the non-creative personality that I've never really understood. I'll be clear here, I'm not trying to bash you now, but I just saw your post on the Eldrich Moon spoiler - something bout the delirium Dryad maybe fitting in some deck from Chapin and Suicide Zoo. Are you seriously, honestly telling me that you CANNOT thing of a shell from that dryad? Like, I simply refuse to believe it
Even if someone is not a native brewer, Dryad, some Goyfs, some Traverses, some Tarfires, some Mishras. Maybe it could be a new archetype or maybe not, but, again, are you telling me that the first thing that occurs to you is some old deck instead of all the new possibilities?. I have serious trouble understading that kind of thinking, sorry if I come too obnoxious but I'm genuinely surprised that someone can see that card and not instantly be spurred by thoughts.
I'm personally a much, much better brewer than player. By a long shot. As a player I'm very mediocre, I learn every day, but I definitely struggle to 5-0 leagues, even which tier 1 decks. I like improving every day though, that's what's fun. I would also never have time to attend a GP or Pro Tour (I can't even play on paper), much less win it, because of my work and life. I'm sure it would be fun, though!
But brewing, I always have my Notes app open and scribble down every idea I have, 95% never come to fruition, but I do have a very active imagination, and in over 4 years I've scribbled more than 400 decks, 98% tier or worse or not even playable, some of them quite great. Most of them are just exploration of concepts.
And by all this I'm not saying this in the "DUDE THERE A SECRET SUPER DECK THAT NOBODY KNOWS" way, but every deck has a beginning, from unknown to known. It's an established pattern
Imagine if all the players thought like you and said, "I trust in results"... there would never ever be a new deck - exactly because of that (I say this as objectively as possible, I actually work in the Life Sciences field so I have to reason like this) - imagine 1000 Izzets who say, there aren't any results for X deck!. There are only results for Jund, Infect, and Affinity!. Izzet N.1 plays Jund, Izzet N.2 plays Infect, Izzet N.999 plays Affinity. It would be an eternal who was first, the chicken or the egg, but with no beggining or end, a perfect circle. Of course, people are differrent and because of that, there is innovation.
But every deck comes from something, and it's usually gradual. You would get laughed at playing Amulet Bloom in the beggining, then after many months it even got banned. Same with Boggles, I remember getting infuriated the first time on MTGO where a completely unknown deck stomped me with a random 1/1 hexproof limited garbage.
Tiers in magic, and especially in MTG Salvation, IMO, don't define precisely how "good" a deck is, just how widely played it is. It most cases, it correlates, in some cases, they are underepresented, be it because people usually follow what is considered the best (wise choice) or simply because it's not really good in the meta. An unrelated example for me - RUG Delver - the deck is not tier 1 by no means, but it's not tier 3+ either, it just has very bad matchups against Jund and most removal-heavy midrange decks (Modern in a nutshell). As a deck, it can easily stomp Combo and most Control.
What I mean by all this is that you can never truly say that X card is unplayable, the end, it will be until it gradually increases it's share of metagame and becomes, suprise, Tier X. I don't know if Traverse will ever be Tier 1, but it definitely has the potential- I never, ever, "do not want to draw it", it's always insane except in the presence of a Rest in Peace, and I've been playing that deck for 2 months now (around 100 hours I'd say) so I so have quite a bit of testing to support my views. That's the mark of a good card.
Finally, it's different from Zenith, you cannot ramp with it, but you can get non-green cards like Snapcaster, which makes it a card for a completely different deck than the typical Hatebears toolbox. It can also be used to find creatures to combo, or even utility la
For me that's exactly the non-creative personality that I've never really understood. I'll be clear here, I'm not trying to bash you now, but I just saw your post on the Eldrich Moon spoiler - something bout the delirium Dryad maybe fitting in some deck from Chapin and Suicide Zoo. Are you seriously, honestly telling me that you CANNOT thing of a shell from that dryad? Like, I simply refuse to believe it
Even if someone is not a native brewer, Dryad, some Goyfs, some Traverses, some Tarfires, some Mishras. Maybe it could be a new archetype or maybe not, but, again, are you telling me that the first thing that occurs to you is some old deck instead of all the new possibilities?. I have serious trouble understading that kind of thinking, sorry if I come too obnoxious but I'm genuinely surprised that someone can see that card and not instantly be spurred by thoughts.
I'm personally a much, much better brewer than player. By a long shot. As a player I'm very mediocre, I learn every day, but I definitely struggle to 5-0 leagues, even which tier 1 decks. I like improving every day though, that's what's fun. I would also never have time to attend a GP or Pro Tour (I can't even play on paper), much less win it, because of my work and life. I'm sure it would be fun, though!
But brewing, I always have my Notes app open and scribble down every idea I have, 95% never come to fruition, but I do have a very active imagination, and in over 4 years I've scribbled more than 400 decks, 98% tier 3 or worse or not even playable, some of them quite great. Most of them are just exploration of concepts.
And by all this I'm not saying this in the "DUDE THERE A SECRET SUPER DECK THAT NOBODY KNOWS" way, but every deck has a beginning, from unknown to known. It's an established pattern
Imagine if all the players thought like you and said, "I trust in results"... there would never ever be a new deck - exactly because of that (I say this as objectively as possible, I actually work in the Life Sciences field so I have to reason like this) - imagine 1000 Izzets who say, there aren't any results for X deck!. There are only results for Jund, Infect, and Affinity!. Izzet N.1 plays Jund, Izzet N.2 plays Infect, Izzet N.999 plays Affinity. It would be an eternal "who was first, the chicken or the egg", but with no beggining or end, a perfect circle. Of course, people are differrent and because of that, there is innovation.
But every deck comes from something, and it's usually gradual. You would get laughed at playing Amulet Bloom in the beggining, then after many months it even got banned. Same with Boggles, I remember getting infuriated the first time on MTGO where a completely unknown deck stomped me with a random 1/1 hexproof limited garbage.
Tiers in magic, and especially in MTG Salvation, IMO, don't define precisely how "good" a deck is, just how widely played it is. It most cases, it correlates, in some cases, they are underepresented, be it because people usually follow what is considered the best (wise choice) or simply because it's not really good in the meta. An unrelated example for me - RUG Delver - the deck is not tier 1 by no means, but it's not tier 3+ either, it just has very bad matchups against Jund and most removal-heavy midrange decks (Modern in a nutshell). As a deck, it can easily stomp Combo and most Control.
What I mean by all this is that you can never truly say that X card is unplayable, the end, it will be until it gradually increases it's share of metagame and becomes, suprise, Tier X. I don't know if Traverse will ever be Tier 1, but it definitely has the potential- I never, ever, "do not want to draw it", it's always insane except in the presence of a Rest in Peace, and I've been playing that deck for 2 months now (around 100 hours I'd say) so I so have quite a bit of testing to support my views. That's the mark of a good card.
Finally, it's different from Zenith, you cannot ramp with it, but you can get non-green cards like Snapcaster, which makes it a card for a completely different deck than the typical Hatebears toolbox. It can also be used to find creatures to combo, and even utility lands like Lighthouse, to put an example.
There's a term called "pigeon chess": if you try to play chess with a pigeon, it will knock over the pieces, ***** on the board, and strut around like it won.
I don't find playing pigeon chess a meaningful use of my time, so I'll keep this short. I trust in results. Traverse the Ulvenwald has very few results. Hence it's a bad card (you don't have to defend me on this Lantern). If you think it's good, go 5-0 a few leagues so that your results will be displayed for the world to see.
I have no issues with 'unproven', but calling something a bad card because it has no results is absurd, that would mean that no new card is good until it gets big wins? Vampire Hexmage has not put up results in many years, because it needs a specific shell, it has not put up results in Modern ever, but that is not a bad card....unless you think a Depths unban is harmless?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
Traverse has been legal for long enough, and was hyped high enough, that if a competitive Modern shell existed for it then it would have been found by now. At some point looking at results should inform you to stop brewing with a certain card if the goal of brewing is to find something competitive.
There are also various types of "good" when evaluating a card. Some cards are good on their own and don't need any build-around. Some are situationally good. Others are only good in dedicated builds. I have a feeling Traverse is the latter, and that there isn't yet a critical mass of what Traverse needs in order for a deck using it to be competitive.
A card is, by definition, playable if people are playing it and putting up results with it. If people are not playing it, it is unplayable. If people are playing it but not putting up results, it's also unplayable.
If you like brewing with a card, that doesn't mean it's playable. It just means that you like brewing with that card. I like brewing with jank wincons like Hedron Alignment and Triskaidekaphobia, and I have no problem admitting that those cards are unplayable.
I don't buy the excuse of "this card is good, it just needs the proper shell" or "this card is good if they print X support for it". Right after spoilers and ban/unban announcements, everyone has perfect knowledge of the cards that are legal in the format. A measure of a person's card evaluation skills would be how well he can predict which cards would end up playable given the current card pool, not how well he can construct fantasy scenarios in which a card ends up playable.
Your role as a card evaluator is simple. If the card is playable with the proper support, but said support doesn't exist at the moment, you call it unplayable. If the support is printed in a future set and you believe it can push the previous card to playability, then at the point of that particular set's release, you single out the support card and call it playable.
So, for example, Traverse the Ulvenwald is currently unplayable. If, hypothetically, a quadruple Entomb is printed and I think it makes Traverse playable, I would say that the quadruple Entomb is playable. There is no need to go back and revise my evaluation of Traverse - the moment that quadruple Entomb is printed is the exact same moment that Traverse becomes playable, so all I have to do is say that quadruple Entomb is playable. Until quadruple Entomb is actually printed though, Traverse is unplayable, and I will not waste time thinking what could be.
It's really not that difficult to dedicate some hours to testing and see if something is good or not. This deck, for example is very very good, and can win against any of the tier 1 or 2 decks. It's not broken by any means, but it's just a good, synergic, competitive deck. Try it out if you want.
Also, Erayo flip is very easy to do with the deck and not something many decks can beat.
It's really not that difficult to dedicate some hours to testing and see if something is good or not. This deck, for example is very very good, and can win against any of the tier 1 or 2 decks. It's not broken by any means, but it's just a good, synergic, competitive deck. Try it out if you want.
Also, Erayo flip is very easy to do with the deck and not something many decks can beat.
Cheers
All you've done is make a slightly worse Delver deck, though. Sure, Traverse has a couple of nice moments in that deck, but overall the deck would simply be better without it.
Well, there's some good news to be had. Over the past few days Traverse the Ulvenwald has put up 3 more League 5-0s on mtgtop8, bringing the total number of Traverse decks to 8. In the same span of time Nahiri has jumped to 61 decks, and Insolent Neonate/Prized Amalgam 34/33 respectively.
Of the 8 Traverse decks on mtgtop8, 6 of them (all Suicide Zoo) played it as a SB 1-of, 1 (Jund) played it as a maindeck 1-of, and the last one (Temur midrange) played it as a maindeck 3-of.
It's far from accepted as a SB card in Suicide Zoo - by my count (entering Death's Shadow and Wild Nacatl into mtgtop8's search) there are 36 Suicide Zoo decks from 8/4/16 to 29/6/16. Only 6 of them play Traverse. Let's not even get into Jund - Traverse is just 1 out of 100 Jund decks in that time period.
Traverse still has a long way to go before it catches up with the actual best card in the set, Nahiri, or even Neonate/Amalgam. I don't know what is worse: thinking that Traverse is better than Nahiri, or saying that Traverse is a good card and then pointing to the wrong deck to back up your claim.
It's really not that difficult to dedicate some hours to testing and see if something is good or not. This deck, for example is very very good, and can win against any of the tier 1 or 2 decks. It's not broken by any means, but it's just a good, synergic, competitive deck. Try it out if you want.
Also, Erayo flip is very easy to do with the deck and not something many decks can beat.
Cheers
All you've done is make a slightly worse Delver deck, though. Sure, Traverse has a couple of nice moments in that deck, but overall the deck would simply be better without it.
Um what? Have you tried the deck? And you are telling this to me, the actual creator of Shoal Delver (the version with Mandrils) to make a "worse" delver deck? I ditched Delver Shoal exactly because Delver is not good in modern (I'm a delver fanatic, but Brainstorm and Ponder are important). This deck has nothing to do with Delver, it's got quite long term/grindy plan if necessary, it tries to chain Snapcasters into the field and "create" 3 spells in a row with Traverse (Traverse-Snapcaster-Traverse-Snapcaster-Serum), removing counters from Thing, flipping it and getting value by using those Snaps again.
The other main plan is the deck's actual most powerful play: getting an Erayo lock, which is pretty easy to do on turn 3, but you only fetch her if the coast is clear.
It also plays Mishra's baubles which are unplayable in Delver shells (trust me, I tried) but here they also makes Goyfs much mbetter.
I mean, I think it's clear that you haven't played the deck, otherwise you would have picked up on the interactions- the deck is pretty hard to play.
But, again, what I find amusing is that you tell me, the creator of one of only competitive delver decks left in modern (tier 3, though) together with Grixis, to create a worse delver deck, when this has a completely different gameplan, much grindier and not looking to tempo-ing out the opponent.
PS: I also cannot insist enough on how worse the deck is without Traverse, it is the only card that I always ever want to draw. You assertion of "this deck would be better without Traverse" demonstrates a profound and a bit disconcerting lack of experience or basic knowledge on deckbuilding.
Well, there's some good news to be had. Over the past few days Traverse the Ulvenwald has put up 3 more League 5-0s on mtgtop8, bringing the total number of Traverse decks to 8. In the same span of time Nahiri has jumped to 61 decks, and Insolent Neonate/Prized Amalgam 34/33 respectively.
Of the 8 Traverse decks on mtgtop8, 6 of them (all Suicide Zoo) played it as a SB 1-of, 1 (Jund) played it as a maindeck 1-of, and the last one (Temur midrange) played it as a maindeck 3-of.
It's far from accepted as a SB card in Suicide Zoo - by my count (entering Death's Shadow and Wild Nacatl into mtgtop8's search) there are 36 Suicide Zoo decks from 8/4/16 to 29/6/16. Only 6 of them play Traverse. Let's not even get into Jund - Traverse is just 1 out of 100 Jund decks in that time period.
Traverse still has a long way to go before it catches up with the actual best card in the set, Nahiri, or even Neonate/Amalgam. I don't know what is worse: thinking that Traverse is better than Nahiri, or saying that Traverse is a good card and then pointing to the wrong deck to back up your claim.
It is by far the best card of the set, just look at the Temur deck. It's pretty simple (and yes, that is the correct deck to put it on).
I think the deck will become more powerful with the Dryad, though.
It's really not that difficult to dedicate some hours to testing and see if something is good or not. This deck, for example is very very good, and can win against any of the tier 1 or 2 decks. It's not broken by any means, but it's just a good, synergic, competitive deck. Try it out if you want.
Also, Erayo flip is very easy to do with the deck and not something many decks can beat.
Cheers
All you've done is make a slightly worse Delver deck, though. Sure, Traverse has a couple of nice moments in that deck, but overall the deck would simply be better without it.
Um what? Have you tried the deck? And you are telling this to me, the actual creator of Shoal Delver (the version with Mandrils) to make a "worse" delver deck? I ditched Delver Shoal exactly because Delver is not good in modern (I'm a delver fanatic, but Brainstorm and Ponder are important). This deck has nothing to do with Delver, it's got quite long term/grindy plan if necessary, it tries to chain Snapcasters into the field and "create" 3 spells in a row with Traverse (Traverse-Snapcaster-Traverse-Snapcaster-Serum), removing counters from Thing, flipping it and getting value by using those Snaps again.
The other main plan is the deck's actual most powerful play: getting an Erayo lock, which is pretty easy to do on turn 3, but you only fetch her if the coast is clear.
It also plays Mishra's baubles which are unplayable in Delver shells (trust me, I tried) but here they also makes Goyfs much mbetter.
I mean, I think it's clear that you haven't played the deck, otherwise you would have picked up on the interactions- the deck is pretty hard to play.
But, again, what I find amusing is that you tell me, the creator of one of only competitive delver decks left in modern (tier 3, though) together with Grixis, to create a worse delver deck, when this has a completely different gameplan, much grindier and not looking to tempo-ing out the opponent.
PS: I also cannot insist enough on how worse the deck is without Traverse, it is the only card that I always ever want to draw. You assertion of "this deck would be better without Traverse" demonstrates a profound and a bit disconcerting lack of experience or basic knowledge on deckbuilding.
I'm sorry but I don't care what deck you think you created. The lines in this deck are easy to see, and overall it just feels lackluster. There are about 12-16 slots that should be upgraded to make the deck better, after which it's basically a Delver deck. If you like it and do well with it then fine, kudos to you. Modern has a large card pool and it's great to see people brew and do well at FNM.
It is by far the best card of the set, just look at the Temur deck. It's pretty simple (and yes, that is the correct deck to put it on).
I think the deck will become more powerful with the Dryad, though.
Pigeon chess at its finest again. 6 Suicide Zoos vs 1 Temur and you're telling me that Temur is the right deck. 61 Nahiri decks vs 8 Traverse decks = Traverse is better than Nahiri.
If you're trolling, you're doing a damn good job at it.
It is by far the best card of the set, just look at the Temur deck. It's pretty simple (and yes, that is the correct deck to put it on).
I think the deck will become more powerful with the Dryad, though.
Pigeon chess at its finest again. 6 Suicide Zoos vs 1 Temur and you're telling me that Temur is the right deck. 61 Nahiri decks vs 8 Traverse decks = Traverse is better than Nahiri.
If you're trolling, you're doing a damn good job at it.
I'm seriously thinking that you are the one trolling. I'm not talking about percentages, how the hell would that temur deck have a significant percentage? As far as I know, nobody plays it but me and some online buddies, and I don't usually share lists - Sam Blacks was pretty good too, but IMO Tireless Trackers is too slow for Modern. Why are you asserting that "amount of a card played at time X = how good it is"? This fact REALLY puzzles me
I feel like I don't really get you, sorry, you just always talk about data and stats and stuff, but do you actually test, or play? I mean, do you think Mono Blue Devotion in Standard was made by looking at already made decks and magically appeared? How do you think Chalice Eldrazi came to be? Don't you, for one second, imagine that decks are made by trying and playing games? I don't get this approach of just looking at websites, again, how can you know is something is good if nobody is even testing the deck? Do you think Pros just "pigeon chess" and are sometimes lucky?
I've played this deck for almost 3 months now, again, I'm no Pro, mainly cause I can't dedicate that time (I wish), but every time I get home and get some time to play, I do it with that. After more than 100 hours of testing and a whole lot of previous decks I've played over 10+ years of magic, this one is good. Not broken, but good.
I think we should just stop discussing because our mindsets are clearly too different, it's clear you are not the "let's disrupt the meta and try new cards with potential to see if they actually suck or not" type (I still wonder what that pigeon chess strutting is, I really hope you aren't refering to something as crucial in the world and in any kind of job as "innovation"), but that is fine too.
It's really not that difficult to dedicate some hours to testing and see if something is good or not. This deck, for example is very very good, and can win against any of the tier 1 or 2 decks. It's not broken by any means, but it's just a good, synergic, competitive deck. Try it out if you want.
Also, Erayo flip is very easy to do with the deck and not something many decks can beat.
Cheers
All you've done is make a slightly worse Delver deck, though. Sure, Traverse has a couple of nice moments in that deck, but overall the deck would simply be better without it.
Um what? Have you tried the deck? And you are telling this to me, the actual creator of Shoal Delver (the version with Mandrils) to make a "worse" delver deck? I ditched Delver Shoal exactly because Delver is not good in modern (I'm a delver fanatic, but Brainstorm and Ponder are important). This deck has nothing to do with Delver, it's got quite long term/grindy plan if necessary, it tries to chain Snapcasters into the field and "create" 3 spells in a row with Traverse (Traverse-Snapcaster-Traverse-Snapcaster-Serum), removing counters from Thing, flipping it and getting value by using those Snaps again.
The other main plan is the deck's actual most powerful play: getting an Erayo lock, which is pretty easy to do on turn 3, but you only fetch her if the coast is clear.
It also plays Mishra's baubles which are unplayable in Delver shells (trust me, I tried) but here they also makes Goyfs much mbetter.
I mean, I think it's clear that you haven't played the deck, otherwise you would have picked up on the interactions- the deck is pretty hard to play.
But, again, what I find amusing is that you tell me, the creator of one of only competitive delver decks left in modern (tier 3, though) together with Grixis, to create a worse delver deck, when this has a completely different gameplan, much grindier and not looking to tempo-ing out the opponent.
PS: I also cannot insist enough on how worse the deck is without Traverse, it is the only card that I always ever want to draw. You assertion of "this deck would be better without Traverse" demonstrates a profound and a bit disconcerting lack of experience or basic knowledge on deckbuilding.
I'm sorry but I don't care what deck you think you created. The lines in this deck are easy to see, and overall it just feels lackluster. There are about 12-16 slots that should be upgraded to make the deck better, after which it's basically a Delver deck. If you like it and do well with it then fine, kudos to you. Modern has a large card pool and it's great to see people brew and do well at FNM.
What lines are obvious? Please do tell me.
This deck is in no way a tempo deck, it doesn't seek to protect a threat and win with it, it's a synergy deck which has an Erayo lock, some silver bullets for specific matchups, Thing against creature decks and to get maximum value with Traverse ans Snaps, incidentally huge goyfs, and unorthodox but EXTREMELY important lines like Gitaxian Probe - hold priority - Remand - Gitaxian Probe - "have drawn 2 cards"- cast any spell- flip Thing in 1 turn.
I've played Delver for as long as I can remember and this plays nothing like it, so don't argue on that front, son. In fact, please don't argue if you are not even going to play the game of Magic: the Gathering and just theorycraft, it never leads anywhere
It is by far the best card of the set, just look at the Temur deck. It's pretty simple (and yes, that is the correct deck to put it on).
I think the deck will become more powerful with the Dryad, though.
Pigeon chess at its finest again. 6 Suicide Zoos vs 1 Temur and you're telling me that Temur is the right deck. 61 Nahiri decks vs 8 Traverse decks = Traverse is better than Nahiri.
If you're trolling, you're doing a damn good job at it.
I'm seriously thinking that you are the one trolling. I'm not talking about percentages, how the hell would that temur deck have a significant percentage? As far as I know, nobody plays it but me and some online buddies, and I don't usually share lists - Sam Blacks was pretty good too, but IMO Tireless Trackers is too slow for Modern. Why are you asserting that "amount of a card played at time X = how good it is"? This fact REALLY puzzles me
I feel like I don't really get you, sorry, you just always talk about data and stats and stuff, but do you actually test, or play? I mean, do you think Mono Blue Devotion in Standard was made by looking at already made decks and magically appeared? How do you think Chalice Eldrazi came to be? Don't you, for one second, imagine that decks are made by trying and playing games? I don't get this approach of just looking at websites, again, how can you know is something is good if nobody is even testing the deck? Do you think Pros just "pigeon chess" and are sometimes lucky?
I've played this deck for almost 3 months now, again, I'm no Pro, mainly cause I can't dedicate that time (I wish), but every time I get home and get some time to play, I do it with that. After more than 100 hours of testing and a whole lot of previous decks I've played over 10+ years of magic, this one is good. Not broken, but good.
I think we should just stop discussing because our mindsets are clearly too different, it's clear you are not the "let's disrupt the meta and try new cards with potential to see if they actually suck or not" type (I still wonder what that pigeon chess strutting is, I really hope you aren't refering to something as crucial in the world and in any kind of job as "innovation"), but that is fine too.
The decks you listed as coming about out of "innovation" were really just rehashing old concepts. They were neither new nor difficult to figure out. Blue Devotion used a new set's mechanic along with old ideas about tempo, with a fairly large leaning on old Fish lists. Chalice Eldrazi came about because a new set introduced lower costed Eldrazi into a format that included Eldrazi cost reducers and people figured out a Modern analogue to a Workshop deck. None of it was new in terms to strategy or playstyle. At this point every deck type or strategy in Magic has already been figured out. Anything "new" will just come from WOTC's new sets printing new mechanics. At which point it's pretty much spoon fed to you.
It's really not that difficult to dedicate some hours to testing and see if something is good or not. This deck, for example is very very good, and can win against any of the tier 1 or 2 decks. It's not broken by any means, but it's just a good, synergic, competitive deck. Try it out if you want.
Also, Erayo flip is very easy to do with the deck and not something many decks can beat.
Cheers
All you've done is make a slightly worse Delver deck, though. Sure, Traverse has a couple of nice moments in that deck, but overall the deck would simply be better without it.
Um what? Have you tried the deck? And you are telling this to me, the actual creator of Shoal Delver (the version with Mandrils) to make a "worse" delver deck? I ditched Delver Shoal exactly because Delver is not good in modern (I'm a delver fanatic, but Brainstorm and Ponder are important). This deck has nothing to do with Delver, it's got quite long term/grindy plan if necessary, it tries to chain Snapcasters into the field and "create" 3 spells in a row with Traverse (Traverse-Snapcaster-Traverse-Snapcaster-Serum), removing counters from Thing, flipping it and getting value by using those Snaps again.
The other main plan is the deck's actual most powerful play: getting an Erayo lock, which is pretty easy to do on turn 3, but you only fetch her if the coast is clear.
It also plays Mishra's baubles which are unplayable in Delver shells (trust me, I tried) but here they also makes Goyfs much mbetter.
I mean, I think it's clear that you haven't played the deck, otherwise you would have picked up on the interactions- the deck is pretty hard to play.
But, again, what I find amusing is that you tell me, the creator of one of only competitive delver decks left in modern (tier 3, though) together with Grixis, to create a worse delver deck, when this has a completely different gameplan, much grindier and not looking to tempo-ing out the opponent.
PS: I also cannot insist enough on how worse the deck is without Traverse, it is the only card that I always ever want to draw. You assertion of "this deck would be better without Traverse" demonstrates a profound and a bit disconcerting lack of experience or basic knowledge on deckbuilding.
I'm sorry but I don't care what deck you think you created. The lines in this deck are easy to see, and overall it just feels lackluster. There are about 12-16 slots that should be upgraded to make the deck better, after which it's basically a Delver deck. If you like it and do well with it then fine, kudos to you. Modern has a large card pool and it's great to see people brew and do well at FNM.
What lines are obvious? Please do tell me.
This deck is in no way a tempo deck, it doesn't seek to protect a threat and win with it, it's a synergy deck which has an Erayo lock, some silver bullets for specific matchups, Thing against creature decks and to get maximum value with Traverse ans Snaps, incidentally huge goyfs, and unorthodox but EXTREMELY important lines like Gitaxian Probe - hold priority - Remand - Gitaxian Probe - "have drawn 2 cards"- cast any spell- flip Thing in 1 turn.
I've played Delver for as long as I can remember and this plays nothing like it, so don't argue on that front, son. In fact, please don't argue if you are not even going to play the game of Magic: the Gathering and just theorycraft, it never leads anywhere
First, calling a stranger on the internet "son" to demean them or bolster your own credibility is exceedingly lame.
Second, Remanding your own spell to up your cast count or dig an extra card deep is not unorthodox. People have been doing it since Remand was printed. If you sleeve that card up you better know that's a possibility if you need it.
And third, please don't assume someone doesn't play Magic just because they don't think your pet deck is competitively viable.
I hope you have fun with it and do well, but I believe you've included 12 to 16 cards that are simply downgrades from what could be in those slots. To each their own.
All you've done is make a slightly worse Delver deck, though. Sure, Traverse has a couple of nice moments in that deck, but overall the deck would simply be better without it.
Um what? Have you tried the deck? And you are telling this to me, the actual creator of Shoal Delver (the version with Mandrils) to make a "worse" delver deck? I ditched Delver Shoal exactly because Delver is not good in modern (I'm a delver fanatic, but Brainstorm and Ponder are important). This deck has nothing to do with Delver, it's got quite long term/grindy plan if necessary, it tries to chain Snapcasters into the field and "create" 3 spells in a row with Traverse (Traverse-Snapcaster-Traverse-Snapcaster-Serum), removing counters from Thing, flipping it and getting value by using those Snaps again.
The other main plan is the deck's actual most powerful play: getting an Erayo lock, which is pretty easy to do on turn 3, but you only fetch her if the coast is clear.
It also plays Mishra's baubles which are unplayable in Delver shells (trust me, I tried) but here they also makes Goyfs much mbetter.
I mean, I think it's clear that you haven't played the deck, otherwise you would have picked up on the interactions- the deck is pretty hard to play.
But, again, what I find amusing is that you tell me, the creator of one of only competitive delver decks left in modern (tier 3, though) together with Grixis, to create a worse delver deck, when this has a completely different gameplan, much grindier and not looking to tempo-ing out the opponent.
PS: I also cannot insist enough on how worse the deck is without Traverse, it is the only card that I always ever want to draw. You assertion of "this deck would be better without Traverse" demonstrates a profound and a bit disconcerting lack of experience or basic knowledge on deckbuilding.
I'm sorry but I don't care what deck you think you created. The lines in this deck are easy to see, and overall it just feels lackluster. There are about 12-16 slots that should be upgraded to make the deck better, after which it's basically a Delver deck. If you like it and do well with it then fine, kudos to you. Modern has a large card pool and it's great to see people brew and do well at FNM.
What lines are obvious? Please do tell me.
This deck is in no way a tempo deck, it doesn't seek to protect a threat and win with it, it's a synergy deck which has an Erayo lock, some silver bullets for specific matchups, Thing against creature decks and to get maximum value with Traverse ans Snaps, incidentally huge goyfs, and unorthodox but EXTREMELY important lines like Gitaxian Probe - hold priority - Remand - Gitaxian Probe - "have drawn 2 cards"- cast any spell- flip Thing in 1 turn.
I've played Delver for as long as I can remember and this plays nothing like it, so don't argue on that front, son. In fact, please don't argue if you are not even going to play the game of Magic: the Gathering and just theorycraft, it never leads anywhere
First, calling a stranger on the internet "son" to demean them or bolster your own credibility is exceedingly lame.
Second, Remanding your own spell to up your cast count or dig an extra card deep is not unorthodox. People have been doing it since Remand was printed. If you sleeve that card up you better know that's a possibility if you need it.
And third, please don't assume someone doesn't play Magic just because they don't think your pet deck is competitively viable.
I hope you have fun with it and do well, but I believe you've included 12 to 16 cards that are simply downgrades from what could be in those slots. To each their own.
Remanding your spell to get off counters in Thing is quite unorthodox because almost nobody plays that card, and I just explained it to you because it's a line that you would clearly not get, as you call this deck "tempo" (which means you haven't played it)
And about having every deck being spoon fed to you, that is "la gota que colma el vaso" as we say in Spanish. You basically just stated that every new deck, every new synergy, and every new card is already known and that every new deck is not actually new, but is inmediately invented and solved as soon as it comes out. Meaning that, actually, there cannot be new decks in Modern, because everything has already been said and thought of and done. I think I don't have to say much more, lol. Betrayed by your keyboard, huh?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Times like these make me wish they had something like the commander deck series for adding new cards to the modern card pool.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Spirits
I've been testing TitI with the Phyrexian mana cards, and I'm amazed at how well they answer my problems, from damage, to pumps, threat removal, recycling/delay, and card draw. Throw in Thoughtseize/IOK for disruption, and it does well. [card]Marrow Shards is the weakest, as it is an entirely conditional card, and I'm removing it for Young Pyromancer. I need a 4th creature to solidify. Other than that, my only request is more card draw.
Perhaps Day's Undoing?
I am running Guttersnipe as a way to make them pay equally for my use, and I', on instants for the most part. Guttersnipe has actually won me games before TitI can flip.
I like the card a lot because of its flavor. I also honestly happen to like devour because im silly (its a flavorful mechanic). But how much different is this really from devour? The only part seems to be the fact that it cant be countered. But it's just as easily removed...am i missing something?
Eldritch Moon spoilers don't start until Monday, so I decided to dig around mtgtop8 to find the best cards of Shadows over Innistrad before that takes over my time. Below is a list of some of the more hyped cards from SoI, and the number of decks they saw play in (regardless of maindeck/SB; as long as at least 1 copy was included in a deck, it counts as 1 deck). Disclaimer: the number of decks says nothing about the number of copies of the card that are played in that deck. I left out reprints (Lightning Axe) - it's not fair to compare something that has had 5 years in the format with things that have only had 3 months.
Archangel Avacyn: 9
Bygone Bishop: 1
Declaration in Stone: 4
Eerie Interlude: 2
Open the Armory: 4
Thalia's Lieutenant: 1
Thraben Inspector: 1
Topplegeist: 0
Town Gossipmonger: 0
Engulf the Shore: 0
Epiphany at the Drownyard: 5
Geralf's Masterpiece: 0
Invasive Surgery: 3
Jace, Unraveler of Secrets: 0
Pieces of the Puzzle: 3
Rattlechains: 0
Rise from the Tides: 0
Stitchwing Skaab: 9
Thing in the Ice: 10
Welcome to the Fold: 0
Asylum Visitor: 5
Heir of Falkenrath: 0
Mindwrack Demon: 0
Pick the Brain: 0
Relentless Dead: 0
Tooth Collector: 0
Triskaidekaphobia: 0
Avacyn's Judgment: 0
Dual Shot: 0
Falkenrath Gorger: 0
Goldnight Castigator: 0
Harness the Storm: 0
Insolent Neonate: 30
Sin Prodder: 4
Skin Invasion: 0
Stensia Masquerade: 0
Vessel of Volatility: 0
Autumnal Gloom: 0
Crawling Sensation: 0
Cryptolith Rite: 0
Howlpack Resurgence: 0
Seasons Past: 0
Silverfur Partisan: 0
Tireless Tracker: 7
Traverse the Ulvenwald: 5
Anguished Unmaking: 13
Arlinn Kord: 5
Fevered Visions: 0
The Gitrog Monster: 2
Nahiri, the Harbinger: 54
Olivia, Mobilized for War: 0
Prized Amalgam: 29
Sigarda, Heron's Grace: 0
Sorin, Grim Nemesis: 0
Brain in a Jar: 0
Choked Estuary: 0
Drownyard Temple: 2
Foreboding Ruins: 0
Fortified Village: 0
Game Trail: 0
Port Town: 0
Westvale Abbey: 6
Only five cards made it to, or past, the 10-deck mark. Nahiri is the clear winner (54 decks). Second place goes to the Dredge cards: Insolent Neonate (30 decks) and Prized Amalgam (29 decks). Third is Anguished Unmaking (13 decks), and last of all Thing in the Ice (10 decks).
I didn't see Nahiri coming, but I correctly predicted that Thing in the Ice and Traverse the Ulvenwald were overhyped. Nahiri did much more for blue control than Thing did. Traverse the Ulvenwald was just a case of people thinking only of the best-case scenario. It's not even a "better Green Sun's Zenith": even if you somehow had delirium on turn 1, you can't put a Dryad Arbor into play with it, unlike GSZ.
Werewolves, Vampires and Zombies went nowhere. The best Vampire was Insolent Neonate and the best Zombie was Prized Amalgam. Both of them were used in Dredge, not tribal decks. Madness (closely related to Vampires) was also a bust.
Humans got some hype, but turned out to be much better in Standard than Modern.
Spirits weren't expected to make much of an impact, but certain Spirits taught me valuable lessons about spoiler season. Topplegeist taught me that people will always overrate the first few cards to be spoiled. Rattlechains taught me that people will always overrate any 2/1 flier that costs 1U (see also: Stratus Dancer, Dimensional Infiltrator).
Cryptolith Rite, The Gitrog Monster, Brain in a Jar had no combo applications. The other build-around-me cards (Bygone Bishop, Eerie Interlude, Fevered Visions) went nowhere too.
Skin Invasion is so much worse than Delver. So was Aberrant Researcher, by the way, but at least that was easy to figure out.
Sin Prodder is bad. There are few exceptions to the 3 mana dies to Bolt test, and Sin Prodder fails another playability test (punisher cards suck) on top of that.
The duals were bad, but that was about as easy to see as Aberrant Researcher.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Traverse the Ulvenwald is ridiculously good, by far the best card of the set and not even close. It needs a pretty dedicated shell, tho. Also, chaining Snaps can outvalue pretty much any midrange deck.
I would advise people to buy them btw, the spike is inevitable and they are only like 1 Tix ;)ç
As for Thing, I've found it can make creature mathcups a bye and is s'ecially good against Bogles, but it also needs a very dedicated shell, possibly even with Manamorphoses. Very fun card too
And yeah, the Nahiri thing got one over on me too, Diff will eat my words on that.
I don't find playing pigeon chess a meaningful use of my time, so I'll keep this short. I trust in results. Traverse the Ulvenwald has very few results. Hence it's a bad card (you don't have to defend me on this Lantern). If you think it's good, go 5-0 a few leagues so that your results will be displayed for the world to see.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Hmmmm.
For me that's exactly the non-creative personality that I've never really understood. I'll be clear here, I'm not trying to bash you now, but I just saw your post on the Eldrich Moon spoiler - something bout the delirium Dryad maybe fitting in some deck from Chapin and Suicide Zoo. Are you seriously, honestly telling me that you CANNOT thing of a shell from that dryad? Like, I simply refuse to believe it
Even if someone is not a native brewer, Dryad, some Goyfs, some Traverses, some Tarfires, some Mishras. Maybe it could be a new archetype or maybe not, but, again, are you telling me that the first thing that occurs to you is some old deck instead of all the new possibilities?. I have serious trouble understading that kind of thinking, sorry if I come too obnoxious but I'm genuinely surprised that someone can see that card and not instantly be spurred by thoughts.
I'm personally a much, much better brewer than player. By a long shot. As a player I'm very mediocre, I learn every day, but I definitely struggle to 5-0 leagues, even which tier 1 decks. I like improving every day though, that's what's fun. I would also never have time to attend a GP or Pro Tour (I can't even play on paper), much less win it, because of my work and life. I'm sure it would be fun, though!
But brewing, I always have my Notes app open and scribble down every idea I have, 95% never come to fruition, but I do have a very active imagination, and in over 4 years I've scribbled more than 400 decks, 98% tier or worse or not even playable, some of them quite great. Most of them are just exploration of concepts.
And by all this I'm not saying this in the "DUDE THERE A SECRET SUPER DECK THAT NOBODY KNOWS" way, but every deck has a beginning, from unknown to known. It's an established pattern
Imagine if all the players thought like you and said, "I trust in results"... there would never ever be a new deck - exactly because of that (I say this as objectively as possible, I actually work in the Life Sciences field so I have to reason like this) - imagine 1000 Izzets who say, there aren't any results for X deck!. There are only results for Jund, Infect, and Affinity!. Izzet N.1 plays Jund, Izzet N.2 plays Infect, Izzet N.999 plays Affinity. It would be an eternal who was first, the chicken or the egg, but with no beggining or end, a perfect circle. Of course, people are differrent and because of that, there is innovation.
But every deck comes from something, and it's usually gradual. You would get laughed at playing Amulet Bloom in the beggining, then after many months it even got banned. Same with Boggles, I remember getting infuriated the first time on MTGO where a completely unknown deck stomped me with a random 1/1 hexproof limited garbage.
Tiers in magic, and especially in MTG Salvation, IMO, don't define precisely how "good" a deck is, just how widely played it is. It most cases, it correlates, in some cases, they are underepresented, be it because people usually follow what is considered the best (wise choice) or simply because it's not really good in the meta. An unrelated example for me - RUG Delver - the deck is not tier 1 by no means, but it's not tier 3+ either, it just has very bad matchups against Jund and most removal-heavy midrange decks (Modern in a nutshell). As a deck, it can easily stomp Combo and most Control.
What I mean by all this is that you can never truly say that X card is unplayable, the end, it will be until it gradually increases it's share of metagame and becomes, suprise, Tier X. I don't know if Traverse will ever be Tier 1, but it definitely has the potential- I never, ever, "do not want to draw it", it's always insane except in the presence of a Rest in Peace, and I've been playing that deck for 2 months now (around 100 hours I'd say) so I so have quite a bit of testing to support my views. That's the mark of a good card.
Finally, it's different from Zenith, you cannot ramp with it, but you can get non-green cards like Snapcaster, which makes it a card for a completely different deck than the typical Hatebears toolbox. It can also be used to find creatures to combo, or even utility la
For me that's exactly the non-creative personality that I've never really understood. I'll be clear here, I'm not trying to bash you now, but I just saw your post on the Eldrich Moon spoiler - something bout the delirium Dryad maybe fitting in some deck from Chapin and Suicide Zoo. Are you seriously, honestly telling me that you CANNOT thing of a shell from that dryad? Like, I simply refuse to believe it
Even if someone is not a native brewer, Dryad, some Goyfs, some Traverses, some Tarfires, some Mishras. Maybe it could be a new archetype or maybe not, but, again, are you telling me that the first thing that occurs to you is some old deck instead of all the new possibilities?. I have serious trouble understading that kind of thinking, sorry if I come too obnoxious but I'm genuinely surprised that someone can see that card and not instantly be spurred by thoughts.
I'm personally a much, much better brewer than player. By a long shot. As a player I'm very mediocre, I learn every day, but I definitely struggle to 5-0 leagues, even which tier 1 decks. I like improving every day though, that's what's fun. I would also never have time to attend a GP or Pro Tour (I can't even play on paper), much less win it, because of my work and life. I'm sure it would be fun, though!
But brewing, I always have my Notes app open and scribble down every idea I have, 95% never come to fruition, but I do have a very active imagination, and in over 4 years I've scribbled more than 400 decks, 98% tier 3 or worse or not even playable, some of them quite great. Most of them are just exploration of concepts.
And by all this I'm not saying this in the "DUDE THERE A SECRET SUPER DECK THAT NOBODY KNOWS" way, but every deck has a beginning, from unknown to known. It's an established pattern
Imagine if all the players thought like you and said, "I trust in results"... there would never ever be a new deck - exactly because of that (I say this as objectively as possible, I actually work in the Life Sciences field so I have to reason like this) - imagine 1000 Izzets who say, there aren't any results for X deck!. There are only results for Jund, Infect, and Affinity!. Izzet N.1 plays Jund, Izzet N.2 plays Infect, Izzet N.999 plays Affinity. It would be an eternal "who was first, the chicken or the egg", but with no beggining or end, a perfect circle. Of course, people are differrent and because of that, there is innovation.
But every deck comes from something, and it's usually gradual. You would get laughed at playing Amulet Bloom in the beggining, then after many months it even got banned. Same with Boggles, I remember getting infuriated the first time on MTGO where a completely unknown deck stomped me with a random 1/1 hexproof limited garbage.
Tiers in magic, and especially in MTG Salvation, IMO, don't define precisely how "good" a deck is, just how widely played it is. It most cases, it correlates, in some cases, they are underepresented, be it because people usually follow what is considered the best (wise choice) or simply because it's not really good in the meta. An unrelated example for me - RUG Delver - the deck is not tier 1 by no means, but it's not tier 3+ either, it just has very bad matchups against Jund and most removal-heavy midrange decks (Modern in a nutshell). As a deck, it can easily stomp Combo and most Control.
What I mean by all this is that you can never truly say that X card is unplayable, the end, it will be until it gradually increases it's share of metagame and becomes, suprise, Tier X. I don't know if Traverse will ever be Tier 1, but it definitely has the potential- I never, ever, "do not want to draw it", it's always insane except in the presence of a Rest in Peace, and I've been playing that deck for 2 months now (around 100 hours I'd say) so I so have quite a bit of testing to support my views. That's the mark of a good card.
Finally, it's different from Zenith, you cannot ramp with it, but you can get non-green cards like Snapcaster, which makes it a card for a completely different deck than the typical Hatebears toolbox. It can also be used to find creatures to combo, and even utility lands like Lighthouse, to put an example.
I have no issues with 'unproven', but calling something a bad card because it has no results is absurd, that would mean that no new card is good until it gets big wins? Vampire Hexmage has not put up results in many years, because it needs a specific shell, it has not put up results in Modern ever, but that is not a bad card....unless you think a Depths unban is harmless?
There are also various types of "good" when evaluating a card. Some cards are good on their own and don't need any build-around. Some are situationally good. Others are only good in dedicated builds. I have a feeling Traverse is the latter, and that there isn't yet a critical mass of what Traverse needs in order for a deck using it to be competitive.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
If you like brewing with a card, that doesn't mean it's playable. It just means that you like brewing with that card. I like brewing with jank wincons like Hedron Alignment and Triskaidekaphobia, and I have no problem admitting that those cards are unplayable.
I don't buy the excuse of "this card is good, it just needs the proper shell" or "this card is good if they print X support for it". Right after spoilers and ban/unban announcements, everyone has perfect knowledge of the cards that are legal in the format. A measure of a person's card evaluation skills would be how well he can predict which cards would end up playable given the current card pool, not how well he can construct fantasy scenarios in which a card ends up playable.
Your role as a card evaluator is simple. If the card is playable with the proper support, but said support doesn't exist at the moment, you call it unplayable. If the support is printed in a future set and you believe it can push the previous card to playability, then at the point of that particular set's release, you single out the support card and call it playable.
So, for example, Traverse the Ulvenwald is currently unplayable. If, hypothetically, a quadruple Entomb is printed and I think it makes Traverse playable, I would say that the quadruple Entomb is playable. There is no need to go back and revise my evaluation of Traverse - the moment that quadruple Entomb is printed is the exact same moment that Traverse becomes playable, so all I have to do is say that quadruple Entomb is playable. Until quadruple Entomb is actually printed though, Traverse is unplayable, and I will not waste time thinking what could be.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Thing in the Ice
1 Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
1 Vendilion Clique
4 Gitaxian Probe
4 Traverse the Ulvenwald
4 Mishra's Bauble
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Tarfire
4 Remand
It's really not that difficult to dedicate some hours to testing and see if something is good or not. This deck, for example is very very good, and can win against any of the tier 1 or 2 decks. It's not broken by any means, but it's just a good, synergic, competitive deck. Try it out if you want.
Also, Erayo flip is very easy to do with the deck and not something many decks can beat.
Cheers
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Of the 8 Traverse decks on mtgtop8, 6 of them (all Suicide Zoo) played it as a SB 1-of, 1 (Jund) played it as a maindeck 1-of, and the last one (Temur midrange) played it as a maindeck 3-of.
It's far from accepted as a SB card in Suicide Zoo - by my count (entering Death's Shadow and Wild Nacatl into mtgtop8's search) there are 36 Suicide Zoo decks from 8/4/16 to 29/6/16. Only 6 of them play Traverse. Let's not even get into Jund - Traverse is just 1 out of 100 Jund decks in that time period.
Traverse still has a long way to go before it catches up with the actual best card in the set, Nahiri, or even Neonate/Amalgam. I don't know what is worse: thinking that Traverse is better than Nahiri, or saying that Traverse is a good card and then pointing to the wrong deck to back up your claim.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Um what? Have you tried the deck? And you are telling this to me, the actual creator of Shoal Delver (the version with Mandrils) to make a "worse" delver deck? I ditched Delver Shoal exactly because Delver is not good in modern (I'm a delver fanatic, but Brainstorm and Ponder are important). This deck has nothing to do with Delver, it's got quite long term/grindy plan if necessary, it tries to chain Snapcasters into the field and "create" 3 spells in a row with Traverse (Traverse-Snapcaster-Traverse-Snapcaster-Serum), removing counters from Thing, flipping it and getting value by using those Snaps again.
The other main plan is the deck's actual most powerful play: getting an Erayo lock, which is pretty easy to do on turn 3, but you only fetch her if the coast is clear.
It also plays Mishra's baubles which are unplayable in Delver shells (trust me, I tried) but here they also makes Goyfs much mbetter.
I mean, I think it's clear that you haven't played the deck, otherwise you would have picked up on the interactions- the deck is pretty hard to play.
But, again, what I find amusing is that you tell me, the creator of one of only competitive delver decks left in modern (tier 3, though) together with Grixis, to create a worse delver deck, when this has a completely different gameplan, much grindier and not looking to tempo-ing out the opponent.
PS: I also cannot insist enough on how worse the deck is without Traverse, it is the only card that I always ever want to draw. You assertion of "this deck would be better without Traverse" demonstrates a profound and a bit disconcerting lack of experience or basic knowledge on deckbuilding.
It is by far the best card of the set, just look at the Temur deck. It's pretty simple (and yes, that is the correct deck to put it on).
I think the deck will become more powerful with the Dryad, though.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
If you're trolling, you're doing a damn good job at it.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
I'm seriously thinking that you are the one trolling. I'm not talking about percentages, how the hell would that temur deck have a significant percentage? As far as I know, nobody plays it but me and some online buddies, and I don't usually share lists - Sam Blacks was pretty good too, but IMO Tireless Trackers is too slow for Modern. Why are you asserting that "amount of a card played at time X = how good it is"? This fact REALLY puzzles me
I feel like I don't really get you, sorry, you just always talk about data and stats and stuff, but do you actually test, or play? I mean, do you think Mono Blue Devotion in Standard was made by looking at already made decks and magically appeared? How do you think Chalice Eldrazi came to be? Don't you, for one second, imagine that decks are made by trying and playing games? I don't get this approach of just looking at websites, again, how can you know is something is good if nobody is even testing the deck? Do you think Pros just "pigeon chess" and are sometimes lucky?
I've played this deck for almost 3 months now, again, I'm no Pro, mainly cause I can't dedicate that time (I wish), but every time I get home and get some time to play, I do it with that. After more than 100 hours of testing and a whole lot of previous decks I've played over 10+ years of magic, this one is good. Not broken, but good.
I think we should just stop discussing because our mindsets are clearly too different, it's clear you are not the "let's disrupt the meta and try new cards with potential to see if they actually suck or not" type (I still wonder what that pigeon chess strutting is, I really hope you aren't refering to something as crucial in the world and in any kind of job as "innovation"), but that is fine too.
What lines are obvious? Please do tell me.
This deck is in no way a tempo deck, it doesn't seek to protect a threat and win with it, it's a synergy deck which has an Erayo lock, some silver bullets for specific matchups, Thing against creature decks and to get maximum value with Traverse ans Snaps, incidentally huge goyfs, and unorthodox but EXTREMELY important lines like Gitaxian Probe - hold priority - Remand - Gitaxian Probe - "have drawn 2 cards"- cast any spell- flip Thing in 1 turn.
I've played Delver for as long as I can remember and this plays nothing like it, so don't argue on that front, son. In fact, please don't argue if you are not even going to play the game of Magic: the Gathering and just theorycraft, it never leads anywhere
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Second, Remanding your own spell to up your cast count or dig an extra card deep is not unorthodox. People have been doing it since Remand was printed. If you sleeve that card up you better know that's a possibility if you need it.
And third, please don't assume someone doesn't play Magic just because they don't think your pet deck is competitively viable.
I hope you have fun with it and do well, but I believe you've included 12 to 16 cards that are simply downgrades from what could be in those slots. To each their own.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Remanding your spell to get off counters in Thing is quite unorthodox because almost nobody plays that card, and I just explained it to you because it's a line that you would clearly not get, as you call this deck "tempo" (which means you haven't played it)
And about having every deck being spoon fed to you, that is "la gota que colma el vaso" as we say in Spanish. You basically just stated that every new deck, every new synergy, and every new card is already known and that every new deck is not actually new, but is inmediately invented and solved as soon as it comes out. Meaning that, actually, there cannot be new decks in Modern, because everything has already been said and thought of and done. I think I don't have to say much more, lol. Betrayed by your keyboard, huh?