I don't think Growth Spiral is what our deck is looking for. Yes being able to turn 3 Cryptic is nice, but the card doesn't interact with our opponent nor does it apply pressure or creates CA. We already run Vials for a tempo boost.
Incubation//Incongruity looked way more promising at first sight but then I ran the numbers through a hypergeometric calculator and to consistently hit with Incubation we would need to up our creature count quite a bit. Here's the numbers calculated for at least one creature in the top 4 cards of a 60 card deck (which is not a 100% realistic, but a solid approximation):
Not being able to hit lands really hurts this one because not hitting a creature is just aweful here.
I do think there is some room to brew with this and come up with a more creature heavy version of Eternal Command that uses I//I while also making a better use of Vial, I just haven't found the right creatures to go with yet. Maybe a 1x Kiki+ 4x Bounding Krasis + 2x Architects of Will + 2-3x Traverse the Ulvenwald. Seems pretty janky and the mana is aweful but Krasis into Cryptic into Kiki could be just enough to hold off some of these uninteractive aggressive decks like Dredge or Hollow One. I don't know.
Boy oh boy do I have a list for you. This is what I jammed at a small modern gameday today. Went 3-1, and it was entirely brewed for fun/there's definitely room for tweaks.
It felt really solid to have creatures + aether vial, and the deck had legs against some of the more common matchups (Storm & UW specifically). My only loss was to the new Primespeaker/pod deck (I would have had g1 if I knew what they were on before they went off, had 2 Meddling Mage in hand that I was holding for a proper cue, g2 I just got rolled by weird draws and a misplay early CoCo). Never got the hard lock down in this deck, but Vial + Eidolon of Rhetoric over performed. Eternal Witness + Unified Will also felt really good post board against control/combo.
There might be a case for ditching CoCo for Jace + some spells MB, but overall the creature package felt really good. Ran 4-ofs for most of the utility creatures to start and feel it out but that most likely isn't right. I also missed some of the power that Tarmogoyf brought to the table and it felt like closing out games was a big grind, but in this list, he doesn't feel like the right threat either. My list for next week will probably be cutting the 4th cryptic/witness/deputy for 3 Tireless Tracker. Gives card advantage and a growing threat that works through the hard lock.
But the absolute entitlement mentality of them paying a pro player a "living wage" is ridiculous to me. Its a flippin' card game when its all said and done. With that said, players should not be taken advantage of and it seems they are doing so according to him. That I can support even if I don't support him overall. Don't worry one minute, just means he has to go out and get a regular job like the rest of us do every workday of the year. I'm not shedding a tear for him or for WotC. I see blame on both sides, albeit more on Wizards. I better not say much more on it.
You're missing his point if you think this is entirely a wage thing. He's not outright asking for more money in return for being an MTG player, he's saying WotC needs to either up the pay or stop playing up the myth of a "professional magic player". His entire point is that people are disillusioned by their marketing strategy and its hurting the game, not that he should be able to retire on tournament winnings. MTG Tournament winnings aren't his primary source of income to begin with.
What you should be complaining about is why are cards on the same power level as those decks banned unfairly.
I am one of the most, perhaps the most, vocal critic of ban mania and its associated mentality on this forum. It's bad for the format, it's lazy, it's uncritical, it rarely aligns with Wizards' thinking, and it has been flat out wrong for 1.5 years now. In this particular case, however, there is an actual argument to be made for a Stirrings ban OR a Preordain unban. These cards have been a longtime target of ban/unban talk in this thread but, until recently, it has not really been a legitimate target.
So we agree on an unban at least and I think we're mostly on the same page. I still don't believe any deck with Stirrings is near being broken or dominant, and just listing how many decks it beefs up certain archetypes that would be worse off (if not unplayable) if it was banned makes me continue to think that more bans aren't the answer. This is still banmania.
That's a creative narrative, considering that various posters have discussed an Ancient Stirrings ban well before GP Vegas.
Various posters and pro players also loathed the idea of a Jace unban for years. Posters can be wrong, the length of time they make their argument doesn't give it merit. There is not one deck that Ancient Stirrings currently slots into that is oppressive or bad for the format.
Modern is a cyclical metagame. Sideboards were high on removal for Humans, moderate on stuff for the Jeskai matchup, and lacking enough artifact hate. That's all. Every time a deck top 8s, you guys cry for a ban. Modern is such an open format that Skred Red won a GP, it's all about a combination of luck and just general deck metagaming. Ancient Stirrings is fine. KCI/Tron are both fine.
What you should be complaining about is why are cards on the same power level as those decks banned unfairly.
I've been seeing/hearing discussions how U is one of the weaker colors in Modern. I've heard some interesting arguments on both sides, the general consensus being that what makes U great (and what it's known for) are card advantage and counterspells (including bounce spells).
It seems WOTC has banned all the good card draw spells (Ponder, Preordain, Dig Through Time, Treasure Cruise) and although Serum Visions is decent, it's far inferior. U also doesn't have any good, mana efficient counterspells (Hard/Universal 2CMC counters) and the ones that are good are banned (Mental Misstep).
Having said all that it seems that U is "neutered" in the format and other than Snapcaster Mage and Delver of Secrets deck, there isn't much reason to include the color - mostly because the card draw spells and counters that are legal leave much to be desired (too situational, inconsistent). Creatures are too highly costed as well (moreso than any other color it seems).
I'm can see some valid arguments on both sides and generally agree that U is definitely one of the weakest colors in the format. Do you believe this is true? Why or Why not? If you think it is weak, what card would make it stronger? Unbanning Ponder, adding Baleful Strix? If you think it's too strong, what else would you like to see banned?
I think blue is "fine" in power level, but its issue lies in the fact that all of its best cards are support cards. Blue lacks any meaningful direct action spells ("threats"), which is fine, it's supposed to be the reaction color, but its reaction (like you said) is neutered. Red/Black/Green are the dominant colors in Modern by far for actual overall card strength, and white and blue are strong in their own right as support. What they lack is direct value to be played over other colors, because there aren't any strong standalone synergies. Sure, Snapcaster Mage is probably one of the strongest cards in Modern, but lately people have been opting to use cards like Bedlam Reveler and Gurmag Angler/Tasigur, the Golden Fang that directly compete with it instead (or on top of). Why? Because using an answer twice isn't just instinctively more valuable than drawing more threats or playing bigger threats that are hard to answer in general when you don't have a solid payoff in that color, but Red can get you Lightning Bolt/Faithless Looting/Young Pyromancer and black nets you threats and removal. Blue is just too niche. Something like more card selection a la Fact or Fiction or Brainstorm, or just more general answers like Counterspell could fix that possibly, but I'm not going to pretend to have the answers. This is just my analysis coming from someone who's played across the big formats for years.
TLDR: I don't think there's a problem with Blue's best cards in Modern, I just think there aren't enough to warrant going heavy into the color vs just a small splash and that most strategies benefit more from splashing a different color (or simplifying their mana base with no/less splashes) instead. It just lacks a suitable payoff.
EDIT: Mandatory "Strong is subjective to my opinion" comment before someone quotes this post with some absurdly profound statistical truth that my language is not scientifically clear and subject to interpretation. We get it, it's a forum post.
A great place to start would be the 8 Rack Primer thread. This is the most competitive dedicated discard deck in the format (and across all formats, if I'm correct.)
A playset of both The Rack and Shrieking Affliction can be picked up for around $20, and would be the best wincon possible.
I know there is some anti-Human sentiment in here but let's try and stay honest with our criticisms of the deck. Humans winning on T3 is a particularly disingenuous allegation. Here's the line that was identified:
So this T3 "kill" requires 3 Champion, 3 Lands, a Lieutenant, and then either the remaining 4th Champion or Hierarch. So that's 9 or 10 cards seen to draw 8 specific cards. This is an EXTREMELY unlikely draw. It's also the only draw in the entire deck that gets there. Oh, and it also doesn't actually kill the opponent if they didn't play an untapped shock or didn't fetch twice, so it's not even a goldfish T3 kill. I'm calling shenanigans on this entire accusation of Humans being able to kill T3. There may be legitimate issues with Humans, but it's ability to kill on T3 is not one of those issues.
Speaking of which, Humans is exactly the kind of close-to 50/50+ deck that pros want to play in Modern. It's also the kind of 50/50+ policing deck many of this thread's most vocal Modern critics always want to play. It has a proactive game plan, a matchup spectrum right around 50/50, inherent disruption that hits multiple decks, a few flex slots to tailor to metagames, and is relatively easy to pick up but also relatively hard to play "perfectly" due to stuff like Mage and appropriate Vial usage. This is the exact same kind of deck many of the pro-blue mages want. Except it's not blue combo/control, it's a type of rainbow aggro. It's basically doing what Twin would be doing in Modern, just not in Twin colors or with a Twin theme. And for some people, that's unacceptable and "broken." So if people don't want Humans around because of its impact on the metagame, that's fine, but then let's not also argue for a policing blue deck that has the same effect. Humans IS the current policing deck of Modern. If you don't like policing decks, then be genuine and don't like ALL of them, not just Humans because of its aggro nature. If you do purport to like policing decks, great! But don't apply a double standard to Humans when you would be happy with a blue deck (or UR combo/control deck) in its place.
I think the problem people have is that when the police deck is aggro, it's unfair because now you have a deck that is consistently good against combo, which naturally should pray on aggro, while also still being good or at least fair against control, and also simultaneously be the best aggro deck against other aggro decks. It's just a weird wedge to put a police deck because its not only insanely versatile, but the conditions for it to be made better (human subtype creatures) are also assumed overwhelmingly abundant in the future.
Just to clarify, before some accuses me of otherwise, I don't play Humans and I think the deck is fine/not ban worthy (and I also could care less about Twin), but I am not going to go as far as pretending like other peoples criticisms aren't valid here.
Are you sure that Naban and Sage of Fables would give two counters to each creature? I'm no expert at rules, but I'm in no way certain that that's how it works.
I believe it's a replacement effect/static ability and doesn't. My point wasn't a double trigger with Naban, it's the +1 counter and Champion of Wits. Wizards just provides insane card advantage synergy + synergy with spells which other tribals don't have. I'm just pointing out that I think we want to take advantage of that. Aggro decks in Modern currently lack solid tempo play and card advantage (they basically play out till eventually they get into topdeck mode), but they're way better at Aggro than Wizards. There's no reason we should be a worse aggro deck, and we should probably look at all angles and see what we can do that other decks aren't already doing (and probably doing better.)
You guys are all forgetting about Champion of Wits and most importantly Sage of Fables. Those cards, with instants/sorceries and Naban, Dean of Iteration/Adeliz, the Cinder Wind are what will give you the card advantage to be a different type of deck. I could be wrong, and everyone can quote me on release if I am, but I don't think we're trying to be Merfolk with Prowess instead of lords.
Boy oh boy do I have a list for you. This is what I jammed at a small modern gameday today. Went 3-1, and it was entirely brewed for fun/there's definitely room for tweaks.
Presenting: Creature Command AKA Bant Binder/Creature Goodstuff
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Meddling Mage
4 Spell Queller
4 Deputy of Detention
3 Reflector Mage
4 Eternal Witness
2 Eidolon of Rhetoric
Artifacts:
4 Aether Vial
Instants:
4 Cryptic Command
4 Collected Company
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Windswept Heath
3 Breeding Pool
2 Horizon Canopy
2 Temple Garden
1 Hallowed Fountain
2 Forest
2 Island
2 Plains
2 Settle the Wreckage
2 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
3 Unified Will
1 Dispel
1 Reflector Mage
3 Knight of Autumn
3 Scavenging Ooze
It felt really solid to have creatures + aether vial, and the deck had legs against some of the more common matchups (Storm & UW specifically). My only loss was to the new Primespeaker/pod deck (I would have had g1 if I knew what they were on before they went off, had 2 Meddling Mage in hand that I was holding for a proper cue, g2 I just got rolled by weird draws and a misplay early CoCo). Never got the hard lock down in this deck, but Vial + Eidolon of Rhetoric over performed. Eternal Witness + Unified Will also felt really good post board against control/combo.
There might be a case for ditching CoCo for Jace + some spells MB, but overall the creature package felt really good. Ran 4-ofs for most of the utility creatures to start and feel it out but that most likely isn't right. I also missed some of the power that Tarmogoyf brought to the table and it felt like closing out games was a big grind, but in this list, he doesn't feel like the right threat either. My list for next week will probably be cutting the 4th cryptic/witness/deputy for 3 Tireless Tracker. Gives card advantage and a growing threat that works through the hard lock.
You're missing his point if you think this is entirely a wage thing. He's not outright asking for more money in return for being an MTG player, he's saying WotC needs to either up the pay or stop playing up the myth of a "professional magic player". His entire point is that people are disillusioned by their marketing strategy and its hurting the game, not that he should be able to retire on tournament winnings. MTG Tournament winnings aren't his primary source of income to begin with.
True, never noticed that before. Best I have though.
https://sites.google.com/site/mtgbasics/
So we agree on an unban at least and I think we're mostly on the same page. I still don't believe any deck with Stirrings is near being broken or dominant, and just listing how many decks it beefs up certain archetypes that would be worse off (if not unplayable) if it was banned makes me continue to think that more bans aren't the answer. This is still banmania.
Various posters and pro players also loathed the idea of a Jace unban for years. Posters can be wrong, the length of time they make their argument doesn't give it merit. There is not one deck that Ancient Stirrings currently slots into that is oppressive or bad for the format.
What you should be complaining about is why are cards on the same power level as those decks banned unfairly.
I think blue is "fine" in power level, but its issue lies in the fact that all of its best cards are support cards. Blue lacks any meaningful direct action spells ("threats"), which is fine, it's supposed to be the reaction color, but its reaction (like you said) is neutered. Red/Black/Green are the dominant colors in Modern by far for actual overall card strength, and white and blue are strong in their own right as support. What they lack is direct value to be played over other colors, because there aren't any strong standalone synergies. Sure, Snapcaster Mage is probably one of the strongest cards in Modern, but lately people have been opting to use cards like Bedlam Reveler and Gurmag Angler/Tasigur, the Golden Fang that directly compete with it instead (or on top of). Why? Because using an answer twice isn't just instinctively more valuable than drawing more threats or playing bigger threats that are hard to answer in general when you don't have a solid payoff in that color, but Red can get you Lightning Bolt/Faithless Looting/Young Pyromancer and black nets you threats and removal. Blue is just too niche. Something like more card selection a la Fact or Fiction or Brainstorm, or just more general answers like Counterspell could fix that possibly, but I'm not going to pretend to have the answers. This is just my analysis coming from someone who's played across the big formats for years.
TLDR: I don't think there's a problem with Blue's best cards in Modern, I just think there aren't enough to warrant going heavy into the color vs just a small splash and that most strategies benefit more from splashing a different color (or simplifying their mana base with no/less splashes) instead. It just lacks a suitable payoff.
EDIT: Mandatory "Strong is subjective to my opinion" comment before someone quotes this post with some absurdly profound statistical truth that my language is not scientifically clear and subject to interpretation. We get it, it's a forum post.
A playset of both The Rack and Shrieking Affliction can be picked up for around $20, and would be the best wincon possible.
I think the problem people have is that when the police deck is aggro, it's unfair because now you have a deck that is consistently good against combo, which naturally should pray on aggro, while also still being good or at least fair against control, and also simultaneously be the best aggro deck against other aggro decks. It's just a weird wedge to put a police deck because its not only insanely versatile, but the conditions for it to be made better (human subtype creatures) are also assumed overwhelmingly abundant in the future.
Just to clarify, before some accuses me of otherwise, I don't play Humans and I think the deck is fine/not ban worthy (and I also could care less about Twin), but I am not going to go as far as pretending like other peoples criticisms aren't valid here.
I believe it's a replacement effect/static ability and doesn't. My point wasn't a double trigger with Naban, it's the +1 counter and Champion of Wits. Wizards just provides insane card advantage synergy + synergy with spells which other tribals don't have. I'm just pointing out that I think we want to take advantage of that. Aggro decks in Modern currently lack solid tempo play and card advantage (they basically play out till eventually they get into topdeck mode), but they're way better at Aggro than Wizards. There's no reason we should be a worse aggro deck, and we should probably look at all angles and see what we can do that other decks aren't already doing (and probably doing better.)
The one thing that could make Standard interesting to me again.