The reason why SFM is not an auto include in DnT but it is in Legacy is because the toolsets are different. The mana denial in legacy consists of Wasteland and Rishadan Port paired with Thalia. SFM provides a fast clock and disruption (Jitte and whatever sword they are using). Modern doesn't have the luxury of waste or port, so the deck is fundamentally altered to include arbiter and ghost quarter to get a similar effect. I'm not saying that DnT wouldn't adjust the game plan to include SFM, but it seems like that would become more of a white weeny deck than DnT.
Not to nit-pick (I think it makes the story funnier): from what I understand is that Bob and Julian never specified the deck that was 'tearing up MODO' but coincidentally, reddit (I think) came out with some pirate list, and the two ideas merged in to the mythical popeye deck.
I wonder if mono-U Omni-Tell would use this as a 2-of. Sort of a replacement for Dig Through Time, although that one is playable before you get omniscience in to play. Still might be worth an experiment.
I'm on the side of no for GSZ. As others have said, it's relevant at every point in the game, and the fact that it shuffles itself back in to the deck ensures that you will continue to find it. Discard is a pretty lousy top deck when you get in to late game scenarios, unless both players are stockpiling cards. It seems to me that there is a 'fixed' version of GSZ in modern: Traverse the Ulvenwald. GSZ is always G+cmc of the creature, and so is Traverse once you have delirium. The fact that it requires delirium is so that you can't abuse it the same way you could GSZ. GSZ sort of feels like eye of ugin in a lot of ways: it gives certain decks inevitability. Granted you can counter or discard GSZ, but it's the same idea that if the game goes long, the one with access to GSZ is inherently at an advantage.
Oh I'm not arguing for whether or not the ban was good or bad, I'm just saying I prefer a format in which these cards are explored and experimented with, rather than sticking to old arguments that may longer be valid.
I think, as a community, we should be praising WotC for the GGT experiment. Sure it made for some bad tournaments for a few months, but we should encourage them to experiment with the ban list, and more importantly, take risks. If they get skittish because we attack them for unbanning a broken card, they will never be willing to release anything from the list. The accelerated schedule also allows them to react quickly if a card comes off the list and breaks the meta wide open. I'd rather a few bad events due to an unbanning rather than never allowing those cards to see the light of day.
Have anyone tried Nimble Obstructionist? It seems sweet to me but I didn't have the time to test.
I was just about to post this. I'm experimenting with 2 right now. I'm running a shadow of doubt, 4 spreading seas, and 3 ghost quarters, so I wanted 2 to stick with a mana denial subtheme. It seems like it's a decent card (although it would have been so much better if it stifled on ETB or cycle). I think 1 is probably a better number since it's a gotcha type card. I have managed to stifle a storm trigger which felt great as well as an expedition map. I'm not sure how good it will be in the long run, but it's worth trying now.
Apologies if this has been brought up: As Foretold? I've been casually messing around with a list that has 4 As Foretold, 4 Ancestral Vision, 1 Restore Balance, and 2 Tolaria West to fetch up the suspend spells as needed, along with the usual collection of Jeskai cards, including the Nahiri Package as the main win con. I haven't done any leagues on MODO, but I'm having a lot of fun with the list, especially when you start chaining AV together. 2 As Foretold produces a tremendous amount of value as well. The 3 CMC slot is lacking (as in when you As Foretold ticks up to 2, you get some counter magic for free, but the next turn it produces the same amount of value since most of my spells are either 2 cmc or 4 cmc). I think the Nahiri package is pretty crucial as you want to have a fast win con. I might play it at some paper events just for fun to see how it does, but I was wondering if anyone else has been tinkering with it.
If Grixis Shadow is a blue deck then Infect was a blue deck.
Infect ran a blue creature and maybe a spell pierce or two in the main. DS runs serum, snap, stubborn, and though scour. That gives it some blue identity. I don't understand how GDS is not thought of as a deck that has one foot solidly in the blue camp. My point from earlier is that almost all 'blue' decks use the blue cards to find things from other colors. Blue is not known for it's finishers.
I'm not saying the strengths of the deck are blue, I am saying that using blue cards to dig for your answers/threats or using snap to flashback removal is still a blue thing to do. When I would play jeskai control, my blue spells were all about finding and/or protecting nahiri, or snapping back bolt several times. (I'm by no means arguing that DS is as blue as jeskai control, just making a point). I see what you're saying, and I still think that blue needs help, despite that I also think DS is a blue deck. Someone previously talked about not just color identity, but shard/wedge identity. And GDS certainly 'feels' grixis to me.
If Grixis Shadow is a blue deck then Infect was a blue deck.
Infect ran a blue creature and maybe a spell pierce or two in the main. DS runs serum, snap, stubborn, and though scour. That gives it some blue identity. I don't understand how GDS is not thought of as a deck that has one foot solidly in the blue camp. My point from earlier is that almost all 'blue' decks use the blue cards to find things from other colors. Blue is not known for it's finishers.
@KTROJAN: Sorry, I misread what you were saying. I agree with that statement for sure. Blue definitely needs help despite DS doing well. The problem is that blue's main color identity (ie counter magic and card draw/selection) has been deemed far too strong for modern, and we are left with pretty stunted versions of this. Blue shouldn't have heymaker creatures and bomb threats (maybe a good walker. Jace please???) but having a decent counterspell on 2 or having some proper card draw and filtering would go a long way to bolster the color's natural strengths. Even something like a weaker brainstorm (something like draw 2 put one on top) would be great since it would give you some sort of thoughtseize defense. Supreme will was so close to being great. That at UU would have been perfect.
You realize that the point is the only reason for the blue cards is to get to/protect the black ones. This doesn't mean blue is strong it means black is strong and people will use whatever gets them to the strong cards.
What's wrong with that? Being a strong enabler/supporting color is a perfectly valid argument for a color's strength.
I think this argument about what color Grixis Shadow really is is a useless argument. It's blue identity is definitely strong, as counters and card filtering is pretty much what blue is all about. Saying the blue cards are just there to protect the black one's is ridiculous. In Jeskai Control, the blue cards are there to protect your win cons, it doesn't make them less valid. Grixis Shadow is definitely blue (and black. I'd say red is it's 'softest' color). That said, it's not the style of blue decks that people are wanting (myself included). It's a very proactive deck that uses counters purely as disruption to protect it's main threat, similar to delver decks. The people calling for blue decks are really just calling for reactive control style decks. UW saw a resurgence, and Jeskai had an ok showing this weekend, but they are still far from viable given all the different avenues proactive modern decks attack from.
Not to beat a dead Twin horse, but one of the reasons us salty twin players want it back is because it forced other decks to interact, which I don't think anyone would argue is bad (even if you hated twin, you probably still agree that interaction is inherently a good thing). Additionally, all of the reasons people tend to give to defend death's shadow and why those decks are good for the format are exactly the same reasons why twin was good, so it stings a little (at least it does to me) that shadow survives but twin is cold and dead. I used to love modern, but I just can't get excited for any deck these days. Depending on how the next ban announcement or two go, I might just have to accept that it's not the format for me. Legacy is policed by Force of Will, which keep degenerate combo decks in check. It seems that Thoughtseize fullfills the same role in Modern, and that's fine, just not for me.
Also, in regards to the 'warping the meta' arguments I've heard, specifically in regards to how twin warped the meta (again, I do not mean to ***** and moan about twin, I'm just using twin as it's the most repeated argument in this thread) but twin didn't warp the meta. Having to run answers to the top decks is not meta warping, it's just respecting the decks that exist. Having to run artifact hate to deal with affinity doesn't warp the meta. Eldrazi winter warped the meta, when it was either play eldrazi or find a specific deck that was so narrow that it only beat eldrazi. Learning the meta and coming prepared is part of the game and one of the reasons why control struggles these days. There's just too much to fight and not enough good ways to find it.
Force of Nature: This card is terrible, but it was the first rare I got with my very first starter deck back in revised. It will always hold a special place in my heart
I'm on the side of no for GSZ. As others have said, it's relevant at every point in the game, and the fact that it shuffles itself back in to the deck ensures that you will continue to find it. Discard is a pretty lousy top deck when you get in to late game scenarios, unless both players are stockpiling cards. It seems to me that there is a 'fixed' version of GSZ in modern: Traverse the Ulvenwald. GSZ is always G+cmc of the creature, and so is Traverse once you have delirium. The fact that it requires delirium is so that you can't abuse it the same way you could GSZ. GSZ sort of feels like eye of ugin in a lot of ways: it gives certain decks inevitability. Granted you can counter or discard GSZ, but it's the same idea that if the game goes long, the one with access to GSZ is inherently at an advantage.
I was just about to post this. I'm experimenting with 2 right now. I'm running a shadow of doubt, 4 spreading seas, and 3 ghost quarters, so I wanted 2 to stick with a mana denial subtheme. It seems like it's a decent card (although it would have been so much better if it stifled on ETB or cycle). I think 1 is probably a better number since it's a gotcha type card. I have managed to stifle a storm trigger which felt great as well as an expedition map. I'm not sure how good it will be in the long run, but it's worth trying now.
My thought is that they are just permanently in exile, since the last counter coming off is what triggers the cast
I'm not saying the strengths of the deck are blue, I am saying that using blue cards to dig for your answers/threats or using snap to flashback removal is still a blue thing to do. When I would play jeskai control, my blue spells were all about finding and/or protecting nahiri, or snapping back bolt several times. (I'm by no means arguing that DS is as blue as jeskai control, just making a point). I see what you're saying, and I still think that blue needs help, despite that I also think DS is a blue deck. Someone previously talked about not just color identity, but shard/wedge identity. And GDS certainly 'feels' grixis to me.
Infect ran a blue creature and maybe a spell pierce or two in the main. DS runs serum, snap, stubborn, and though scour. That gives it some blue identity. I don't understand how GDS is not thought of as a deck that has one foot solidly in the blue camp. My point from earlier is that almost all 'blue' decks use the blue cards to find things from other colors. Blue is not known for it's finishers.
@KTROJAN: Sorry, I misread what you were saying. I agree with that statement for sure. Blue definitely needs help despite DS doing well. The problem is that blue's main color identity (ie counter magic and card draw/selection) has been deemed far too strong for modern, and we are left with pretty stunted versions of this. Blue shouldn't have heymaker creatures and bomb threats (maybe a good walker. Jace please???) but having a decent counterspell on 2 or having some proper card draw and filtering would go a long way to bolster the color's natural strengths. Even something like a weaker brainstorm (something like draw 2 put one on top) would be great since it would give you some sort of thoughtseize defense. Supreme will was so close to being great. That at UU would have been perfect.
I think this argument about what color Grixis Shadow really is is a useless argument. It's blue identity is definitely strong, as counters and card filtering is pretty much what blue is all about. Saying the blue cards are just there to protect the black one's is ridiculous. In Jeskai Control, the blue cards are there to protect your win cons, it doesn't make them less valid. Grixis Shadow is definitely blue (and black. I'd say red is it's 'softest' color). That said, it's not the style of blue decks that people are wanting (myself included). It's a very proactive deck that uses counters purely as disruption to protect it's main threat, similar to delver decks. The people calling for blue decks are really just calling for reactive control style decks. UW saw a resurgence, and Jeskai had an ok showing this weekend, but they are still far from viable given all the different avenues proactive modern decks attack from.
Not to beat a dead Twin horse, but one of the reasons us salty twin players want it back is because it forced other decks to interact, which I don't think anyone would argue is bad (even if you hated twin, you probably still agree that interaction is inherently a good thing). Additionally, all of the reasons people tend to give to defend death's shadow and why those decks are good for the format are exactly the same reasons why twin was good, so it stings a little (at least it does to me) that shadow survives but twin is cold and dead. I used to love modern, but I just can't get excited for any deck these days. Depending on how the next ban announcement or two go, I might just have to accept that it's not the format for me. Legacy is policed by Force of Will, which keep degenerate combo decks in check. It seems that Thoughtseize fullfills the same role in Modern, and that's fine, just not for me.
Also, in regards to the 'warping the meta' arguments I've heard, specifically in regards to how twin warped the meta (again, I do not mean to ***** and moan about twin, I'm just using twin as it's the most repeated argument in this thread) but twin didn't warp the meta. Having to run answers to the top decks is not meta warping, it's just respecting the decks that exist. Having to run artifact hate to deal with affinity doesn't warp the meta. Eldrazi winter warped the meta, when it was either play eldrazi or find a specific deck that was so narrow that it only beat eldrazi. Learning the meta and coming prepared is part of the game and one of the reasons why control struggles these days. There's just too much to fight and not enough good ways to find it.