Jeez can we let go of this fair vs. unfair argument already? Its obvious that it is both relative to the person defining what is fair, and to the cardpool itself.
Unless someone explicitly defines fair where everyone can agree; then this is all just an exercise in futility.
Personally I just mentally model player advantage as some abstract quantity against turns taken. Fair decks would approximate something like linear or geometric progression over time/turns, while unfair decks would spike abruptly.
@damagecase
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
From your signature. It is clear what your position is, and arguing that that everything is broken, near broken, near unfair, unfair, or some combination just means that the format shouldn't exist at all and we should all move to limited. Now that is fair magic.
Except thats not how any format works. There are always going to be bad match up. There are always going to be decks that probably wont do well in certain metas no matter how much you tweak them. That is Magic.
Agreed You cant have an even or favorable game to everything in the format. but unless your playing a linear non-disruptive/interactive tier 1-2 deck you shouldnt have matchups that are basically impossible to win.
the decks that most threaten fair decks through disruption and require sideboard lottery to beat them are: bogles, tron, bloom. I think modern would be better/ more fun without these decks in it. but then again I am baised and play mostly fair decks.
ps. in legacy I can take a force of will/daze variant and have at least average game vs everything....
Fair decks ? Isn't merfolks affinity or burn fair? Cause sure they can party vs tron.
Those decks all have a terrible disadvantage. Extreme hate in all forms. Great police cards like blood.moon quarter fulminators or geths verdict just destroy them.
Until you don't draw your sideboard hate cards, and realize that you are both playing on completely different axis.
The heavy emphasis on sideboards and their swingy nature is, and will continue to be, one of the drawbacks of the modern format.
As for Pro Tour bannings. I think that only happens when Wotc recognizes that coverage might be skewed towards one deck or another. Which is indicative of other things going on. So i don't really buy into the whole "wotc is conspiring for the sole purpose to shake things up".
TBH though I wouldn't mind if they got rid of the modern pro-tour all together. The pro-tour has proven time and again to be a poor resource for determining anything about any metagame, especially when combined with the limited portion. Grand Prix's and other tournaments are far better.
I think that a problem that people are running into is that fair and slower strategies cannot feasibly prepare for all of the super fast linear decks. Sideboard are already clogged with answers for affinity, burn, twin, infect, graveyard strategies, etc. So while you can prepare all you want for a competitive event, at the end of the day there are going to be some matchups where your deck doesn't have any recourse.
Is this alright for the format? Do better, more versatile answers need to be available, or is banning the answer? Or is it good as it is now?
Personally I would love to see Burn get the axe. Not because it is too powerful, or even oppressive, but because it requires so many damn slots when deckbuilding.
and to be frank...burn is tier 1? really? I mean come on.
Edit: I just wanted to note that another answer is for better consistency tools to be options. Being able to find sideboard cards easier means you can run fewer of them, allowing you to prepare for multiple matchups easier. Evidence of this being Legacy where sideboards are frequently a lot of 1-2 ofs.
However this has proven to be the opposite of what wotc wants because it has too many ramifications, so I don't think it is worth discussing.
Ktkenshinx I think that in some cases, you can still make a good argument for banning a card even when it does not adhere to previous precedents. Past history is useful, but on the other hand every situation is different, and just because something doesn't go along with past history doesn't necessarily mean the format would be better off without it. The Eggs banning for example was not something we had ever seen before, but I think we can all agree the format is better off now that Second Sunrise is banned.
Say for example 70% of decks were playing Blood Moon. I'd argue that in that case, Blood Moon should banned, even though a card hasn't been banned before for a similar reason. The closest comparison would be the Wild Nacatl banning.
Amulet deserves a little more scrutiny than other fast combo decks of the past (and present) because as I said in my previous post, it punishes fair decks. A deck like Infect is very different, because while it might offer a similar fast kill rate, it encourages people to play disruption in the form of creature removal. Grishoalbrand is similar because it encourages you to play discard and countermagic to beat it. But on the other hand, if you want to beat Amulet your best bet is to play something degenerate, as evidenced by the fact that the deck's worst matchups are Infect and Living End, and Jund is one of its best matchups. It's fine for a deck like that to exist if its not very popular, but if Amulet remains Tier 1-2, then I'm not sure it should stick around.
You seem to love data and hard evidence. We have data to show that Bloom is popular enough to the point where you are quite likely to face it in an event, and we have evidence that it has been format-warping (Jund running Blood Moon SB). What more do we need?
Jund running Blood Moon is hardly "format warping", it is a calculated sideboard decision for a single deck. Also Blood Moon is in response to GR Tron being such an atrocious matchup. So attributing it all to Amulet is disingenuous.
You could describe other decks the same way. Burn punishes slower grindy decks, and forces them to dedicate multiple sideboard slots. So does Affinity.
However I think Amulet Bloom is definitely worth keeping an eye on, because any deck that popular that has a good matchup against multiple tier 1 strategies, and also gets "free wins" in turn 2 kills from timt to time, is on the cusp of being too good.
I think you are expecting too much out of what is obviously an opinion piece. Literally the first sentence lets you know this. Stating an opinion is just that--a statement. You don't have to qualify your opinions with data, or even logic. The problem is when other people use his opinions as proof in their own arguments.
Maybe this is an unfair standard, but I think authors on major sites need to put a higher level of research, care, and qualification into their opinions than the layman. The fact is that people will use those opinions as proof of arguments, and I think most authors know this. At least, it seems improbable that they don't know this. Just saying "this is my opinion" doesn't allow authors to just write whatever they want without backing it up: one need only read some of the better op-ed pieces in the journalism world to know that. That's particularly true for people that know other players look to them as authorities.
I'm not worried that Wizards will cave to these kinds of opinions and ideas. The last ban updates have proven to me that Wizards is much more measured than many of the more vocal members of our Modern community. I'm just lamenting the irresponsible (at best) and arrogant/ignorant/lazy (at worst) behavior that some contributors to major sites exhibit. It doesn't help the format and doesn't help the community.
Well the difference from mainstream journalism is that PVDR is a specialist in the game of Magic. He has a fundamental grasp of the game that is higher than the average person proven through his play skill, which automatically gives weight to his opinion.
The problem is that you are also an expert, specifically in Modern. So you have already taken factors he is presenting into account, and can dismiss them based on the opinions you have formed through research of your own. So your threshold for persuasion is naturally higher.
The average player should read articles like that and say--"hey I should take that into consideration when assessing the situation for myself". Much like if you heard an expert in a field that you are not an expert in (whatever that may be) saying "I think x about y".
PVDR has a completely reasonable opinion of what should or should not be banned, according to what he expects. They raise relevant questions that we should be asking ourselves.
-Are highly swingy cards that permanently impede each players ability to function worth having in the card pool?
-Is unbanning cards that could potentially increase the presence of "fair" decks worth exploring? Even if it disrupts the current format ecology?
-Is BBE really comparable to Siege Rhino? Would unbanning it only effect jund decks? If so would junds presence noticeably change?
-Are turn 2 kills even at low consistency alright? If not then is banning the answer? Is the fact that this involves games with prize/prestige implications a factor?
-Is the problem with amulet bloom and griselshoal winning on turn 2 an issue because the available options for counterplay are not versatile enough to be useful in other matchups?
Anyone who takes what he says as gospel isn't thinking for themselves, and frankly it isn't the responsibility of authors to hold their hands.
Now if you wanted to argue that anyone in positions of high visibility are duty bound to present accurate and unbiased information, then that is something else entirely.
Anywho the article lists his favorite disney songs...so theres that.
I think you are expecting too much out of what is obviously an opinion piece. Literally the first sentence lets you know this. Stating an opinion is just that--a statement. You don't have to qualify your opinions with data, or even logic. The problem is when other people use his opinions as proof in their own arguments.
Either way I wouldn't be too worried. At the end of the day Wotc has a vested interest in keeping the format as diverse as possible. It improves coverage, which in turn promotes the game. Not to mention diluting the deck pool means more people will join the format, for multiple reasons.
Grixis control is more of a control-midrange hybrid, rather than pure control. I think it will remain a solid tier 1.5 deck, and fluctuate in and out of popularity depending on what linear/combo decks are popular at the moment.
I know for me personally, I would just rather play grixis twin than grixis control. I don't see much of an advantage in giving up twin for a couple vanilla beaters.
Little Jace, more discard, heavier emphasis on Cryptics, and more removal spells. It is quite different.
I play Grixis Twin, and pure grixis players absolutely crush me.
Hello, long time lurker here, i played theros standard with a budget GW heroic deck, now that it rotated, i wan to get into modern, but i don't know if play bg midrange or Uwx control. On midrange i would play more likely jund, on control don't know if esper or jeskai control. Don't have staples but it's not a problem
Thnks
Honestly, if you like Heroic, you probably prefer to play aggro. Also, there is a pseudo-Heroic deck called Bogles that is literally the Heroic deck but with hexproof creatures instead of Heroic guys, which is a huge upgrade in a format full of effective spot removal.
Another close analog would be Infect. Playing with pump spells and creature protection is right in the Heroic wheel-house.
As for midrange. GBx midrange are undoubtly more powerful at the moment, but it really comes down to whether or not you want to play with counterspells or not.
Budget not being an issue I would recommend BGx midrange. It is nuts and bolts magic, and highly mimics a supped up standard deck. Which might be an easier transition into the modern format.
My personal view is that the turn 4 rule needs to be quantified in numbers and then a deck thoroughly tested. Something like if it can win the game on turn 3 or earlier more than 25% of the time, it is breaking the rule and should be banned. Then the DCI can sit down with a deck and goldfish with it a thousand times or something and then objectively see if it breaks the 25%. Metagame share shouldn't come into that.
The problem with this approach is once you explicitly define rules you set expectations, and any actions that contradict the rules makes the organization seem overtly dishonest.
Its Public Relations 101. Being vague leaves room for interpretation in case you need to address unforseen circumstances. How a deck wins can matter
Also having people sit down and goldfish with a deck is hardly indisputable evidence. Even a 1000 game sample size is too small to make accurate conclusions, and the testers play skill can come into question. A better method would be to identify every possibly permutation of a sequences needed for turn x < 4 wins, and create math models that can be tested through software.
Also metagame share, while not conclusive in itself, is indicative of a decks power level. If a deck wins more and earlier than the decks around it; then there should be a correlated increase in the decks presence at competitive events that have incentives to do well. When things like money or prestige are involved, people will gravitate towards what works even if it is more difficult (perceived or otherwise) or less 'fun' (perceived or otherwise).
Emotional impact can also matter. Say a deck wins before turn 4 23% of the time, but does so by going through a complex sequence of interactions that can take up to 30 minutes to complete with average timed game-actions. Is this less heinous than a deck that wins 26% of the time through straight forward creatures + combat damage? Or what if a deck wins on turn 0 15% of the time, but otherwise wins after turn 4? Is this better or worse than a deck that wins only on turn 3 25.1% of the time? There is no definite answer since it is relative to the player answering.
Basically what I am saying is that while us players want a world of definites and concrete information to base our decisions on, it isn't realistic from wotc's/dci's point of view.
Okay I see your logic. Chord is a non-starter because you rarely have the time to cast it, so siding them out and siding in defensive creatures is still a proactive gameplan.
I figured lowering the curve with Wardens would just mean you are playing spells faster than the burn player, making your 3 CMC plays stronger (lords, Ezuri, or SotP). Also multiple small lifegains are much harder to deal with as a skilled burn player will be planning their kill sequence by turn 3 by holding up a lifegain hate card.
Fortunately Naya burn is the new hotness right now, because I think mono red and two color burn decks have a noticeably better matchup. They generally run Searing Blood and Skullcrack in the 75, which are absent more and more in 3 color versions. Not to mention they take far less damage from their manabase.
Does Finks have applications in other matchups? Ive seen opposing arguments for Finks in grind matchups as it is a powerful standalone creature. I think Finks being played in other matchups might push it over the edge when competing with Warden, which seems exclusive to burn.
Maybe if you aren't running Lead the Stampede in the SB then Finks is an alternative (albeit worse)?
@Matsume
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Lead the Stampede if you ever get the chance to test it. It seems to fit well into the SotP strategy, since you are looking for elf density. If you do try it out, and move around the silver bullets in the SB; then maybe you can find room for the thoughtseizes again.
Basically a more drawn out strategy where you focus on card advantage, building up a large board, and disrupting with discard spells. The regular beatdown plan + SotP would be more pronounced, but there would still be games where you "oops I win" with Ezuri overruns.
Dunno, maybe it is just a "metagamed" version of the elves deck that does well or poorly depending on what is popular atm.
Post-sideboarding, our fundamental strategy remains unchanged. However, many of our sideboarded creatures make better blockers than attackers. If Spellskite can absorb an attack and the opponent spends a burn spell to kill it, it has certainly done its job. Burrenton Forge-Tender likewise blocks far better than it attacks, however, beware of Skullcrack. Finally, leaving Kitchen Finks back to block can sometimes force the opponent to stop declaring attacks, singlehandedly getting us to the “critical point” mentioned above.
So you are siding in a bunch of blockers, but want to stay on the racing gameplan? Am I missing something? Blockers implies you are trying to stabilize, which you explicitly said shouldn't be attempted, but rather applying counter pressure until they need to leave blockers.
Wardens seems better for racing since your curve is lower and you can dump your hand quicker. Not to mention incremental life gain is harder for burn to deal with.
Finks is a house against burn to be sure, but I am just going off your analysis of how to play the matchup.
Also your analysis of the matchup indicates that SotP builds would have a better matchup against burn because the ETB trigger, while not being lethal, swings the race heavily in elves favor.
Interesting post. However while the combinations of cards which allow an Alpha Strike is relevant, it doesn't address the point I was making entirely. Your second paragraph (which mentions Chording for ezuri) is exactly what I was talking about.
You describe Chording for ezuri on turn three, then waiting until turn four to attack. With pact you don't need to wait. You just attack on turn three.
There's a difference though of course:
Chord for ezuri mana costs:
Turn 3, leave 6 mana open, cast chord
Turn 4, 5+ mana for overrun
Pact for craterhoof mana costs:
Turn 3, pay 8 mana, cast craterhoof.
8 mana for pact is a higher initial investment by 2 mana. But it gives you the potential to win as soon as you have it (as early as turn 2 with a favourable draw).
With chord you may be able to fetch your wincon early but you can't just win from it because it requires the extra mana for ezuri or mirror entity activations, and lack of haste means you have to wait a turn.
From my understanding the average draw is much more likely to produce the conditions where:
-6 convoke mana on turn x
-5 mana on turn x+1
rather than
-8 regular mana on turn x
I don't think he was debating whether Pact could win faster, but rather that you more consistently achieve board states where you can win with chord.
Not to mention chord mana can be produced with summoning sick creatures, and thatDwynen's Elite produces extra chord mana means chording for 6 happens more often.
Either way I am looking forward to hearing your results Purklefluff
I am in the process of building my elves deck so I don't have much play experience; however I have been lurking in this thread for a while to get a theoretical grasp of the decks mechanics/drawbacks.
-You say that the blue splash with Coiling Oracle and Summoner's Pact is more reslient. How so? I can understand it being more explosive, but resilience implies it can last against direct opposition such as removal spells, counters, sweepers, etc. Is it the Coiling Oracle's providing card velocity? Because I don't see how Summoner's Pact helps the decks resiliency, unless you have something like Sylvan Messenger as a target.
-This leads me to my next question. In what sort of scenarios do you use Summoner's Pact outside of getting Craterhoof, Heritage Druid, or Ezuri? You are functionally playing it at sorcery speed because you want to cast the creature that turn, so I can't imagine situations where you would be inclined to get a regular mana-elf or cantrip elf.
I had numerous occasions, over and over, where i'd be sitting with a chord in hand or just-topdecked, thinking to myself "if this was a summoner's pact i'd be able to win this turn" and having to wait, crucially giving my opponent time to find answers or sweepers. really that's not where we want to be.
Do you have an example of a situation like this in mind? The only things I can think of are if you dumped your hand and have a board of elves, and top deck Chord vs. Pact, and need Heritage Druid to start generating large amounts of mana that particular turn or Craterhoof Behemoth as the coup de grace.
Also your
I apologize for the amatuer questions, but I am deciding on what color to splash and you are the first I've seen promoting blue and sacrificing the much lauded Dwynen's Elite. Which many have said opens the door for quicker combo kills with Heritage + Nettle Sentinel.
Yeah well these days any deck I play, some days I might as well not have had a sideboard because of the diversity of the format and my sideboard cards not lining up with my opponent's deck. And if people are out to snipe your deck locally, you are compelled to change decks because otherwise its an uphill battle to beat sideboard cards since answers to sideboard cards are worse than the sideboard cards themselves in most cases.
So you would like a deck that is naturally favored regardless of what strategy your opponent brings to the table? I don't understand this expectation to win. Are you definitively more skilled than your regular opponents and are annoyed that you are not winning? I have no idea of your skill level, so I am honestly asking if that is what is happening.
Also how is your sideboard seemingly irrelevant, yet other people can snipe your deck? Seems like a matter of preparation to me.
Matchups and sideboard/card choices matter to be sure; however, the steep decline in your winrate following the banning of a deck regarded as too powerful might be indicative of something on your end.
Results have shown that skilled players still accumulate at the top tables, and that is enough evidence to me that the format isn't as matchup/luck dependent as people say.
Unless someone explicitly defines fair where everyone can agree; then this is all just an exercise in futility.
Personally I just mentally model player advantage as some abstract quantity against turns taken. Fair decks would approximate something like linear or geometric progression over time/turns, while unfair decks would spike abruptly.
@damagecase
From your signature. It is clear what your position is, and arguing that that everything is broken, near broken, near unfair, unfair, or some combination just means that the format shouldn't exist at all and we should all move to limited. Now that is fair magic.
Until you don't draw your sideboard hate cards, and realize that you are both playing on completely different axis.
The heavy emphasis on sideboards and their swingy nature is, and will continue to be, one of the drawbacks of the modern format.
As for Pro Tour bannings. I think that only happens when Wotc recognizes that coverage might be skewed towards one deck or another. Which is indicative of other things going on. So i don't really buy into the whole "wotc is conspiring for the sole purpose to shake things up".
TBH though I wouldn't mind if they got rid of the modern pro-tour all together. The pro-tour has proven time and again to be a poor resource for determining anything about any metagame, especially when combined with the limited portion. Grand Prix's and other tournaments are far better.
Any particular reason you are making the switch?
Is this alright for the format? Do better, more versatile answers need to be available, or is banning the answer? Or is it good as it is now?
Personally I would love to see Burn get the axe. Not because it is too powerful, or even oppressive, but because it requires so many damn slots when deckbuilding.
and to be frank...burn is tier 1? really? I mean come on.
Edit: I just wanted to note that another answer is for better consistency tools to be options. Being able to find sideboard cards easier means you can run fewer of them, allowing you to prepare for multiple matchups easier. Evidence of this being Legacy where sideboards are frequently a lot of 1-2 ofs.
However this has proven to be the opposite of what wotc wants because it has too many ramifications, so I don't think it is worth discussing.
Jund running Blood Moon is hardly "format warping", it is a calculated sideboard decision for a single deck. Also Blood Moon is in response to GR Tron being such an atrocious matchup. So attributing it all to Amulet is disingenuous.
You could describe other decks the same way. Burn punishes slower grindy decks, and forces them to dedicate multiple sideboard slots. So does Affinity.
However I think Amulet Bloom is definitely worth keeping an eye on, because any deck that popular that has a good matchup against multiple tier 1 strategies, and also gets "free wins" in turn 2 kills from timt to time, is on the cusp of being too good.
Well the difference from mainstream journalism is that PVDR is a specialist in the game of Magic. He has a fundamental grasp of the game that is higher than the average person proven through his play skill, which automatically gives weight to his opinion.
The problem is that you are also an expert, specifically in Modern. So you have already taken factors he is presenting into account, and can dismiss them based on the opinions you have formed through research of your own. So your threshold for persuasion is naturally higher.
The average player should read articles like that and say--"hey I should take that into consideration when assessing the situation for myself". Much like if you heard an expert in a field that you are not an expert in (whatever that may be) saying "I think x about y".
PVDR has a completely reasonable opinion of what should or should not be banned, according to what he expects. They raise relevant questions that we should be asking ourselves.
-Are highly swingy cards that permanently impede each players ability to function worth having in the card pool?
-Is unbanning cards that could potentially increase the presence of "fair" decks worth exploring? Even if it disrupts the current format ecology?
-Is BBE really comparable to Siege Rhino? Would unbanning it only effect jund decks? If so would junds presence noticeably change?
-Are turn 2 kills even at low consistency alright? If not then is banning the answer? Is the fact that this involves games with prize/prestige implications a factor?
-Is the problem with amulet bloom and griselshoal winning on turn 2 an issue because the available options for counterplay are not versatile enough to be useful in other matchups?
Anyone who takes what he says as gospel isn't thinking for themselves, and frankly it isn't the responsibility of authors to hold their hands.
Now if you wanted to argue that anyone in positions of high visibility are duty bound to present accurate and unbiased information, then that is something else entirely.
Anywho the article lists his favorite disney songs...so theres that.
I think you are expecting too much out of what is obviously an opinion piece. Literally the first sentence lets you know this. Stating an opinion is just that--a statement. You don't have to qualify your opinions with data, or even logic. The problem is when other people use his opinions as proof in their own arguments.
Either way I wouldn't be too worried. At the end of the day Wotc has a vested interest in keeping the format as diverse as possible. It improves coverage, which in turn promotes the game. Not to mention diluting the deck pool means more people will join the format, for multiple reasons.
Little Jace, more discard, heavier emphasis on Cryptics, and more removal spells. It is quite different.
I play Grixis Twin, and pure grixis players absolutely crush me.
Another close analog would be Infect. Playing with pump spells and creature protection is right in the Heroic wheel-house.
As for midrange. GBx midrange are undoubtly more powerful at the moment, but it really comes down to whether or not you want to play with counterspells or not.
Budget not being an issue I would recommend BGx midrange. It is nuts and bolts magic, and highly mimics a supped up standard deck. Which might be an easier transition into the modern format.
The problem with this approach is once you explicitly define rules you set expectations, and any actions that contradict the rules makes the organization seem overtly dishonest.
Its Public Relations 101. Being vague leaves room for interpretation in case you need to address unforseen circumstances. How a deck wins can matter
Also having people sit down and goldfish with a deck is hardly indisputable evidence. Even a 1000 game sample size is too small to make accurate conclusions, and the testers play skill can come into question. A better method would be to identify every possibly permutation of a sequences needed for turn x < 4 wins, and create math models that can be tested through software.
Also metagame share, while not conclusive in itself, is indicative of a decks power level. If a deck wins more and earlier than the decks around it; then there should be a correlated increase in the decks presence at competitive events that have incentives to do well. When things like money or prestige are involved, people will gravitate towards what works even if it is more difficult (perceived or otherwise) or less 'fun' (perceived or otherwise).
Emotional impact can also matter. Say a deck wins before turn 4 23% of the time, but does so by going through a complex sequence of interactions that can take up to 30 minutes to complete with average timed game-actions. Is this less heinous than a deck that wins 26% of the time through straight forward creatures + combat damage? Or what if a deck wins on turn 0 15% of the time, but otherwise wins after turn 4? Is this better or worse than a deck that wins only on turn 3 25.1% of the time? There is no definite answer since it is relative to the player answering.
Basically what I am saying is that while us players want a world of definites and concrete information to base our decisions on, it isn't realistic from wotc's/dci's point of view.
Okay I see your logic. Chord is a non-starter because you rarely have the time to cast it, so siding them out and siding in defensive creatures is still a proactive gameplan.
I figured lowering the curve with Wardens would just mean you are playing spells faster than the burn player, making your 3 CMC plays stronger (lords, Ezuri, or SotP). Also multiple small lifegains are much harder to deal with as a skilled burn player will be planning their kill sequence by turn 3 by holding up a lifegain hate card.
Fortunately Naya burn is the new hotness right now, because I think mono red and two color burn decks have a noticeably better matchup. They generally run Searing Blood and Skullcrack in the 75, which are absent more and more in 3 color versions. Not to mention they take far less damage from their manabase.
Does Finks have applications in other matchups? Ive seen opposing arguments for Finks in grind matchups as it is a powerful standalone creature. I think Finks being played in other matchups might push it over the edge when competing with Warden, which seems exclusive to burn.
Maybe if you aren't running Lead the Stampede in the SB then Finks is an alternative (albeit worse)?
@Matsume
I'd love to hear your thoughts on Lead the Stampede if you ever get the chance to test it. It seems to fit well into the SotP strategy, since you are looking for elf density. If you do try it out, and move around the silver bullets in the SB; then maybe you can find room for the thoughtseizes again.
Basically a more drawn out strategy where you focus on card advantage, building up a large board, and disrupting with discard spells. The regular beatdown plan + SotP would be more pronounced, but there would still be games where you "oops I win" with Ezuri overruns.
Dunno, maybe it is just a "metagamed" version of the elves deck that does well or poorly depending on what is popular atm.
I read your burn strategy tips and ran into this:
So you are siding in a bunch of blockers, but want to stay on the racing gameplan? Am I missing something? Blockers implies you are trying to stabilize, which you explicitly said shouldn't be attempted, but rather applying counter pressure until they need to leave blockers.
Wardens seems better for racing since your curve is lower and you can dump your hand quicker. Not to mention incremental life gain is harder for burn to deal with.
Finks is a house against burn to be sure, but I am just going off your analysis of how to play the matchup.
Also your analysis of the matchup indicates that SotP builds would have a better matchup against burn because the ETB trigger, while not being lethal, swings the race heavily in elves favor.
From my understanding the average draw is much more likely to produce the conditions where:
-6 convoke mana on turn x
-5 mana on turn x+1
rather than
-8 regular mana on turn x
I don't think he was debating whether Pact could win faster, but rather that you more consistently achieve board states where you can win with chord.
Not to mention chord mana can be produced with summoning sick creatures, and thatDwynen's Elite produces extra chord mana means chording for 6 happens more often.
Either way I am looking forward to hearing your results Purklefluff
I am in the process of building my elves deck so I don't have much play experience; however I have been lurking in this thread for a while to get a theoretical grasp of the decks mechanics/drawbacks.
-You say that the blue splash with Coiling Oracle and Summoner's Pact is more reslient. How so? I can understand it being more explosive, but resilience implies it can last against direct opposition such as removal spells, counters, sweepers, etc. Is it the Coiling Oracle's providing card velocity? Because I don't see how Summoner's Pact helps the decks resiliency, unless you have something like Sylvan Messenger as a target.
-This leads me to my next question. In what sort of scenarios do you use Summoner's Pact outside of getting Craterhoof, Heritage Druid, or Ezuri? You are functionally playing it at sorcery speed because you want to cast the creature that turn, so I can't imagine situations where you would be inclined to get a regular mana-elf or cantrip elf.
Do you have an example of a situation like this in mind? The only things I can think of are if you dumped your hand and have a board of elves, and top deck Chord vs. Pact, and need Heritage Druid to start generating large amounts of mana that particular turn or Craterhoof Behemoth as the coup de grace.
Also your
I apologize for the amatuer questions, but I am deciding on what color to splash and you are the first I've seen promoting blue and sacrificing the much lauded Dwynen's Elite. Which many have said opens the door for quicker combo kills with Heritage + Nettle Sentinel.
So you would like a deck that is naturally favored regardless of what strategy your opponent brings to the table? I don't understand this expectation to win. Are you definitively more skilled than your regular opponents and are annoyed that you are not winning? I have no idea of your skill level, so I am honestly asking if that is what is happening.
Also how is your sideboard seemingly irrelevant, yet other people can snipe your deck? Seems like a matter of preparation to me.
Matchups and sideboard/card choices matter to be sure; however, the steep decline in your winrate following the banning of a deck regarded as too powerful might be indicative of something on your end.
Results have shown that skilled players still accumulate at the top tables, and that is enough evidence to me that the format isn't as matchup/luck dependent as people say.