Calling Jacob Wilson's deck podless pod is such a farce because there's almost nothing similar in how the decks play out or really in deck construction. It's just a GW midrange deck that's splashing black for thoughtseize and lingering souls. The only "difference" is that the traditional junk decks are mostly GB with a w splash.
A GW value creature plan with black splash for disruptive elements (+Siege Rhino). Sounds pretty close to pod's gameplan when it didn't draw pod.
Mana dorks, kitchen finks, voice of resurgence, and gavony township. Closer to the previous pod deck than the GBw monstrosity people like to complain about so much.
It's important to remember that players who think that they are good at magic will gravitate towards a strategy like GBx, where they can use their skill to make the best of having no real bad match ups. And at a Pro Tour you can expect a higher than usual number of players who think they are good at magic.
Not to mention many of the players who didn't have the resources or time to test extensively will default to an inherently powerful decks with middle of the road matchups against the field.
Looks like abzan, and decks that prey on abzan, are the most popular choices. Which could account for burn and infect looking so good.
I think it is important to note that team Face-to-Face? (whoever Jacob Wilson plays for) is on a GW-centric build of abzan that eschews Goyf's and Lili's in favor of mana dorks and GW value creatures in conjunction with Gavony Township to beat down. Which should provide some hope to previous pod players looking to salvage the remains of their deck into something tournament worthy.
Though I have to say that after day 1 I am sorely unimpressed with the "fresh" modern that wotc might have been hoping for. I figured they were trying to impress viewers and acquire new customers to the format, but might fall woefully short if burn/infect and abzan are the best they can present. Both of which are decks that are notoriously boring/frustrating to play against.
I have higher hopes for day 2, when a bunch of the chaff (ie abzan players) are weeded out for their lvl 1 deck choice, and we get to see some more interesting matchups.
Hi all!
Recently started proxying a cheaper splinter twin and I wanted to ask about fetches.
Khans of Tarkir fetches are much more accessible to me as I can trade them with friends and buy them from my LGS for reasonable prices. Does it make sense to replace any of the zendikar fetches in Patrick Dickmann's list with KTK ones? Could I replace Scalding Tarn with something like Flooded Strand or Bloodstained Mire I'm kind of newer to the competitve side of the game but I assue from my experience that fetches are meant to retrieve the right colors at the right time so wouldn't Bloodstained mire be fine at fetching a sulfur falls (Same goes for flooded strand) Or does that only work with steam vents.
To put it simply: Can I replace ZEN fetches with KTK ones?
Thanks!
You can play KTK fetches in the place of ZEN fetches, but it is important to note that they won't be as effective in some cases. Most of the time you will be fetching a shockland (Steam Vents) of your choice, however being able to fetch a correct basic in crucial situations matters when your life total matters.
Also you can only fetch the shocklands from Ravnica/Return to Ravnica. They are important because on their "type" line they are indicated as "island mountain", "mountain plains", etc. Fetch lands say specifically that you can only search for 2 land types (ie. Island or Mountain). Other dual lands such as Sulfur Falls don't have a specific land type.
If you are going to use KTK fetches I would use Flooded Stand's and Polluted Delta's. Blue is the predominant color in the deck, and if you ever do want to fetch a basic it is usually an island.
On the other topic: I am glad to see grixis get some love. I have had my doubts about Tasigur being viable, however it seems he can be cast quite reliably (with supporting thought scours). Glad I picked up my playset early :P.
I played a stock URw list tonight and went 3-1. TBH I got quite lucky as a lot of my local meta is junk + uwr control + zoo, and I drew well against fringe decks.
Seems "suppress" is the new buzzword Wotc is using to explain everything away without giving meaningful data on how they made their decisions.
"The card/deck was suppressing other strategies so it had to go".
No mention of ramifications, data they used (aside from GP top 8's), or anything else for that matter.
Their DTT ban reasoning was laughable. Draw 2 cards vs. 3 in a deck with a relatively flat power level is a noticeable difference; especially when an extra colored mana is added to the cost, and when the deck promotes spell velocity.
Something being done about Pod was a foregone conclusion, and people just kept deluding themselves that it would stay at the top of the food chain forever. However I would have rather seen unbans + the printing of new cards/mechanics that fought it rather than an outright ban. While I was not personally invested in the deck I certainly feel sympathy for the many players at my LGS who piloted the deck (not to mention their likely quitting the format). Luckily my local modern scene is quite large so the loss will not be noticeable.
All in all seems like quite the ham-fisted response to get results, where subtlety and elegance probably would have been preferred.
Though I am interested to see where the pros take the format in a couple of weeks. Hope it is something outrageous like everyone playing Affinity and giving wotc the proverbial finger.
DTT is a hybrid draw / tutor spell. Get with it.
Uhhh...thanks for making my point? Getting 2 cards out of 7 cards with similar effects/power-level is different than drawing 3 of those cards wholesale at 1 less mana; allowing you to keep casting more spells in the same turn. Get with it.
Seems "suppress" is the new buzzword Wotc is using to explain everything away without giving meaningful data on how they made their decisions.
"The card/deck was suppressing other strategies so it had to go".
No mention of ramifications, data they used (aside from GP top 8's), or anything else for that matter.
Their DTT ban reasoning was laughable. Draw 2 cards vs. 3 in a deck with a relatively flat power level is a noticeable difference; especially when an extra colored mana is added to the cost, and when the deck promotes spell velocity.
Something being done about Pod was a foregone conclusion, and people just kept deluding themselves that it would stay at the top of the food chain forever. However I would have rather seen unbans + the printing of new cards/mechanics that fought it rather than an outright ban. While I was not personally invested in the deck I certainly feel sympathy for the many players at my LGS who piloted the deck (not to mention their likely quitting the format). Luckily my local modern scene is quite large so the loss will not be noticeable.
All in all seems like quite the ham-fisted response to get results, where subtlety and elegance probably would have been preferred.
Though I am interested to see where the pros take the format in a couple of weeks. Hope it is something outrageous like everyone playing Affinity and giving wotc the proverbial finger.
Let's see if I got this right: the longer the format is stable the more diverse it becomes? If we let things progress naturally we will see even more viable decks in Modern? Seems logical enough. On some gut feeling level it's probably one of the reasons I'm against frequent changes to the banned list (at least when it's about adding cards)...
Too many variables to say its a trend. Affordability, availability, new sets every 3-4 months, keeping the power in check. I would actually think the longer the format is stable it becomes less diverse because people figure out what wins, what doesnt, and what will win at the local level as compared to a large event.
Remember, Wotc is aiming for a certain meta in Modern. It may not be the same meta that the 'diverse' meta some are looking for or at.
As counter-intuitive as it might seem, once a format is stable is when the question/answer dichotomy of powerful cards/strategies comes into play; which is the heart of metagaming. For instance if Pod become ubiquitously considered the "best deck", then the next level is to play decks that prey on it, and so on down the line.
When new cards/strategies are introduced is when player confidence lowers and risk aversion kicks in; at which point there is a gravitation to naturally powerful/linear strategies.
While I don't think it is possible to accurately defined all of the variables in play (like you mention); you can still model the trend with an appropriate level of abstraction.
It is a fine line to walk because we want (at least I do) to see new decks enter the fray at the top tables, but have to accept the short term consequences such as overdramatic responses.
I understand that people think 2 toughness cards die very easy but look at what we have now as expensive OP 2 drops. Bob...he dies very easy and is great in the right deck. Heck he often can kill the person using him. Deathrite, amazing...even enough so to get banned but is weaker and also amazing in the right deck. Young Pyromancer, absolutley fits perfect in the right deck and is also just as week. Stoneforge, just as weak and also amazing in the right deck.
This card is that power level. It is amazing and will be the new OP 2 drop. It will find it's home in the right deck to be amazing in.
Can't tell if you are trying to boost your pre-order sales, or if you really believe anything you said. Either way the hyperbole is amusing.
IMO Grand Master will be a fringe player in control strategies as a means to lock people out, or as a sideboard option in burn/aggro mirrors. Standard playable...maybe.
Would be cool if it is a combo enabler, but brewing isn't really my cup of tea.
Is splashing black not a thing? IE. removing some permission and running discard instead. Thought of trimming some remands and spell snares for IOK and thoughtseize.
Been running something close to the URw list people have pointed out, but just wondering because it never seems to be brought up. Just a bad meta call against burn/tempo fields?
I'll concede that JA is a build around card; so it bears the weight of scrutiny differently. However while TC + Dig buff tempo and control respectively, they also buff other decks as well.
Now don't get me wrong, because I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The problem is when there are cards with similar power levels on the banned list. If they don't unban anything and leave TC + DTT (and maybe JA) alone; then this becomes a glaring inconsistency. Add to the fact that a modern pro-tour happening on the heels of their decision adds a level of gravitas to whether or not they need to set a precedent and address this lack of continuity before the spike of Modern related media brings it to light.
I have a feeling that bans (with no unbans) will happen; simply because it is a simplest choice with the least ramifications.
While I commend you for aggregating and presenting all that data in a digestible format; I feel like it will only fuel the wrong fires when it comes to ban discussions. MTGO numbers are so skewed for various reasons, and there are so many extraneous variables adding noise to the system (which you warned about).
If I had to make an "off the cuff" hypothesis for why delver is not receding in popularity:
-It is the new/shiny toy in the format.
-Relative price tag of a tier 1 deck in conjunction with fetchland reprint bringing a substantial number of players into the format.
-The core strategy of the deck precludes any obvious hate. (ie. Dragon's Claw for burn)
Note that I don't think it is because of the raw power level of the deck. Delver has not performed nearly as well in paper settings, and my personal experiences lead me to believe that it is very beatable.
Burn is also a rough matchup for delver, so less burn decks means that delver thrives all the more.
In the end im still on the fence regarding TC and JA. The argument that sticks with me the most is that there are cards currently on the banned list with less (perceived) power; so something has to be done fit wotc's arbitrary parameters for the format.
Now, it's a separate question entirely as to whether or not goldfish percentages mean anything. But regardless of how that question is answered, I think those numbers you gave made sense.
I think that the goldfish percentages matter insomuch as they indicate the "fundamental turn" that you have to interact with them in a meaningful fashion.
After that point you have to start quantifying the types and potency of different forms of interaction, the likelihood that an opponent will have said disruption, and the difficulty that the primary deck has to fight through disruption/rebuild.
Perhaps this isn't an appropriate place to go into this, but fish bowl speed has to mean something. It obviously isn't the only factor in determining how good a deck is, but knowing nothing else about two decks strategy, or card choices, you have to assume that the faster deck will win.
Patrick Chapin eloquently put it by saying that even before you start playing the game one deck is winning, and one is losing. Be it from raw power, speed, fundamental strategy, etc. After that point it is up to the losing deck to interact favorably to catch up and overtake its counterpart.
So ignoring the rant above - am i correct in assuming the census is that treasure cruise will see a ban due to the warping of the meta?
Personally i like it - delver is a great deck that dies to so much
A lot would say yes, but I am not convinced yet. "Warping" might end up just being a "shift" as decks are displaced and moved around in the general heirarchy of things.
I'd like to see some large tournament results for a better sense of things before real arguments can be made. MTGO is hardly a good indication of anything as that metagame is skewed by factors that many conveniently ignore.
I could see bans/unbans going a couple of ways in January depending on how WotC wants to manage Modern moving forward. All I know that it is very hard to be unbiased in any format that requires a significant investment for any competitive deck.
I'm just happy that powerful cards continue to be released in new sets that have an impact.
A GW value creature plan with black splash for disruptive elements (+Siege Rhino). Sounds pretty close to pod's gameplan when it didn't draw pod.
Mana dorks, kitchen finks, voice of resurgence, and gavony township. Closer to the previous pod deck than the GBw monstrosity people like to complain about so much.
Not to mention many of the players who didn't have the resources or time to test extensively will default to an inherently powerful decks with middle of the road matchups against the field.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptfrf/modern-metagame-breakdown
Looks like abzan, and decks that prey on abzan, are the most popular choices. Which could account for burn and infect looking so good.
I think it is important to note that team Face-to-Face? (whoever Jacob Wilson plays for) is on a GW-centric build of abzan that eschews Goyf's and Lili's in favor of mana dorks and GW value creatures in conjunction with Gavony Township to beat down. Which should provide some hope to previous pod players looking to salvage the remains of their deck into something tournament worthy.
Though I have to say that after day 1 I am sorely unimpressed with the "fresh" modern that wotc might have been hoping for. I figured they were trying to impress viewers and acquire new customers to the format, but might fall woefully short if burn/infect and abzan are the best they can present. Both of which are decks that are notoriously boring/frustrating to play against.
I have higher hopes for day 2, when a bunch of the chaff (ie abzan players) are weeded out for their lvl 1 deck choice, and we get to see some more interesting matchups.
You can play KTK fetches in the place of ZEN fetches, but it is important to note that they won't be as effective in some cases. Most of the time you will be fetching a shockland (Steam Vents) of your choice, however being able to fetch a correct basic in crucial situations matters when your life total matters.
Also you can only fetch the shocklands from Ravnica/Return to Ravnica. They are important because on their "type" line they are indicated as "island mountain", "mountain plains", etc. Fetch lands say specifically that you can only search for 2 land types (ie. Island or Mountain). Other dual lands such as Sulfur Falls don't have a specific land type.
If you are going to use KTK fetches I would use Flooded Stand's and Polluted Delta's. Blue is the predominant color in the deck, and if you ever do want to fetch a basic it is usually an island.
On the other topic: I am glad to see grixis get some love. I have had my doubts about Tasigur being viable, however it seems he can be cast quite reliably (with supporting thought scours). Glad I picked up my playset early :P.
I played a stock URw list tonight and went 3-1. TBH I got quite lucky as a lot of my local meta is junk + uwr control + zoo, and I drew well against fringe decks.
abzan
zoo
storm
gr tron
affinity
burn
merfolk
jeskai
twin
scapeshift
all represented in the top 16. 11/16 uniquely different decks opposed to the 12/16 unique decks in the legacy IQ.
hopefully this diversity will continue.
jk. so many pod players at my lgs are going to switch to junk and kick my teeth in even harder.
Uhhh...thanks for making my point? Getting 2 cards out of 7 cards with similar effects/power-level is different than drawing 3 of those cards wholesale at 1 less mana; allowing you to keep casting more spells in the same turn. Get with it.
"The card/deck was suppressing other strategies so it had to go".
No mention of ramifications, data they used (aside from GP top 8's), or anything else for that matter.
Their DTT ban reasoning was laughable. Draw 2 cards vs. 3 in a deck with a relatively flat power level is a noticeable difference; especially when an extra colored mana is added to the cost, and when the deck promotes spell velocity.
Something being done about Pod was a foregone conclusion, and people just kept deluding themselves that it would stay at the top of the food chain forever. However I would have rather seen unbans + the printing of new cards/mechanics that fought it rather than an outright ban. While I was not personally invested in the deck I certainly feel sympathy for the many players at my LGS who piloted the deck (not to mention their likely quitting the format). Luckily my local modern scene is quite large so the loss will not be noticeable.
All in all seems like quite the ham-fisted response to get results, where subtlety and elegance probably would have been preferred.
Though I am interested to see where the pros take the format in a couple of weeks. Hope it is something outrageous like everyone playing Affinity and giving wotc the proverbial finger.
As counter-intuitive as it might seem, once a format is stable is when the question/answer dichotomy of powerful cards/strategies comes into play; which is the heart of metagaming. For instance if Pod become ubiquitously considered the "best deck", then the next level is to play decks that prey on it, and so on down the line.
When new cards/strategies are introduced is when player confidence lowers and risk aversion kicks in; at which point there is a gravitation to naturally powerful/linear strategies.
While I don't think it is possible to accurately defined all of the variables in play (like you mention); you can still model the trend with an appropriate level of abstraction.
It is a fine line to walk because we want (at least I do) to see new decks enter the fray at the top tables, but have to accept the short term consequences such as overdramatic responses.
Can't tell if you are trying to boost your pre-order sales, or if you really believe anything you said. Either way the hyperbole is amusing.
IMO Grand Master will be a fringe player in control strategies as a means to lock people out, or as a sideboard option in burn/aggro mirrors. Standard playable...maybe.
Would be cool if it is a combo enabler, but brewing isn't really my cup of tea.
Been running something close to the URw list people have pointed out, but just wondering because it never seems to be brought up. Just a bad meta call against burn/tempo fields?
Now don't get me wrong, because I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The problem is when there are cards with similar power levels on the banned list. If they don't unban anything and leave TC + DTT (and maybe JA) alone; then this becomes a glaring inconsistency. Add to the fact that a modern pro-tour happening on the heels of their decision adds a level of gravitas to whether or not they need to set a precedent and address this lack of continuity before the spike of Modern related media brings it to light.
I have a feeling that bans (with no unbans) will happen; simply because it is a simplest choice with the least ramifications.
While I commend you for aggregating and presenting all that data in a digestible format; I feel like it will only fuel the wrong fires when it comes to ban discussions. MTGO numbers are so skewed for various reasons, and there are so many extraneous variables adding noise to the system (which you warned about).
If I had to make an "off the cuff" hypothesis for why delver is not receding in popularity:
-It is the new/shiny toy in the format.
-Relative price tag of a tier 1 deck in conjunction with fetchland reprint bringing a substantial number of players into the format.
-The core strategy of the deck precludes any obvious hate. (ie. Dragon's Claw for burn)
Note that I don't think it is because of the raw power level of the deck. Delver has not performed nearly as well in paper settings, and my personal experiences lead me to believe that it is very beatable.
Burn is also a rough matchup for delver, so less burn decks means that delver thrives all the more.
In the end im still on the fence regarding TC and JA. The argument that sticks with me the most is that there are cards currently on the banned list with less (perceived) power; so something has to be done fit wotc's arbitrary parameters for the format.
I think that the goldfish percentages matter insomuch as they indicate the "fundamental turn" that you have to interact with them in a meaningful fashion.
After that point you have to start quantifying the types and potency of different forms of interaction, the likelihood that an opponent will have said disruption, and the difficulty that the primary deck has to fight through disruption/rebuild.
Patrick Chapin eloquently put it by saying that even before you start playing the game one deck is winning, and one is losing. Be it from raw power, speed, fundamental strategy, etc. After that point it is up to the losing deck to interact favorably to catch up and overtake its counterpart.
A lot would say yes, but I am not convinced yet. "Warping" might end up just being a "shift" as decks are displaced and moved around in the general heirarchy of things.
I'd like to see some large tournament results for a better sense of things before real arguments can be made. MTGO is hardly a good indication of anything as that metagame is skewed by factors that many conveniently ignore.
I could see bans/unbans going a couple of ways in January depending on how WotC wants to manage Modern moving forward. All I know that it is very hard to be unbiased in any format that requires a significant investment for any competitive deck.
I'm just happy that powerful cards continue to be released in new sets that have an impact.