This does actually end up just being "bad burn" a lot of the time. For me, there are two big pluses:
This deck doesn't run out of gas as much. Burn tends to die to lifegain in any form. Their plan against lifegain is basically Skullcrack/Atarka's Command, meaning they are essentially playing Lightning Strikes in order to not die to hate. Hate against this deck also exists, but it's possible to play around, and easier to beat if it resolves.
It's also more fun to play. Burn often ends up being mindless and decisionless, with damage maximization being occasionally difficult, but largely unimportant. Maximizing damage in this deck is more important and often more rewarding.
There are some other things as well, but these are the two big ones.
I've never actually tried Xathrid Necromancer. It seems very workable to me, although it might require a slightly higher land count. The big turn-off to me is that it doesn't help against Anger of the Gods, which is where I really want an effect like that.
Well, there's absolutely no chance that they'll be errata'd back, because Wizards knows that they would be restricted in Vintage. Vintage-restricted cards are not made intentionally, they're mistakes (hence "Restricted"), so it wouldn't make any sense for Wizards to change errata in order to make cards restricted, especially since the cards already do something they're not supposed to.
Yes. Phenax may not be a creature, but he's certainly a creature card, which is all that Aetherplasm cares about, so that all works. Since Aetherplasm's ability only triggers after it's already declared as a blocker, the other creature remains blocked until the end of the turn.
Quote from "Comprehensive Rules (relevant rules bolded)" »
506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it
phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it’s a planeswalker that’s being
attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it’s an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates
(see rule 701.12) or stops being a creature. A creature that’s removed from combat stops being an
attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that’s removed from
combat stops being attacked.
509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. To
declare blockers, the defending player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the
declaration of blockers, the defending player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below,
the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 717,
“Handling Illegal Actions”).
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a
blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked
creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that
it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature
remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
So, you declare Aetherplasm as a blocker. This doesn't use the stack, so nothing can happen before it. Aetherplasm becomes a blocker immediately. Afterward, its triggered ability goes on the stack. Now, you swap Aetherplasm with Phenax. One ad isn't actually blocking since he isn't a creature (thanks to psly4mne for pointing this out), but the creature is still blocked.
Semi-relevant: What happens to Phenax? Is he immediately removed from combat because he's not a creature? Does he ever enter combat? I'm confused.
So. Veteran Warleader. I'm pretty sure that this deck just got a lot better:
Veteran Warleader 1GW
Creature - Human Soldier Ally
Veteran Warleader's power and toughness are equal to the number of creatures you control.
Tap another untapped Ally you control: Veteran Warleader gains your choice of first strike, vigilance, or trample until end of turn.
*/*
This card alone makes this deck much more competitive, and I'm willing to bet that there's a whole lot more where that came from. Thoughts?
Any consideration for Quirion Dryad? It seems like there are a ton of spells being cast, and very few at green. At worst it's a good budget replacement for Tarmogoyf.
Please tell me which bans on the Modern banlist don't make sense. I can see Ancestral Vision and Sword of the Meek coming off, and maybeSeething Song if Wizards stops hating Storm (which they do have a legitimate reason for), but everything else is pretty much perfect right now.
If you don't get anything out of tournaments, then why the hell are you going to tournaments? If it's enjoyable for you, and you can justify taking time out of your schedule to enjoy them, then you shouldn't regret it. Similarly, if you win an SCG event or something and get invited to some other event, then you have to weigh the time taken out of your schedule against the enjoyment that you will get from that second event. If you can't justify taking the time, then don't go. You have to determine the opportunity cost of each course of action, and pick whichever one is the best based on that. It's not like you're being forced to go to tournaments or anything (hopefully).
Companies exist to make money. They may have other motives as well, but that's basically their job. They may have even started out with different intentions, but after being a company for a while, the need to make money becomes more and more pressing. (John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" illustrates this pretty well. Steinbeck argues that "every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it," which is pretty much true). Wizards exists as a gaming company, in part because their employees are used to it, but moreover because it's profitable. Wizards owns the largest card game in the world, so they will continue making profit using that. They are owned by Hasbro, who continues to make games because making games is what makes them money. If Hasbro makes a game, then it will sell well. Thus, Hasbro continues to make games. They would be less successful as an accounting firm because they don't have considerable influence over that market, whereas when making games, Hasbro has every advantage.
I can only really comment on 3, 7, and 8, because I only play Modern (other formats are too expensive) and I don't play MTGO (I've heard that the interface is crap).
On #3: This point is basically proof that you have never played Modern seriously. Your argument on the validity of the banlist is completely uneducated. Banning Bloodbraid might have been a mistake at the time, but unbanning it when Jund is ALREADY a Tier 1 deck is certainly a mistake. Deathrite would just break the format in half, as would Jace. Parts of the banlist are wrong, but in general, bans have kept the format healthy.
On #7: I think you've completely missed the point here. You should be playing in tournaments because you enjoy them, not because you can qualify for another tournament. If you don't want to play in events, then don't play in them. Your argument is basically "If I do well at local tournaments (which are a waste of time anyways), then I have to spend even MORE time playing Magic, which I don't want to do". The mistake here is that you're playing in an event which you won't enjoy in order to qualify for another event which you won't enjoy, etc. It's a game. If you don't enjoy it, then don't play.
On #8: "Wizards is trying to make more money". Yeah. I would think that this would be obvious, since it's kind of the reason that they exist.
In slightly more words: If "dumbing down the game", as you say, attracts more customers, how can you fault Wizards for doing it? Even then, I don't think that the game is being dumbed down, rather more accessible. Look at Harbinger of the Tides, for example. It's not necessarily complex, but it opens up giant decision trees. Cards might not be flashy or complicated, but as long as they force decisions, they're not being dumbed down.
Don't name Elvish Archdruid or Nettle Sentinel with Pithing Needle either. Archdruid has a static ability and a mana ability, so it's impervious to Needle. Sentinel has a triggered ability, so Needle is useless there too. The only reasonable target is Ezuri.
Yes. Once a creature becomes blocked, it remains blocked until the end of combat. A blocked creature deals no damage, whether or not the blocker is still there.
If one of the attacking creatures has trample, things change. The creature with trample needs to assign lethal damage before it can hit the player. Since there is no creature blocking it, lethal damage is 0, and it hits the player as if it weren't blocked.
EDIT: Comprehensive Rules:
Quote from "Comprehensive Rules" »
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a
blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked
creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that
it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature
remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
...
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are
currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns
no combat damage.
... 702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when
damage is assigned, all its damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.
I was trying to get more accurate data on the Bogles matchup because I'm thinking of making Merfolk my next Modern deck, and my local shop has far too many Bogles players (they're ~15% of the meta here). If I do end up playing Merfolk, I'll almost certainly run 3-4 Sea's Claim MB to help with that matchup (many thanks to Lil_Bolas, that card is awesome).
It seems like the Elves deck is good against decks without disruption. Among its worst matchups are Jeskai Control and Twin, which are decks full of disruption and interaction. Twin also has a T4 infinite combo, which tends to be pretty good against mono-green decks. The deck also isn't good against Affinity, likely because Affinity is just a faster deck, and Elves basically has to rely on Fracturing Gust or Creeping Corrosion out of the board. So we have two options.
Option one is to overload on interaction. Play a ton of Hibernations, Spell Pierces to beat Company, maybe Grafdigger's Cage, Dispel, Echoing Truth, and maybe some Sea's Claims to slow them down. Basically, play as much interaction as you can and hope that it's enough. I have no idea if this approach works (being confined to U in an aggro deck isn't great for interaction), but it's possible. (Note: Chalice of the Void might also be good against Elves, although maybe they're too fast).
Option two is to be faster. Play more 1-drops, board out master of Waves and maybe some Merrow Reejereys, and hope to outrace them. This strategy probably requires you to play as many potential lords as will fit in the deck. Again, I don't know if this is actually viable, but it seems like Merfolk might just be able to outrace Elves if you build for it.
Yeah 4 Sea's Claim certainly changes things. Bogles really has trouble if you can keep them off of double-white, which you have a decent chance of doing with essentially 8 MB LD spells. However, it's very difficult to do without Sea's Claim, and as far as I can tell, Sea's Claim is not a popular MB card (especially as a 4-of), so your success is better attributed to radical deckbuilding than matchup experience, and someone playing a more normal Merfolk deck won't be able to have the same success no matter how much experience they have in the matchup, because they are lacking those cards which become pivotal in this specific matchup.
(I am obliged to say that from a purely mathematical standpoint, you will still be hit by T3 Daybreak Coronet about 40% of the time on the draw, and about 49% of the time on the play, so you won't have as great a matchup as you claim without showing that you can actually beat T3 Coronet).
When I mention credibility, I do so because you are trying to convince others of your opinion. Gross hyperbole and lack of willingness to acknowledge facts are not effective ways to do this. You may have all the results in the world, but if you don't even consider anybody else's point of view, while simultaneously not revealing why you are able to achieve these results, then
This is why I use facts instead of opinions. You will not "crush it everytime", as you say. Player skill of course plays a big factor, and it's possible that player skill makes this a very favorable matchup for experienced pilots (which seems unlikely, but it's certainly possible). However, no amount of player skill can beat bad draws. No matter how good you are, there is variance, and people are very willing to cherrypick data, writing off losses to "bad luck", which is a fundamental part of the game. When you say that you "crush it everytime", your credibility is severely weakened.
Like I said, I'm no expert. I'm using the least biased sources I can, and interpretting from there. If you actually have an amazing Bogles matchup despite the facts, that's great. Incidentally, I'd like to know how you play this matchup, because you seem very confident in your ability to beat Bogles, even through their Coronet starts, which to me seems very difficult.
On the case of Disrupting Shoal: In Legacy, Force of Will isn't even good in very many matchups. It's played because when it's good, it's the best card in the deck. Disrupting Shoal can also be very good, but since you can't counter stuff like T1 Slippery Bogle without opening with Cursecatcher, so it hits a lot less of the important stuff.
I'm not really sure how you guys are convinced that your Bogles matchup is good. According to MTGO data, the matchup is about 70-30 in Bogles' favor. Merfolk has some nice sideboard tech, but G1 is practically unwinnable, and they also have some pretty good sideboard cards against Merfolk.
That same article mentions that we struggle against Living End (which is our best matchup in modern), so 70-30 is as made up number as they come. To do anything, Boggles need to draw a creature, right amount of mana (which can withstand Spreading Seas), go first and pick up lifelink Aura. Heroic in standard needs 16-17 creatures in the main to start Voltroning while Boggles have only 8 hexproof dudes (Spiritdancer will be Dismembered, Snaged or whatever). It is not possible to draw everything 70% of the time. I have 4 Spell Pierce and 3 Spellskite in the sideboard and have no intention to lose against noninteractive pile of **it. The moment I find those cards lacking I will have Chalices and Hibernation, but that was never needed.
I wonder what could Boggles have against Merfolk in the side and why would they even have it if they consider us a bye?
No, this data is directly from MTGO. It's not entirely accurate, but it's as accurate as you can reasonably get. You can claim all you want that Bogles is crap and Merfolk is better, but the numbers disagree, so your claim is false. If Living End is one of your best matchups in Modern, then why do the numbers disagree (8/18 wins is not exactly "best matchup" material, even though the sample size is pretty pathetic. Actually, I'd be interested to know how this is one of Merfolk's best matchups. I can see it being good, maybe even great, but it seems like there would still be better matchups).
Bogles has T3 Daybreak Coronet through Spreading Seas about 70.4% of games on the play, and about 73.6% on the draw (simple hypergeometric distribution bashing). Spellskite brings these probabilities down about 1% each (Path is a thing, and boarding in some amount of artifact hate is almost certainly right). These numbers don't account for Spell Pierce, but they also don't account for Unflinching Courage or Spirit Link, since I don't want to run the numbers for those. They do in fact have everything that you say they need about 70% of the time, although I think that there are more factors than that (Spell Pierce is one factor which I didn't include here, which probably brings the individual game percentage down quite a bit). I should also add that, assuming that all the things you mentioned are sufficient preboard, Bogles only needs a matchup of about 43/57 in your favor postboard to have a 70% MWP. (That was more than a bit cryptic, so I'll try to explain in a different way: If Bogles wins G1 every time that they can play a Daybreak on T3 through Spreading Seas, and loses every other game, then they win about 70% of the time in G1. Then, if their matchup isn't worse than about 43/57 (this is pretty exact) G2, then they have a 70% or better MWP).
Also, data is from here, and based on MTGO replays. Of course the data is not perfect, but it's a completely unbiased analysis of a lot of matchups, which is a lot more valuable than anecdotal evidence to me. Sorry that I left that out the first time, I meant to include it.
Anyways, interpret this however you like, as I'm definitely no expert on Merfolk. I'm just trying to provide the facts as accurately and fairly as I can find them.
This deck doesn't run out of gas as much. Burn tends to die to lifegain in any form. Their plan against lifegain is basically Skullcrack/Atarka's Command, meaning they are essentially playing Lightning Strikes in order to not die to hate. Hate against this deck also exists, but it's possible to play around, and easier to beat if it resolves.
It's also more fun to play. Burn often ends up being mindless and decisionless, with damage maximization being occasionally difficult, but largely unimportant. Maximizing damage in this deck is more important and often more rewarding.
There are some other things as well, but these are the two big ones.
I've never actually tried Xathrid Necromancer. It seems very workable to me, although it might require a slightly higher land count. The big turn-off to me is that it doesn't help against Anger of the Gods, which is where I really want an effect like that.
EDIT: Spirit Link and Spirit Loop are unfortunately different cards. Oops.
Reality Acid seems worse than ORing.
So, you declare Aetherplasm as a blocker. This doesn't use the stack, so nothing can happen before it. Aetherplasm becomes a blocker immediately. Afterward, its triggered ability goes on the stack. Now, you swap Aetherplasm with Phenax. One ad isn't actually blocking since he isn't a creature (thanks to psly4mne for pointing this out), but the creature is still blocked.
Semi-relevant: What happens to Phenax? Is he immediately removed from combat because he's not a creature? Does he ever enter combat? I'm confused.
Veteran Warleader 1GW
Creature - Human Soldier Ally
Veteran Warleader's power and toughness are equal to the number of creatures you control.
Tap another untapped Ally you control: Veteran Warleader gains your choice of first strike, vigilance, or trample until end of turn.
*/*
This card alone makes this deck much more competitive, and I'm willing to bet that there's a whole lot more where that came from. Thoughts?
If you don't get anything out of tournaments, then why the hell are you going to tournaments? If it's enjoyable for you, and you can justify taking time out of your schedule to enjoy them, then you shouldn't regret it. Similarly, if you win an SCG event or something and get invited to some other event, then you have to weigh the time taken out of your schedule against the enjoyment that you will get from that second event. If you can't justify taking the time, then don't go. You have to determine the opportunity cost of each course of action, and pick whichever one is the best based on that. It's not like you're being forced to go to tournaments or anything (hopefully).
Companies exist to make money. They may have other motives as well, but that's basically their job. They may have even started out with different intentions, but after being a company for a while, the need to make money becomes more and more pressing. (John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" illustrates this pretty well. Steinbeck argues that "every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it," which is pretty much true). Wizards exists as a gaming company, in part because their employees are used to it, but moreover because it's profitable. Wizards owns the largest card game in the world, so they will continue making profit using that. They are owned by Hasbro, who continues to make games because making games is what makes them money. If Hasbro makes a game, then it will sell well. Thus, Hasbro continues to make games. They would be less successful as an accounting firm because they don't have considerable influence over that market, whereas when making games, Hasbro has every advantage.
On #3: This point is basically proof that you have never played Modern seriously. Your argument on the validity of the banlist is completely uneducated. Banning Bloodbraid might have been a mistake at the time, but unbanning it when Jund is ALREADY a Tier 1 deck is certainly a mistake. Deathrite would just break the format in half, as would Jace. Parts of the banlist are wrong, but in general, bans have kept the format healthy.
On #7: I think you've completely missed the point here. You should be playing in tournaments because you enjoy them, not because you can qualify for another tournament. If you don't want to play in events, then don't play in them. Your argument is basically "If I do well at local tournaments (which are a waste of time anyways), then I have to spend even MORE time playing Magic, which I don't want to do". The mistake here is that you're playing in an event which you won't enjoy in order to qualify for another event which you won't enjoy, etc. It's a game. If you don't enjoy it, then don't play.
On #8: "Wizards is trying to make more money". Yeah. I would think that this would be obvious, since it's kind of the reason that they exist.
In slightly more words: If "dumbing down the game", as you say, attracts more customers, how can you fault Wizards for doing it? Even then, I don't think that the game is being dumbed down, rather more accessible. Look at Harbinger of the Tides, for example. It's not necessarily complex, but it opens up giant decision trees. Cards might not be flashy or complicated, but as long as they force decisions, they're not being dumbed down.
If one of the attacking creatures has trample, things change. The creature with trample needs to assign lethal damage before it can hit the player. Since there is no creature blocking it, lethal damage is 0, and it hits the player as if it weren't blocked.
EDIT: Comprehensive Rules:
It seems like the Elves deck is good against decks without disruption. Among its worst matchups are Jeskai Control and Twin, which are decks full of disruption and interaction. Twin also has a T4 infinite combo, which tends to be pretty good against mono-green decks. The deck also isn't good against Affinity, likely because Affinity is just a faster deck, and Elves basically has to rely on Fracturing Gust or Creeping Corrosion out of the board. So we have two options.
Option one is to overload on interaction. Play a ton of Hibernations, Spell Pierces to beat Company, maybe Grafdigger's Cage, Dispel, Echoing Truth, and maybe some Sea's Claims to slow them down. Basically, play as much interaction as you can and hope that it's enough. I have no idea if this approach works (being confined to U in an aggro deck isn't great for interaction), but it's possible. (Note: Chalice of the Void might also be good against Elves, although maybe they're too fast).
Option two is to be faster. Play more 1-drops, board out master of Waves and maybe some Merrow Reejereys, and hope to outrace them. This strategy probably requires you to play as many potential lords as will fit in the deck. Again, I don't know if this is actually viable, but it seems like Merfolk might just be able to outrace Elves if you build for it.
(I am obliged to say that from a purely mathematical standpoint, you will still be hit by T3 Daybreak Coronet about 40% of the time on the draw, and about 49% of the time on the play, so you won't have as great a matchup as you claim without showing that you can actually beat T3 Coronet).
When I mention credibility, I do so because you are trying to convince others of your opinion. Gross hyperbole and lack of willingness to acknowledge facts are not effective ways to do this. You may have all the results in the world, but if you don't even consider anybody else's point of view, while simultaneously not revealing why you are able to achieve these results, then
This is why I use facts instead of opinions. You will not "crush it everytime", as you say. Player skill of course plays a big factor, and it's possible that player skill makes this a very favorable matchup for experienced pilots (which seems unlikely, but it's certainly possible). However, no amount of player skill can beat bad draws. No matter how good you are, there is variance, and people are very willing to cherrypick data, writing off losses to "bad luck", which is a fundamental part of the game. When you say that you "crush it everytime", your credibility is severely weakened.
Like I said, I'm no expert. I'm using the least biased sources I can, and interpretting from there. If you actually have an amazing Bogles matchup despite the facts, that's great. Incidentally, I'd like to know how you play this matchup, because you seem very confident in your ability to beat Bogles, even through their Coronet starts, which to me seems very difficult.
On the case of Disrupting Shoal: In Legacy, Force of Will isn't even good in very many matchups. It's played because when it's good, it's the best card in the deck. Disrupting Shoal can also be very good, but since you can't counter stuff like T1 Slippery Bogle without opening with Cursecatcher, so it hits a lot less of the important stuff.
No, this data is directly from MTGO. It's not entirely accurate, but it's as accurate as you can reasonably get. You can claim all you want that Bogles is crap and Merfolk is better, but the numbers disagree, so your claim is false. If Living End is one of your best matchups in Modern, then why do the numbers disagree (8/18 wins is not exactly "best matchup" material, even though the sample size is pretty pathetic. Actually, I'd be interested to know how this is one of Merfolk's best matchups. I can see it being good, maybe even great, but it seems like there would still be better matchups).
Bogles has T3 Daybreak Coronet through Spreading Seas about 70.4% of games on the play, and about 73.6% on the draw (simple hypergeometric distribution bashing). Spellskite brings these probabilities down about 1% each (Path is a thing, and boarding in some amount of artifact hate is almost certainly right). These numbers don't account for Spell Pierce, but they also don't account for Unflinching Courage or Spirit Link, since I don't want to run the numbers for those. They do in fact have everything that you say they need about 70% of the time, although I think that there are more factors than that (Spell Pierce is one factor which I didn't include here, which probably brings the individual game percentage down quite a bit). I should also add that, assuming that all the things you mentioned are sufficient preboard, Bogles only needs a matchup of about 43/57 in your favor postboard to have a 70% MWP. (That was more than a bit cryptic, so I'll try to explain in a different way: If Bogles wins G1 every time that they can play a Daybreak on T3 through Spreading Seas, and loses every other game, then they win about 70% of the time in G1. Then, if their matchup isn't worse than about 43/57 (this is pretty exact) G2, then they have a 70% or better MWP).
They don't have sideboard answers specifically for Merfolk. They have Suppresion Field/Stony Silence to shut down Aether Vial and Spellskite (Suppression Field also shuts down Mutavault, so bonus). They have Nature's Claim, which also deals with the aforementioned cards, or Dismember/extra Path to Exile, to beat up on Lords and Spellskite.
Also, data is from here, and based on MTGO replays. Of course the data is not perfect, but it's a completely unbiased analysis of a lot of matchups, which is a lot more valuable than anecdotal evidence to me. Sorry that I left that out the first time, I meant to include it.
Anyways, interpret this however you like, as I'm definitely no expert on Merfolk. I'm just trying to provide the facts as accurately and fairly as I can find them.