TL;DR- If CoCo lists end up running multiple copies of Renegade Rallier, IMO I think Eldritch Evolution is worth testing out. Probably in a more combo-centric build with more sac fodder like Aristocrats, but nonetheless, Evolution into Rallier returning something is strong. I haven't seen any discussion on EE at all yet, so mainly I just wanted to stir up some discussion on the card, given that Rallier is now being considered.
I don't play CoCo currently, but an Abzan Aristocrats deck that runs a fairly similar package to the CoCo lists here, but with Return to the Ranks / Blood Artist win con instead of a combo/CoCo. I'm posting here because this is where the discussion of Rallier is going on. I'll post my current Aristocrats list below.
As soon as Renegade Rallier was spoiled I immediately knew it was going into my Aristocrats deck. Like most of you are reporting, I've found it has extremely strong interactions with Voice of Resurgence, and specifically in my Aristocrats deck, Satyr Wayfinder as well. I also decided to run the Saffi Eriksdotter combo- All the rest of the pieces were already in my deck (Viscera Seer, Blood Artist, and now Rallier) so there really wasn't much opportunity cost to run a 1x Saffi to enable a combo when I had ways to both tutor for her and return her from the yard.
But as I've thought about a more all-in combo list, I've also noticed that Eldritch Evolution is extremely good with Rallier. It auto triggers revolt, so anytime you tutor for Rallier you can return something. Now, I'm not suggesting that the core CoCo list as is + Rallier should now just run Evolution. But I'm thinking, maybe a combo-heavy approach might be great now that Rallier is around. My Aristocrats shell already provides many cheap sac outlets/fodder because that's how the deck was designed- to abuse sac outlets with Blood Artist draining. In fact, in my deck, Eldritch Evolution isn't far off from Chord of Calling, and in some instances is even better. Having Chord 5-8 makes an all-in combo shell much more consistent.
The main gist of my post isn't really to support or recommend some more combo centric version of these shells. I haven't playtested the new cards enough to really make those kinds of statements yet. My post is more to see what peoples' opinions are of Eldritch Evolution now that Rallier is being discussed, because the interaction is quite good. I'm 100% sold on Rallier in my current Aristocrats deck, and I'm also feeling pretty confident that stock CoCo lists are gonna start running Rallier- even without the Saffi combo- simply because of how much value Rallier provides. Anyways, I'm glad that there's a lot of hype around these kinds of decks right now, and hopefully CoCo lists make a return to higher tiers!
Here is my current deck (not all-in combo)
Note: I don't have Fatal Push yet, still on the way :(, but a bunch would in the board.
I really don't think the removal is bad in Bant colors - no one really questions the removal in UW - you're just literally splashing green into what others consider a good deck. Everyone is totally cool with UW control but as soon as people splash green someone goes 'Oh no Bant isn't good.'. It sounds to me like Bant's actual problem is one of public relations.
Actually there is a problem with UW: there aren't many viable options to kill a turn 1 mana dork. Pathing it is useless, Dismember costs 4 life, Sunlance and Oust can't hit it T1 on the play, and Condemn doesn't work because mana dorks aren't meant to attack. Twisted Image and Gut Shot kill them, but they miss out on a lot of other targets so they're SB cards at best. That's why adding red to a UW deck helps, because you now have Bolt to deal with dorks. Adding green doesn't have the same effect.
I agree with Izzetmage. UW does have removal issues for low CMC cards. Tamiyo is awesome, but no one is running Bant outside of Bant Eldrazi. IMO, Tamiyo will see play at some point, when the right deck/archetype takes form for her. Her power level is clearly there. All three abilities are very solid.
I kinda felt like the deck needed an alternate win con after watching some videos. Bitterblossom seemed like a good fit that could also work with Bridge when sided in. The polymorph combo might be too cute, but I figured it was worth trying as only a 3 card package. I like that it is an alternate win con that isn't susceptible to artifact removal that gets sided in against the thopter combo. I think the plan would be to side out the polys/blightsteel against decks running Path to Exile or other cards that hit blightsteel. To up the "creature count" for poly I thought Lingering Souls would be a good add, as it is another great card to pitch to Lili/Thirst. I tweaked the mana base slightly to add in the white splash.
Not really advocating the list, just figured I'd throw it out there. When I do get a chance to play it I'll update!
@theMarc- I agree with your general points. But to be honest, you came off as overly harsh.
Anyways, I'd like to provide a slight bit of credibility to the very last part of Kijas' analysis. Wizards wrote an article entitled "The Heron in the Moon" back in November 2011 that referenced the same picture he posted. It outlined the "heron shape" in pictures to more clearly demonstrate it. Here is the link:
What this means exactly, I'm not sure. But the flavor text from Mad Prophet seems a lot less "random" knowing Wizards wrote this article, then a few months later in Avacyn Restored printed Mad Prophet.
Wow, logic fail. That is precisely the conclusion she wanted you to draw. Damn, she is pretty good at her job. Multiple expansions does not necessarily imply anything. The last leak BY ITSELF spanned over multiple expansions- it contained spoilers from Oath, SOI, and the duel-deck.
I have to ask, is English your first language?
Because "not a one-time affair" and "multiple expansion" does not in any way match up with
any online community with at least one participant who posts a leak at least once
Reading it the way you have is reading hostility because you want to - not because that's what was said.
Further, there were two sets of leaks, the one with Kozilek, and the massive one. So wait. Hmm. If that group had both sets of those leaks. It wasn't a one time affair, and it was across multiple expansions. Zomg must mean its some "consistent thing thats been going on for awhile."
Look, I can't help you if you want to read a secret motive into anything that's said. No one can. But that's not what's being said, and Helene wasn't the only one to say it.
Like I posted way earlier, that "response" to Helene was from James Bennett. Those were not my own words. I didn't make that clear this time around, but I did in my post on page 6, and that is where I copied it from. But I still agree with his sentiments, because here is the bottom line- There were two sets of leaks- and they spanned across multiple expansions. Those facts were twisted to imply the conclusions you and others drew earlier, about how this has been some "continuous" thing. It wasn't, it was two separate incidents that occurred in a short time frame. If you want to conclude that the "not one time affair," "across multiple expansions" is "continuous" when it really was just "two incidents" then be my guest. But like I said, that is misleading. You say my reading is hostile, and I say yours is based on twisted characterizations. Clearly our disagreement is based upon a lack of transparent communication from Wizards, which hopefully will be cleared up when Helene appears on MTGFocus tonight.
I'm not going to debate this further because this is starting to get inflammatory, and off topic. Our original disagreement was about whether or not people should be suspended merely for not reporting, and that is what the discussion here should be focused around. I made my piece on that earlier, and you disagreed on that sentiment. We might have a "moral" obligation to report the IP leak, but to me, that shouldn't warrant suspension. And regardless of the size of the burden, I don't think I should be forced to check sites to see if something someone sent me is legit upon fear of suspension. Maybe you do it because of the fake leaks, but that doesn't mean everyone does. If they are fake, I'll find out later. I don't feel the need to, nor should be required to, immediately research their veracity.
Stop being ridiculous. Nowhere is it stated or implied that you, or me, or anyone is going to be banned for seeing a spoiler and not reporting it. At most, what is being stated, is that if you are a member of a private webpage or group of some kind that is involved in spoiling cards for YEARS against wizards wishes, they might ban you for not reporting this fact.
No one in this thread is in that boat.
Please point to where this requirement of "spoiling cards for years" is.
Because that's what caused the bans. It wasn't a one off event, like people are saying it is.
It's a consistent thing that has been going on for a while.
And please point to that. Because nothing in Helene's language actually states that. You are making an assumption based on carefully crafted language.
And the response to that statement: "And now a longer statement is up which, despite purporting to do so, still fails to address this core concern. Notice how the language of it carefully makes a true statement (someone did leak as-yet-non-public spoilers), but uses it to mislead and imply some sort of conspiracy of repeat leakers when, in truth, any online community with at least one participant who posts a leak at least once could be described in the same language. The fact that Helene is, as with the authors of previous statements, unwilling to make direct accusations against the other members of the group is also suspicious, especially given that the previous statement openly admitted suspensions were given to people who did not participate in leaks of confidential information: Helene is most likely refraining from such accusations because she cannot legally make such accusations, knows she cannot, and is hoping clever wording will lead readers to infer the accusation for her."
Really?
"The issue with the passive participants is not a one-time affair; this information was shared within the group for multiple expansions."
Shared within the group for multiple expansions can be used to describe a community where a single participant leaks something once? Do you know the definition of "multiple"?
And her statement isn't the only one. There were some other posts that I'm too lazy to find on reddit talking about how it's been going on for a while - and those existed long before Helene's statement.
Wow, logic fail. That is precisely the conclusion she wanted you to draw. Damn, she is pretty good at her job. Multiple expansions does not necessarily imply anything. The last leak BY ITSELF spanned over multiple expansions- it contained spoilers from Oath, SOI, and the duel-deck.
Further, there were two sets of leaks, the one with Kozilek, and the massive one. So wait. Hmm. If that group had both sets of those leaks. It wasn't a one time affair, and it was across multiple expansions. Zomg must mean its some "consistent thing thats been going on for awhile."
They are coercing you to search the internet for them and spend time reporting anything you think could be a leak by threatening suspensions to anyone caught NOT doing this.
And I don't care if you think 3 months is nothing; it matters to competitive players like myself that want to play in an event that might only be in the area during those 3 months out of the year. ANY amount of time is unjust.
Stop being ridiculous. Nowhere is it stated or implied that you, or me, or anyone is going to be banned for seeing a spoiler and not reporting it. At most, what is being stated, is that if you are a member of a private webpage or group of some kind that is involved in spoiling cards for YEARS against wizards wishes, they might ban you for not reporting this fact.
No one in this thread is in that boat.
Please point to where this requirement of "spoiling cards for years" is.
Because that's what caused the bans. It wasn't a one off event, like people are saying it is.
It's a consistent thing that has been going on for a while.
And please point to that. Because nothing in Helene's language actually states that. You are making an assumption based on carefully crafted language.
And the response to that statement: "And now a longer statement is up which, despite purporting to do so, still fails to address this core concern. Notice how the language of it carefully makes a true statement (someone did leak as-yet-non-public spoilers), but uses it to mislead and imply some sort of conspiracy of repeat leakers when, in truth, any online community with at least one participant who posts a leak at least once could be described in the same language. The fact that Helene is, as with the authors of previous statements, unwilling to make direct accusations against the other members of the group is also suspicious, especially given that the previous statement openly admitted suspensions were given to people who did not participate in leaks of confidential information: Helene is most likely refraining from such accusations because she cannot legally make such accusations, knows she cannot, and is hoping clever wording will lead readers to infer the accusation for her."
They are coercing you to search the internet for them and spend time reporting anything you think could be a leak by threatening suspensions to anyone caught NOT doing this.
And I don't care if you think 3 months is nothing; it matters to competitive players like myself that want to play in an event that might only be in the area during those 3 months out of the year. ANY amount of time is unjust.
Stop being ridiculous. Nowhere is it stated or implied that you, or me, or anyone is going to be banned for seeing a spoiler and not reporting it. At most, what is being stated, is that if you are a member of a private webpage or group of some kind that is involved in spoiling cards for YEARS against wizards wishes, they might ban you for not reporting this fact.
No one in this thread is in that boat.
Please point to where this requirement of "spoiling cards for years" is.
These people that broke these rules, they are not normal people they are the leaders and pillars of the community that broke the trust of the company they volunteer for, no matter the situation breaking that trust they no longer want you around *don't let the door hit you* that's what those 2-3year ban mean.
Dude come on, please read the thread more carefully. No one thinks that those that directly leaked the cards (the ones that got the 2 and 3 year suspensions respectively) were unjustly treated. It is the 3 month suspensions for not reporting the leaks that we are debating.
Yes.
Just like any "leak" I'm responsible for what I do with the information. I'm held to that standard at work, I don't feel overburdened by it for this, or my other hobbies.
Of course as an employee your employer wants you held to some kind of "loyalty" standard. That really isn't comparable to the hobbies situations.
Who said you did anything with the information? Your friend texts you a picture of a card you haven't seen. You could do literally nothing with it other than read it with your eyes. If it was leaked, you can now be suspended. There's no implication you did anything with it. Being subject to a ban merely for using your eyeballs to read something seems Draconian unless you knew with certainty that such information was obtained illegitimately. It might sound like this isn't such a big deal on a small scale. But when you have to do this every single time you see a card posted on some non-major public forum, its an absolute nightmare.
(And frankly, the case outlined by Helene Bergerot is as clear as it can be. If you have to ask yourself if your group is private or not, if you're receiving info ahead of everyone else at large, then you're not the target of the policy. From what we've been told, the group was clearly private and the info was clearly ahead of times and unique. Don't be disingenuous.)
Sounds like you have fallen victim to her painstakingly phrased comment.... It is only clear if you make the assumptions she leads you towards. James Bennett, the guy who runs http://apps.magicjudges.org/ spoke on this exact point: (click the link, it goes directly to his full protest article)
"And now a longer statement is up which, despite purporting to do so, still fails to address this core concern. Notice how the language of it carefully makes a true statement (someone did leak as-yet-non-public spoilers), but uses it to mislead and imply some sort of conspiracy of repeat leakers when, in truth, any online community with at least one participant who posts a leak at least once could be described in the same language. The fact that Helene is, as with the authors of previous statements, unwilling to make direct accusations against the other members of the group is also suspicious, especially given that the previous statement openly admitted suspensions were given to people who did not participate in leaks of confidential information: Helene is most likely refraining from such accusations because she cannot legally make such accusations, knows she cannot, and is hoping clever wording will lead readers to infer the accusation for her."
I completely agree with James. If you go back and reread Helene's statement, you can notice how vague the language is. To be fair, she is supposed to be on an MTGFocus podcast later today, so I'd like to reserve my judgment until I hear if she has anything else to say other than what she wrote in the article.
I'm just not sure some of you are understanding the implications here. Example- your friend texts you a picture of a card you haven't seen yet. You now must go check and see if its out there (and report it to Wizards if not) or you could be suspended. Does that really seem acceptable?
I’ve been following this for awhile now, on twitter, reddit, here, etc. Here is my opinion:
1. The long suspensions given to two judges for directly disseminating proprietary information were completely justified;
2. The 3 month suspensions given to many judges that Wizards believes did not disseminate proprietary information were unjustified.
3. The lack of transparency on this matter is highly irritating and unfair to the community, especially to the judges.
#1 is pretty clear, no need to really discuss it.
#3 is also pretty clear. Wizards hasn’t exactly been a paragon of transparency.
#2 is the main problem. The statement from the Judge Manager to the judges explained- “Individuals believed to not be directly distributing proprietary and confidential information were given shorter suspensions as opposed to longer suspensions provided to individuals who we found were directly engaged in distributing materials to third parties.”
We cannot infer with certainty that these judges did not directly disseminate proprietary information, but Wizards overtly stated it believed these individuals did not do so. Therefore, Wizards’ reason for suspending them must have been something else. Initially, this reason was not transparently communicated.
Later, Helene Bergeot, Director of Global Organized Play at Wizards, updated Wizards’ initial statement to help clarify. Here are the relevant portions regarding the suspensions from her post.
“One of the concerns in the community about these suspensions is that many people see and discuss cards and other information prior to official release. Discussing information that has reached the wider community is not the issue, and discussing or accessing threads you see on public internet forums will not result in sanctions. That is not what occurred here.
The people suspended were members of a private group receiving stolen confidential information about upcoming sets before this information was available in any public forum on the internet. This happened over multiple sets and well ahead of preview season for the sets in question. Viewing never-before-seen Magic cards in a private group — and not seeing these cards anywhere else on the internet — should be a red flag that the information you see is likely stolen. If you come across information like this, you should immediately report it to Wizards. Major leaks in the past have been prevented by other members of our community reporting similar situations to Wizards.”
Thus, these judges were banned for not reporting the leaks they were privy to in their private forum.
I’m not here to argue whether Wizards can ban people for this- Wizards can ban people if it feels like it. That does not mean it should.
The issue I have with allowing the lack of reporting a leak in a private forum to warrant suspension is that this may have extremely problematic implications. Wizards is placing an affirmative burden on all players to report leaks, or face suspension. Yes, all players- Helene tweeted out that “judge status” had no bearing on the suspensions whatsoever. So this applies to all of us.
So, anytime we see a card, we must ask ourselves:
1. Is this a private forum?
We haven’t been given a clear definition on this. Does “private” mean merely that there is restricted access? Would a restricted access forum consisting of 300,000 members qualify as “private”, or is there some quantity limitation to the “wider community?”
2. Is this proprietary information, i.e. “never-before-seen” and not seen “anywhere else on the internet?”
So, we must scour the internet in order to determine that this information has not already found its way to the “wider community.” What if the information was posted on reddit and then redacted. Does this still qualify?
Now in practice, the whole private forum thing is a nonissue. If you see a spoiler on say, MTGS, reddit, twitter, etc., you are clearly dealing with the “wider community.” And if not, it would be wise to assume the opposite conclusion- that your forum is private.
So, anytime we see a spoiler in one of these “private forums” we now have an obligation to go check the internet to see if the information is already out there. And if it is not, then we must report to Wizards or possibly face a suspension. Even without complete knowledge that the information was indeed illegitimately obtained.
Have you ever seen an email with a privacy disclaimer at the bottom? Those ones commonly found at the bottom of emails from attorneys or higher-level corporate employees- here is an example of the typical language:
Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorized and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender.
The difference is that upon receiving such an email you immediately know with certainty that there is confidential information. In our case, we have the added responsibility of making sure that such information is indeed confidential/privileged first. Every single time.
The reasoning for this added burden? “Viewing never-before-seen Magic cards in a private group — and not seeing these cards anywhere else on the internet — should be a red flag that the information you see is likely stolen.” - From Helene's article on the mothership.
I’m sorry, but the assumption underlying the reasoning above isn’t persuasive enough to justify requiring me take time out of my schedule every time I see a spoiler in a private forum. If I am certain I have obtained proprietary information through an illegitimate means, then sure. Anything less than certainty seems too high a burden on the community.
@Berk4823 - A large part of me not wanting to test Avaricious Dragon is honestly because I do not run four drop cards anywhere in my deck. The only card that I have that requires four mana is also a mana source itself (Rix Maadi, Dungeon Palace). I am also opposed to testing it with Ensnaring Bridge because I feel that a lot of players right now are looking at the card the wrong way. Having cards that require one piece of a two-card semi-combo are usually not good enough to be top tier, however, Avaricious Dragon might simply be good enough on its own for this deck. Having a 4/4 Flying creature that doubles up as a one-sided Howling Mine when both players are in topdeck mode could be very powerful for the deck, and wouldn't need Ensnaring Bridge to be this effective. It would simply need the right situation. I agree that it warrants testing, but I do not agree that it warrants testing with Ensnaring Bridge, which is a card that I hope we can move away from as an archetype now that it is easily answered by the majority of (if not all) decks.
All fair points. I can tell you see the power in the card, and I have no qualms with you wanting to avoid 4 drops. I also have no issues with the deck moving away from Ensnaring Bridge. I just thought it was better placed raising the dragon here than in the mono-black thread. I'm not sure I wholly agree on Bridge being answered by a majority of decks, but it certainly isn't in a wonderful place either. (did you see the Lantern Control deck in GP Charlotte top 16 that ran 4x Bridge? What a whack deck lol!) A lot of sideboards are shifting away from artifact hate, but there is also more mainboard hate a la Kolaghan's Command. Regardless, I do agree with you in that I don't love Bridge in the meta nor in your most recent list for this deck. I just wanted to get discussion rolling on Avaricious Dragon, and I am glad to see cogent arguments made against it and not just "zomg respond to the discard my hand trigger blowout," and in a civil manner. I still plan to try it, and I'll update on it if people are interested!
Calling it "Delver Blitzkrieg" is a little bit misleading. I'm thinking we just go with Angler Blitzkrieg, or something like that. Also, a quick note, there's a good chance that I'm going to have to drop the fish if graveyard hate picks up and go back up to four Nyxathid.
As for Avaricious Dragon, I don't want to quell any thoughts of positive thinking, but...even with Ensnaring Bridge, it's just a 4/4 that is never attacking, because we have Ensnaring Bridge in play. It's a huge non-bo, in a way that will not actually advance your position in the game. It's actually not awful without Ensnaring Bridge, but then you can't hold up removal pieces. I think that card is very good and has a home somewhere, but I honestly don't think it's here.
As for Affinity, you're right in your assessment, but statistically speaking, they won't nut draw in a way that negatively affects our deck very frequently. A lot of that matchup comes down to getting rid of Cranial Plating.
I like that you removed the Ensnaring Bridge piece. Leave that to the Monoblack Eight Rack boys, that's always been more for them anyway.
Lastly, that banner is amazing. I'm a huge fan.
I appreciate the analysis guys, and thanks for being civil lol, not something this deck's past has really had (original thread). I am surprised people think Avaricious Dragon is so bad. I mean, Grafted Skullcap + Ensnaring Bridge used to be a thing. It makes me think skullcap on a stick can be too. And a good stick at that. I don't agree with this notion of "non-bo" as you still get an extra card per turn. If they can't kill bridge you card advantage them out hard. If they do, you have the beater. But I definitely can see the issue with not being able to hold up removal. This card reminds me of how people evaluated Ensoul Artifact. People imagined how horrifying the worst case scenario was and wrote it off. ZOMG 2 for 1 this card sucks. Wrong lol. Yea if the dragon gets killed in response to the discard trigger and you lose your hand that does suck. But that isn't the average case. I still think the dragon warrants testing. I haven't played the red-splash much so I'm not going to pretend I know the deck super well and how it operates, but I do want to put out there that the power level on this card is high. Many a people initially thought Kolaghan's Command was hot garbage. Check the original 8-Rack thread, you'll see many a misevaluation. Don't write the dragon off because it says "discard your hand." All I am asking is that we give it a fair chance before it is tossed aside completely. Anyways, I'm going to come up with a list, I'll post it at some point soon. But I certainly wouldn't run the card without the Ensnaring Bridge, and this deck seems to have gone away from bridge like smashpacman said, so maybe I shouldn't have posted this here. I posted here because I thought it more appropriate than in the mono-black thread. Regardless, I'll test and keep you guys informed, even if most of y'all run 0 bridges!
I don't play CoCo currently, but an Abzan Aristocrats deck that runs a fairly similar package to the CoCo lists here, but with Return to the Ranks / Blood Artist win con instead of a combo/CoCo. I'm posting here because this is where the discussion of Rallier is going on. I'll post my current Aristocrats list below.
As soon as Renegade Rallier was spoiled I immediately knew it was going into my Aristocrats deck. Like most of you are reporting, I've found it has extremely strong interactions with Voice of Resurgence, and specifically in my Aristocrats deck, Satyr Wayfinder as well. I also decided to run the Saffi Eriksdotter combo- All the rest of the pieces were already in my deck (Viscera Seer, Blood Artist, and now Rallier) so there really wasn't much opportunity cost to run a 1x Saffi to enable a combo when I had ways to both tutor for her and return her from the yard.
But as I've thought about a more all-in combo list, I've also noticed that Eldritch Evolution is extremely good with Rallier. It auto triggers revolt, so anytime you tutor for Rallier you can return something. Now, I'm not suggesting that the core CoCo list as is + Rallier should now just run Evolution. But I'm thinking, maybe a combo-heavy approach might be great now that Rallier is around. My Aristocrats shell already provides many cheap sac outlets/fodder because that's how the deck was designed- to abuse sac outlets with Blood Artist draining. In fact, in my deck, Eldritch Evolution isn't far off from Chord of Calling, and in some instances is even better. Having Chord 5-8 makes an all-in combo shell much more consistent.
The main gist of my post isn't really to support or recommend some more combo centric version of these shells. I haven't playtested the new cards enough to really make those kinds of statements yet. My post is more to see what peoples' opinions are of Eldritch Evolution now that Rallier is being discussed, because the interaction is quite good. I'm 100% sold on Rallier in my current Aristocrats deck, and I'm also feeling pretty confident that stock CoCo lists are gonna start running Rallier- even without the Saffi combo- simply because of how much value Rallier provides. Anyways, I'm glad that there's a lot of hype around these kinds of decks right now, and hopefully CoCo lists make a return to higher tiers!
Here is my current deck (not all-in combo)
Note: I don't have Fatal Push yet, still on the way :(, but a bunch would in the board.
1 Forest
2 Godless Shrine
4 Marsh Flats
2 Overgrown Tomb
4 Razorverge Thicket
1 Swamp
1 Temple Garden
4 Windswept Heath
4 Blood Artist
1 Eternal Witness
2 Renegade Rallier
1 Saffi Eriksdotter
4 Satyr Wayfinder
4 Tukatongue Thallid
4 Voice of Resurgence
4 Viscera Seer
2 Zulaport Cutthroat
2 Eldritch Evolution
2 Nissa, Voice of Zendikar
4 Return to the Ranks
I agree with Izzetmage. UW does have removal issues for low CMC cards. Tamiyo is awesome, but no one is running Bant outside of Bant Eldrazi. IMO, Tamiyo will see play at some point, when the right deck/archetype takes form for her. Her power level is clearly there. All three abilities are very solid.
Jace, The Mind Sculptor
Stoneforge Mystic
Brainstorm
Natural Order
Krosan Grip
Will NOT be reprinted
Scalding Tarn
Baleful Strix
Infernal Tutor
Thoughtseize
True-Name Nemesis
4 Talisman of Progress
4 Thopter Foundry
3 Sword of the Meek
1 Blightsteel Colossus
PLANESWALKERS
3 Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas
3 Liliana of the Veil
ENCHANTMENTS
3 Bitterblossom
SPELLS
4 Thirst for Knowledge
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Lingering Souls
3 Thoughtseize
2 Polymorph
4 Polluted Delta
4 Darksteel Citadel
3 Darkslick Shores
2 Swamp
2 Watery Grave
2 Hallowed Fountain
1 Flooded Strand
1 Plains
1 Island
1 Academy Ruins
1 Tolaria West
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
4 Path to Exile
3 Ensnaring Bridge
2 Stony Silence
2 Spellskite
2 Pithing Needle
1 Batterskull
1 Slaughter Pact
I kinda felt like the deck needed an alternate win con after watching some videos. Bitterblossom seemed like a good fit that could also work with Bridge when sided in. The polymorph combo might be too cute, but I figured it was worth trying as only a 3 card package. I like that it is an alternate win con that isn't susceptible to artifact removal that gets sided in against the thopter combo. I think the plan would be to side out the polys/blightsteel against decks running Path to Exile or other cards that hit blightsteel. To up the "creature count" for poly I thought Lingering Souls would be a good add, as it is another great card to pitch to Lili/Thirst. I tweaked the mana base slightly to add in the white splash.
Not really advocating the list, just figured I'd throw it out there. When I do get a chance to play it I'll update!
Anyways, I'd like to provide a slight bit of credibility to the very last part of Kijas' analysis. Wizards wrote an article entitled "The Heron in the Moon" back in November 2011 that referenced the same picture he posted. It outlined the "heron shape" in pictures to more clearly demonstrate it. Here is the link:
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/heron-moon-2011-11-17
What this means exactly, I'm not sure. But the flavor text from Mad Prophet seems a lot less "random" knowing Wizards wrote this article, then a few months later in Avacyn Restored printed Mad Prophet.
Like I posted way earlier, that "response" to Helene was from James Bennett. Those were not my own words. I didn't make that clear this time around, but I did in my post on page 6, and that is where I copied it from. But I still agree with his sentiments, because here is the bottom line- There were two sets of leaks- and they spanned across multiple expansions. Those facts were twisted to imply the conclusions you and others drew earlier, about how this has been some "continuous" thing. It wasn't, it was two separate incidents that occurred in a short time frame. If you want to conclude that the "not one time affair," "across multiple expansions" is "continuous" when it really was just "two incidents" then be my guest. But like I said, that is misleading. You say my reading is hostile, and I say yours is based on twisted characterizations. Clearly our disagreement is based upon a lack of transparent communication from Wizards, which hopefully will be cleared up when Helene appears on MTGFocus tonight.
I'm not going to debate this further because this is starting to get inflammatory, and off topic. Our original disagreement was about whether or not people should be suspended merely for not reporting, and that is what the discussion here should be focused around. I made my piece on that earlier, and you disagreed on that sentiment. We might have a "moral" obligation to report the IP leak, but to me, that shouldn't warrant suspension. And regardless of the size of the burden, I don't think I should be forced to check sites to see if something someone sent me is legit upon fear of suspension. Maybe you do it because of the fake leaks, but that doesn't mean everyone does. If they are fake, I'll find out later. I don't feel the need to, nor should be required to, immediately research their veracity.
Wow, logic fail. That is precisely the conclusion she wanted you to draw. Damn, she is pretty good at her job. Multiple expansions does not necessarily imply anything. The last leak BY ITSELF spanned over multiple expansions- it contained spoilers from Oath, SOI, and the duel-deck.
Further, there were two sets of leaks, the one with Kozilek, and the massive one. So wait. Hmm. If that group had both sets of those leaks. It wasn't a one time affair, and it was across multiple expansions. Zomg must mean its some "consistent thing thats been going on for awhile."
And please point to that. Because nothing in Helene's language actually states that. You are making an assumption based on carefully crafted language.
For reference, I posted this earlier, and it contains the link to Helene's statement: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/statement-concerning-recent-suspensions-2015-12-21
And the response to that statement: "And now a longer statement is up which, despite purporting to do so, still fails to address this core concern. Notice how the language of it carefully makes a true statement (someone did leak as-yet-non-public spoilers), but uses it to mislead and imply some sort of conspiracy of repeat leakers when, in truth, any online community with at least one participant who posts a leak at least once could be described in the same language. The fact that Helene is, as with the authors of previous statements, unwilling to make direct accusations against the other members of the group is also suspicious, especially given that the previous statement openly admitted suspensions were given to people who did not participate in leaks of confidential information: Helene is most likely refraining from such accusations because she cannot legally make such accusations, knows she cannot, and is hoping clever wording will lead readers to infer the accusation for her."
Please point to where this requirement of "spoiling cards for years" is.
Dude come on, please read the thread more carefully. No one thinks that those that directly leaked the cards (the ones that got the 2 and 3 year suspensions respectively) were unjustly treated. It is the 3 month suspensions for not reporting the leaks that we are debating.
Of course as an employee your employer wants you held to some kind of "loyalty" standard. That really isn't comparable to the hobbies situations.
Who said you did anything with the information? Your friend texts you a picture of a card you haven't seen. You could do literally nothing with it other than read it with your eyes. If it was leaked, you can now be suspended. There's no implication you did anything with it. Being subject to a ban merely for using your eyeballs to read something seems Draconian unless you knew with certainty that such information was obtained illegitimately. It might sound like this isn't such a big deal on a small scale. But when you have to do this every single time you see a card posted on some non-major public forum, its an absolute nightmare.
Sounds like you have fallen victim to her painstakingly phrased comment.... It is only clear if you make the assumptions she leads you towards. James Bennett, the guy who runs http://apps.magicjudges.org/ spoke on this exact point: (click the link, it goes directly to his full protest article)
"And now a longer statement is up which, despite purporting to do so, still fails to address this core concern. Notice how the language of it carefully makes a true statement (someone did leak as-yet-non-public spoilers), but uses it to mislead and imply some sort of conspiracy of repeat leakers when, in truth, any online community with at least one participant who posts a leak at least once could be described in the same language. The fact that Helene is, as with the authors of previous statements, unwilling to make direct accusations against the other members of the group is also suspicious, especially given that the previous statement openly admitted suspensions were given to people who did not participate in leaks of confidential information: Helene is most likely refraining from such accusations because she cannot legally make such accusations, knows she cannot, and is hoping clever wording will lead readers to infer the accusation for her."
I completely agree with James. If you go back and reread Helene's statement, you can notice how vague the language is. To be fair, she is supposed to be on an MTGFocus podcast later today, so I'd like to reserve my judgment until I hear if she has anything else to say other than what she wrote in the article.
I'm just not sure some of you are understanding the implications here. Example- your friend texts you a picture of a card you haven't seen yet. You now must go check and see if its out there (and report it to Wizards if not) or you could be suspended. Does that really seem acceptable?
1. The long suspensions given to two judges for directly disseminating proprietary information were completely justified;
2. The 3 month suspensions given to many judges that Wizards believes did not disseminate proprietary information were unjustified.
3. The lack of transparency on this matter is highly irritating and unfair to the community, especially to the judges.
#1 is pretty clear, no need to really discuss it.
#3 is also pretty clear. Wizards hasn’t exactly been a paragon of transparency.
#2 is the main problem. The statement from the Judge Manager to the judges explained- “Individuals believed to not be directly distributing proprietary and confidential information were given shorter suspensions as opposed to longer suspensions provided to individuals who we found were directly engaged in distributing materials to third parties.”
We cannot infer with certainty that these judges did not directly disseminate proprietary information, but Wizards overtly stated it believed these individuals did not do so. Therefore, Wizards’ reason for suspending them must have been something else. Initially, this reason was not transparently communicated.
Later, Helene Bergeot, Director of Global Organized Play at Wizards, updated Wizards’ initial statement to help clarify. Here are the relevant portions regarding the suspensions from her post.
“One of the concerns in the community about these suspensions is that many people see and discuss cards and other information prior to official release. Discussing information that has reached the wider community is not the issue, and discussing or accessing threads you see on public internet forums will not result in sanctions. That is not what occurred here.
The people suspended were members of a private group receiving stolen confidential information about upcoming sets before this information was available in any public forum on the internet. This happened over multiple sets and well ahead of preview season for the sets in question. Viewing never-before-seen Magic cards in a private group — and not seeing these cards anywhere else on the internet — should be a red flag that the information you see is likely stolen. If you come across information like this, you should immediately report it to Wizards. Major leaks in the past have been prevented by other members of our community reporting similar situations to Wizards.”
Thus, these judges were banned for not reporting the leaks they were privy to in their private forum.
I’m not here to argue whether Wizards can ban people for this- Wizards can ban people if it feels like it. That does not mean it should.
The issue I have with allowing the lack of reporting a leak in a private forum to warrant suspension is that this may have extremely problematic implications. Wizards is placing an affirmative burden on all players to report leaks, or face suspension. Yes, all players- Helene tweeted out that “judge status” had no bearing on the suspensions whatsoever. So this applies to all of us.
So, anytime we see a card, we must ask ourselves:
1. Is this a private forum?
We haven’t been given a clear definition on this. Does “private” mean merely that there is restricted access? Would a restricted access forum consisting of 300,000 members qualify as “private”, or is there some quantity limitation to the “wider community?”
2. Is this proprietary information, i.e. “never-before-seen” and not seen “anywhere else on the internet?”
So, we must scour the internet in order to determine that this information has not already found its way to the “wider community.” What if the information was posted on reddit and then redacted. Does this still qualify?
Now in practice, the whole private forum thing is a nonissue. If you see a spoiler on say, MTGS, reddit, twitter, etc., you are clearly dealing with the “wider community.” And if not, it would be wise to assume the opposite conclusion- that your forum is private.
So, anytime we see a spoiler in one of these “private forums” we now have an obligation to go check the internet to see if the information is already out there. And if it is not, then we must report to Wizards or possibly face a suspension. Even without complete knowledge that the information was indeed illegitimately obtained.
Have you ever seen an email with a privacy disclaimer at the bottom? Those ones commonly found at the bottom of emails from attorneys or higher-level corporate employees- here is an example of the typical language:
Information in this transmission is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorized and you should delete/destroy all copies and notify the sender.
The difference is that upon receiving such an email you immediately know with certainty that there is confidential information. In our case, we have the added responsibility of making sure that such information is indeed confidential/privileged first. Every single time.
The reasoning for this added burden? “Viewing never-before-seen Magic cards in a private group — and not seeing these cards anywhere else on the internet — should be a red flag that the information you see is likely stolen.” - From Helene's article on the mothership.
I’m sorry, but the assumption underlying the reasoning above isn’t persuasive enough to justify requiring me take time out of my schedule every time I see a spoiler in a private forum. If I am certain I have obtained proprietary information through an illegitimate means, then sure. Anything less than certainty seems too high a burden on the community.
Relevant links:
Statement from the Judge Manager to the suspended judges: https://twitter.com/ahalavais/status/679201528096296961
Helene’s update on the mothership: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/statement-concerning-recent-suspensions-2015-12-21
Helene’s tweet that judge status was irrelevant to the suspensions: https://twitter.com/HeleneBergeot/status/679648429723631616?lang=en
All fair points. I can tell you see the power in the card, and I have no qualms with you wanting to avoid 4 drops. I also have no issues with the deck moving away from Ensnaring Bridge. I just thought it was better placed raising the dragon here than in the mono-black thread. I'm not sure I wholly agree on Bridge being answered by a majority of decks, but it certainly isn't in a wonderful place either. (did you see the Lantern Control deck in GP Charlotte top 16 that ran 4x Bridge? What a whack deck lol!) A lot of sideboards are shifting away from artifact hate, but there is also more mainboard hate a la Kolaghan's Command. Regardless, I do agree with you in that I don't love Bridge in the meta nor in your most recent list for this deck. I just wanted to get discussion rolling on Avaricious Dragon, and I am glad to see cogent arguments made against it and not just "zomg respond to the discard my hand trigger blowout," and in a civil manner. I still plan to try it, and I'll update on it if people are interested!
I appreciate the analysis guys, and thanks for being civil lol, not something this deck's past has really had (original thread). I am surprised people think Avaricious Dragon is so bad. I mean, Grafted Skullcap + Ensnaring Bridge used to be a thing. It makes me think skullcap on a stick can be too. And a good stick at that. I don't agree with this notion of "non-bo" as you still get an extra card per turn. If they can't kill bridge you card advantage them out hard. If they do, you have the beater. But I definitely can see the issue with not being able to hold up removal. This card reminds me of how people evaluated Ensoul Artifact. People imagined how horrifying the worst case scenario was and wrote it off. ZOMG 2 for 1 this card sucks. Wrong lol. Yea if the dragon gets killed in response to the discard trigger and you lose your hand that does suck. But that isn't the average case. I still think the dragon warrants testing. I haven't played the red-splash much so I'm not going to pretend I know the deck super well and how it operates, but I do want to put out there that the power level on this card is high. Many a people initially thought Kolaghan's Command was hot garbage. Check the original 8-Rack thread, you'll see many a misevaluation. Don't write the dragon off because it says "discard your hand." All I am asking is that we give it a fair chance before it is tossed aside completely. Anyways, I'm going to come up with a list, I'll post it at some point soon. But I certainly wouldn't run the card without the Ensnaring Bridge, and this deck seems to have gone away from bridge like smashpacman said, so maybe I shouldn't have posted this here. I posted here because I thought it more appropriate than in the mono-black thread. Regardless, I'll test and keep you guys informed, even if most of y'all run 0 bridges!