I've played both sides of the matchup (RUG/RG scape and Grixis - but mostly RUG and Grixis). RUG crushes Grixis decks, but the opposite is true for RG. It's winnable, but its a bit hard from my experience. I definitely feel it's the midrange decks that suffer from RG scape rather than blue-based control.
To be fair, remanding your own spell _is_ a common line of play. And lots of decks do play Remand (e.g. Scapeshift, Storm, the now-banned Twin, some Delver decks).
I think the crux of the disagreement is that our only objective metrics of power is popularity and tournament placement due to time and skill constraints - not all of us play at the highest level nor have the time to extensively test every single deck. That's why some posters argue that Nahiri is by far the strongest card in SOI - its proven to be able to play at the top tables consistently.
If Traverse the Ulvenwald ends up being really good, time will probably tell. After all, stuff like Amulet, no-lords Goblins, and Chapin-styled Grixis control were a bit of slow burners and only really took off once people noticed it was doing very well in MTGO or tournaments. But its in the brewer's job to show proof that its actually usable (e.g. topping with RUG deck running Traverse) let alone the most powerful card in the set.
With blue decks probably being back, I'm probably going to go back to RUG. In my rudimentary testing it's felt better than BTL in a bluer meta.
I've also been testing Ancestral Visions. I can see the argument for it, but I think 4 would be way too much since it "conflicts" with itself and Search for tomorrow. Playing 2 actually hasn't been so bad - it basically guarantees that you get off a suspend card T1 which means that you'll get pretty nice payoff in the long run + you can pitch them to desolate lighthouse/izzet charm. I'm still not totally convinced its the right card to be playing in the 75 though.
I think Boce just happens to be one of the more conservative people wrt reprints. I can see how LGSes can be hurt by them - especially if some of the more radical suggestions I've seen get implemented. Other players, who have the cards (probably like Boce) may also get upset as well and lose faith in the game - and these players are likely LGSes' most frequent customers. As Maro said: reprinting is a balancing act between players who do have the cards and those who don't.
I do think that WotC can afford to reprint a bit more aggressively to keep prices a bit more stable. Modern has ballooned in the past year and some of the card prices (e.g. Inquisition of Kozilek, Goblin Guide) reflect that. That said, the caution that WotC is taking isn't unwarranted. In fact, with multiple reprint sets year, I'd argue they're just slowly upping the frequency until they find a nice spot.
The biggest upside, imo, is that players are feeling forced to use their removal on Thing. Sure; a block + bolt feels a lot worse on Thing than Wall of Omens, but so far people seemed much less inclined to ignore Thing. e.g.going wide with Goblins/Zoo/Affinity.
That said, people might better learn to play around it as time goes on. I do like this in Blue Moon.
At the same time, players play an important role in investing into the format. Exciting PTs are great for the format, but interested people might give it up as soon as they realize a) prices are expensive b) there's a risk to their $1000 deck going down the drain. People in this thread have given examples of friends unwilling to make investments into the format and continue to play Standard instead (which makes sense since people have touted Modern as a cheaper format due to lack of rotation). I know you've argued that people buying only one deck forever is a problem, but there should be a balance between Wizards making money and players seeing it as a worthwhile investment to get into. I think many users in this thread believe that we've gone too far in favoring Wizards instead of the players.
That said, I'm personally not sure where we are. Only Wizards has concrete numbers about how the format has grown/declined in the past month and a half.
I'm glad that you're able to voice your opinions, Bocephus. However, I'm not sure why the high level meta is something we should ignore. A significant number of players do play on MTGO or play in fairly competitive areas. It's not fair to dismiss their complaints since your experiences don't fit their narrative. While they may not be representative majority of players, neither might your LGSes be - but we/Wizards have better numbers for the former.
if I'm living to turn 6-8 against burn and they want to bolt my kiki jiki instead of trying to kill me, that is great news. kiki is a powerful magic card, it has that 20 dollar price for a reason. there are people out there using it for purposes that aren't edh and they certainly arent playing it in legacy/vintage. I think it is incorrect to evaluate cards based on the lowest impact they will have, it is all about the potential they can have. people play plenty of creatures that die to bolt and they always will because when they don't die they tend to get the job done as they were intended to.
I probably didn't illuminate my points well enough.
1) Living to turns 6-8 is much harder than 4-6.
2) Being Boltable is huge for a FIVE mana creature. Typically, that's a huge tempo swing against you. People who run boltable creatures tend to run the ones that are much lower on the mana curve so the tempo loss isn't as high or highly bolt resistant (Olivia, Pia and Kiran Nalaar).
3) As a corollary to 1 and 2: getting the additional 2-4 mana to protect your combo is also much harder.
4) For the burn toy example: remember that Searing Blaze/Pain and Grim Lavamancer are common cards. It's not just bolts flying at you.
Again, that's not to say its a bad card (I personally think its viable in UWR). But simply saying "slot in Kiki-Jiki's" might not be the correct statement.
I know they aren't, but you might think so if you read enough posts in this thread. the cmc is the only issue, the combo is a turn slower, I get that. the metagame is probably a bit too aggressive for t5 combos, but has anyone even tried? kiki chord seems to do fine and it is certainly not winning t5 most of the time. kiki being a creature is irrelevant as far as comboing is concerned I think. how did you stop the twin combo before? you kill deceiver/pestermite. sure, with kiki you get to choose which you want to kill but the principle is the same, as getting rid of deceiver/exarch still stops the combo. kiki dies to bolt, sure, but everyone is/should be playing dismembers and paths with all the eldrazi running around so that point is kind of moot.
It's actually typically not one turn slower. From experience, 4 mana is ~turn 4-6 while 5 mana is more like 6-8. Two turns is a long time. Also, if Eldrazi do face a ban (which you imply), dismember might get used less often. That two toughness plays a huge difference in matchups like burn; all of a sudden playing into just a grim lavamancer just isn't a valid play. So that point is moot if the trajectory towards an Eye/Temple ban continues. That said it might still be decent. But a lot of people don't consider a deck viable unless its Jund/Affinity/Burn level and I'm unsure if Kiki-Jiki would be anywhere close to that.
At the end of the day, I'm pretty comfortable with my assumption that WoTC is throwing darts in the dark, when it comes to managing Modern. They dont test, I am willing to bet they dont do even as much analysis of the stats as the Mods on this forum, and they think it takes 'pros' to break a format.
/shrug
They probably look at raw data from event results and then try to piece together what they believe is the picture, rather than diving deep into understanding WHY the metagame ecosystem is the way it is. They clearly do not test for the format, many of their commentators barely know common card interactions, and their assessment that Twin was somehow keeping URx decks back is laughable at best. It's a difference of approach. Rather than be knee deep in the format, with lots of experimentation, it's analyzing tournament numbers and making a judgement call. It's hands-on experience vs theory-crafting. Sometimes, what one may think is the best thing for a situation on paper may be a horrible idea in practice. And it's been shown that non-Wizards players seem to have a better and deeper understanding of the format ecosystem than Wizards themselves could dream of.
To be fair, a lot of unban talk on Ancestral Visions or JTMS boiled down to: "oh but it would make twin absurd it needs to stay banned." We don't know if WotC will take that direction, but it could be on the table now (and boost UR decks) with that argument out of the way.
It's convenient for you to neglect to quote the comment about why people aren't playing that locally (investing lots of money in a deck that will be banned for minimal store credit prize support) and the pile of garbage currently on MTGO. Eldrazi is 50% of the meta and completely unavoidable in Daily events, Leagues, and 8 man queues. Not to mention nearly impossible to beat if they draw remotely well.
I am sorry you play in a crappy area. Locally we have seen an uptick in players. I dont play MTGO so it effects me zero.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to say this? Just because you, personally, have had a local uptick in players doesn't necessarily mean its that way in general. You can't just claim that willy-nilly claim that a majority are perfectly happy and content with anecdotal data and then dismiss other people's anecdotal data as just a crappy area. This isn't just a one-of case - you tend to dismiss or deflect people's arguments with a holier-than-thou attitude. Its not rude, but talking down on people, covering your ears, and pretending you're always right doesn't incite good discussion.
I don't think that saying those people not being representative is fair. Banning Splinter Twin hurt a lot of people's trust in Wizards managing the format - combining this lack of trust with players simply no longer wanting to play due to the metagame does affect those who were representative of the overall population. Two to three months is a very long time - long enough for certain weekly passions to die out.
In a similar vein, a lower turn out does have an effect on the players willing to wait out the storm. If our turnout decreases substantially, it becomes a much less attractive format to play in and LGSes might just pull the plug. This is especially the case for some FNMs that were just starting to get off the ground in modern. I do think that "Eldrazi Winter" will have ramifications on modern even after April and will take some time to recover (which hopefully it does).
There has been some UWR Kiki combo decks out there and they do decently (pre-Eldrazi craze that is). There are certain things that you should think about if you want to pursue this:
1) Five mana and four mana is actually a pretty large difference. It's not just "a turn" slower - you have to actually have drawn 5 lands over the course of the game. In context, if you have ~23/24 lands in your deck, the probability that you hit your fourth land drop is ~60% on T4 and ~70% on T5. To hit your fifth land drop, its ~45% on T5. That's pretty significant. This doesn't account for the fact that in some matches you used to really want to hit 6-7 mana to have counterspell back up which becomes 7-8 mana to protect your combo.
2) A three-card combo is much harder to assemble than a 2-card combo. Not only do you have to draw into all of the pieces, but it does make the combo much more vulnerable. By that I don't mean boltable (though it is), I I mean that hand disruption is better against you than before.
Also, your combo becomes more boltable is still a pretty huge problem - even if Dismember is super popular right now, being weak to just dismember > being weak to both bolt and dismember. Just playing spellskite and hoping they don't have answers isn't always a solution in practice.
3) Twin players typically wanted the control/tempo-combo dynamic that twin offered. SSG and Prism Pentad (though I guess you could argue for SSG) are not really tempo or card advantage cards. And since you're slotting in combo-cards, you're probably taking away some of the interactive cards like spell snares, cryptics, or electrolyze. If you opt to move towards the all-in variant (e.g. with Pact of Negation), you have to ask yourself: how is my all-in twin better/different than other all-in combos of the format? e.g. Grishoalbrand or Ad Nauseum? Or even a scapeshift variant? Is the trade off worth it? I can't answer these questions for you - but its something to consider. For most people its no.
Personally speaking, I think it can work. Its definitely worse, but might be T2-T3. I do think that your list might be stretching too far in different places, but I don't consider myself an expert.
Best of luck to you.
I think the crux of the disagreement is that our only objective metrics of power is popularity and tournament placement due to time and skill constraints - not all of us play at the highest level nor have the time to extensively test every single deck. That's why some posters argue that Nahiri is by far the strongest card in SOI - its proven to be able to play at the top tables consistently.
If Traverse the Ulvenwald ends up being really good, time will probably tell. After all, stuff like Amulet, no-lords Goblins, and Chapin-styled Grixis control were a bit of slow burners and only really took off once people noticed it was doing very well in MTGO or tournaments. But its in the brewer's job to show proof that its actually usable (e.g. topping with RUG deck running Traverse) let alone the most powerful card in the set.
I've also been testing Ancestral Visions. I can see the argument for it, but I think 4 would be way too much since it "conflicts" with itself and Search for tomorrow. Playing 2 actually hasn't been so bad - it basically guarantees that you get off a suspend card T1 which means that you'll get pretty nice payoff in the long run + you can pitch them to desolate lighthouse/izzet charm. I'm still not totally convinced its the right card to be playing in the 75 though.
I hope I'm wrong.
I do think that WotC can afford to reprint a bit more aggressively to keep prices a bit more stable. Modern has ballooned in the past year and some of the card prices (e.g. Inquisition of Kozilek, Goblin Guide) reflect that. That said, the caution that WotC is taking isn't unwarranted. In fact, with multiple reprint sets year, I'd argue they're just slowly upping the frequency until they find a nice spot.
That said, people might better learn to play around it as time goes on. I do like this in Blue Moon.
That said, I'm personally not sure where we are. Only Wizards has concrete numbers about how the format has grown/declined in the past month and a half.
I probably didn't illuminate my points well enough.
1) Living to turns 6-8 is much harder than 4-6.
2) Being Boltable is huge for a FIVE mana creature. Typically, that's a huge tempo swing against you. People who run boltable creatures tend to run the ones that are much lower on the mana curve so the tempo loss isn't as high or highly bolt resistant (Olivia, Pia and Kiran Nalaar).
3) As a corollary to 1 and 2: getting the additional 2-4 mana to protect your combo is also much harder.
4) For the burn toy example: remember that Searing Blaze/Pain and Grim Lavamancer are common cards. It's not just bolts flying at you.
Again, that's not to say its a bad card (I personally think its viable in UWR). But simply saying "slot in Kiki-Jiki's" might not be the correct statement.
It's actually typically not one turn slower. From experience, 4 mana is ~turn 4-6 while 5 mana is more like 6-8. Two turns is a long time. Also, if Eldrazi do face a ban (which you imply), dismember might get used less often. That two toughness plays a huge difference in matchups like burn; all of a sudden playing into just a grim lavamancer just isn't a valid play. So that point is moot if the trajectory towards an Eye/Temple ban continues. That said it might still be decent. But a lot of people don't consider a deck viable unless its Jund/Affinity/Burn level and I'm unsure if Kiki-Jiki would be anywhere close to that.
To be fair, a lot of unban talk on Ancestral Visions or JTMS boiled down to: "oh but it would make twin absurd it needs to stay banned." We don't know if WotC will take that direction, but it could be on the table now (and boost UR decks) with that argument out of the way.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to say this? Just because you, personally, have had a local uptick in players doesn't necessarily mean its that way in general. You can't just claim that willy-nilly claim that a majority are perfectly happy and content with anecdotal data and then dismiss other people's anecdotal data as just a crappy area. This isn't just a one-of case - you tend to dismiss or deflect people's arguments with a holier-than-thou attitude. Its not rude, but talking down on people, covering your ears, and pretending you're always right doesn't incite good discussion.
In a similar vein, a lower turn out does have an effect on the players willing to wait out the storm. If our turnout decreases substantially, it becomes a much less attractive format to play in and LGSes might just pull the plug. This is especially the case for some FNMs that were just starting to get off the ground in modern. I do think that "Eldrazi Winter" will have ramifications on modern even after April and will take some time to recover (which hopefully it does).
EDIT: Eldrazi decks cost $600-$800 (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern#paper). This is more expensive than UR delver back in the day at $500-$600 (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/tournament/2014-world-championship-modern#online).
1) Five mana and four mana is actually a pretty large difference. It's not just "a turn" slower - you have to actually have drawn 5 lands over the course of the game. In context, if you have ~23/24 lands in your deck, the probability that you hit your fourth land drop is ~60% on T4 and ~70% on T5. To hit your fifth land drop, its ~45% on T5. That's pretty significant. This doesn't account for the fact that in some matches you used to really want to hit 6-7 mana to have counterspell back up which becomes 7-8 mana to protect your combo.
2) A three-card combo is much harder to assemble than a 2-card combo. Not only do you have to draw into all of the pieces, but it does make the combo much more vulnerable. By that I don't mean boltable (though it is), I I mean that hand disruption is better against you than before.
Also, your combo becomes more boltable is still a pretty huge problem - even if Dismember is super popular right now, being weak to just dismember > being weak to both bolt and dismember. Just playing spellskite and hoping they don't have answers isn't always a solution in practice.
3) Twin players typically wanted the control/tempo-combo dynamic that twin offered. SSG and Prism Pentad (though I guess you could argue for SSG) are not really tempo or card advantage cards. And since you're slotting in combo-cards, you're probably taking away some of the interactive cards like spell snares, cryptics, or electrolyze. If you opt to move towards the all-in variant (e.g. with Pact of Negation), you have to ask yourself: how is my all-in twin better/different than other all-in combos of the format? e.g. Grishoalbrand or Ad Nauseum? Or even a scapeshift variant? Is the trade off worth it? I can't answer these questions for you - but its something to consider. For most people its no.
Personally speaking, I think it can work. Its definitely worse, but might be T2-T3. I do think that your list might be stretching too far in different places, but I don't consider myself an expert.
Best of luck to you.