Quote from Fiddlyr »
You need to read the article more carefully. What they said was, relatively few pro players chose to play Eldrazi at the pro tour, which is a reasonable indication they didn't identify the deck beforehand as too strong or they would have played it.
Quote from djphan25 »remand was really good in the twin shell but it's sort of not so great in other builds... gaining tempo is only so great if you can capitalize on it and the card you get is only good if that's getting you closer to a win... in other words.. remand is only as good as the cards around it...
in post twin control builds... the getting to the win part is so much worse that you're better off trading with something like mana leak...
Quote from bill_zagoudis »
by being bad against burn/affinity/infect/merfolk/elves mostly, it always was, except it was such a great fit into Twin it didn't matter
Quote from bill_zagoudis »AV is not a 'symmetric' nor a consistent card, it can range anywhere from autowin to dead
against other midrange and control whoever resolves AV first wins,plain and simple, that's what the control mirrors are from now,there will be tension as people will want to play more remands but they will be bad against the rest of the field, we might even see funny one offs in the sb like Counterflux
it's decent against the slower aggro that are prone to interaction, like Merfolks/elves for instance and could even be ok vs affinity, on the play at least, personally i'd keep it on the play and side it out on the draw
it obviously sucks against burn,infect,boggles, all linear combo, while it's unimpressive against Tron
it's also good vs control/combo hybrids like scapeshift
there is a good chance that AV will cause a linear 'backlash' as adapting your BGx to beat AV decks is not really a wise choice and people will drop such decks in favor of decks that don't really care about AV... affinity is the best meta call by far atm, but everyone knows it and is prepared for it, could be a chance for burn to steal the show? who knows...
if AV leads people to playing stuff like burn to avoid dealing with the CA, the unban is a fail, if the meta is just as we were with more control it's a success we'll see, i'm leaning towards success
sotm is the wild card, it can be anything from just another T2 (or less) deck to an ensnaring T1 nightmare, it's probably safe, but the risk wasn't worth it imo, if this card makes Ensnaring Bridge find a T1 home, this unban will be an utter fail, with fun as the first casualty
ps: Stony Silence price spike inc
Quote from Aegraen »
[Bolded for Emphasis] This tautology is one of the most idiotic lines of argument when it concerns cards on the B&R list + potential bans. If this was a serious line of argument we could pretty much ban a whole host of cards for placing "constraints" on decks. Snapcaster puts an instant/sorcery constraint on a deck. If you want to play the best creature in the format (Tarmogoyf) you have a green mana constraint. If you want to play Abbot of Keral Keep you're going to put a low CMC constraint on the deck. The same with Dark Confidant. If you want to play with Countermagic you're going to place an instant speed constraint on the deck to minimize counterspells weakness (timing). I mean I could go on and on with cards that "place constraints" on deck construction. It's a really stupid argument imho.
As for AV incentivizing blue decks to do...blue things...woah, so broken! The fact that AV only goes into U based control decks is a bonus to the card - it means that it's a relatively safe unban. U based control decks have been historically weak in the format, and only lately with a 50% meta-game that is weak to Supreme Verdict + Planeswalkers like Elspeth has made it competitively playable. When this 50% deck gets banned (Eldrazi) we're going back to a world where U based control is pretty *****ty. The reason why it is so weak comes down to 1) It lacks general answers 2) All of its good CA engines and deck manipulation spells are banned. Unbanning AV at least fixes #2. After WoTC addresses one of these (AV seems the safest to come off) then we can see how much of a boost it gave. If U based control decks are still *****, then hopefully WoTC can continue to address that issue.
Modern has been a joke of a format for a while with control decks historically making up <10% of the meta. That has to change for the betterment of the format. When a pillar of what makes Magic, Magic is limited to such low numbers it's not a surprise that the format has been broken/crap for a while now. Magic needs rock/paper/scissors to have a healthy meta-game. When one leg of the trifecta is <10% you get Modern. Let's change that.
Quote from Lord Seth »Burn didn't really benefit that much from Treasure Cruise. The problem Treasure Cruise had in Burn is that instead of being a burn spell, it's a card that could hopefully get you more burn spells. So while you have the potential to end up with more Burn spells, you're adding an extra layer into the thing and opening yourself up to more disruption. Remand is laughable against a regular Burn spell, but it's a killer against Treasure Cruise. I saw quite a few games where if a Burn player's Treasure Cruise had been any burn spell, they would have won, but because it wasn't, they lost.
I mean, not even all of the Burn decks were playing it. It was like Bump in the Night; it's great to have another 1-mana three-damage spell, but you have to ask yourself if going into that color is worth it. Some people thought it was, some people thought it wasn't, and there wasn't really a right answer. So while Burn could play it, it didn't really benefit much from it. Monastery Swiftspear was a significantly bigger boost to Burn than Treasure Cruise ever was.
The real issue with Treasure Cruise was Delver. That deck benefitted from the card way more than Burn ever did. For Burn, Treasure Cruise is just a roll of the dice that hopefully will cause you to have an extra Burn spell. In Delver, you'd get benefits just from the card being in your deck or being cast, i.e. flipping your Delver or getting a token from Young Pyromancer, plus it was more adept at chaining them together.
Quote from magicxaves »It's not extra because you would replace land. Siding into it seem to make our deck clunkier, but there are plenty of things to swap out in that match up. I was more skeptical at first, but I had good results with 3 in my sideboard. I haven't lost to Tron yet if they didn't have Tron, but I understand that is just me. It was far better for me than Fulminator was. Also, finding Stomping Ground is not that difficult when you look through your deck for it. You are right about GQ that has happened, but I still won that game by having more time to combo with redcap bc they had played and used a GQ.
Quote from magicxaves »I had success crumble aside from nut draws. Didn't need any extra land to play it, just a stomping ground. I never really got Fulminator to work for me with my play style. I'm still doubting Eye of Ugin get's banned. Those were bad hands though, though the list of good hands is kinda short against them anyway.
Quote from TheBullwark »Yeah, I guess the banning will really do a number there although Im envisiong that there is a decent replacement out there, maybe summoners pact or something? I like the idea of lili since she can dodge creature removal by transforming and can do some good hand control work