honestly I think you would beat your buddies with any deck you play (no offense to your playtest mates).
If you see mistakes being made, you should point them out in our chat or in a YouTube comment after the fact. We often stop and pause both sides of matches and rewind / change lines. There is also a strong bias from observers because you can see the contents of both player's hands - see this with events that get cast a lot as well - player XYZ is "bad" because they didn't play around a card that is "obviously" in their opponent's hand.
As far as Rallier goes - I agree it might make Evolution worth trying again. Going to try two different lists on stream tonight that I posted here.
However, jamming a more than likely uncastable Kiki-Jiki in the board with the statement "Just, you know, be a professional and do not draw the Kiki-Jiki" doesn't necessarily come off as quality content or deck building advice.
Except it is good deck building advice. You are simply choosing a different way to lose games. The conjecture is essentially:
You lose more games to having a bunch of red lands in your deck that don't cast many of your spells, than you will lose to drawing one copy of Kiki you can't cast when you need to board it in.
I'm not just making stuff up and throwing untested lists together while telling people to get lucky. Magic is a game of variance by design and I am simply picking a different thing to lose to than the traditional lists.
t exactly a very constructive contribution either. You think it's a very reasonable list, he thinks your logic isn't very sound. Why the butthurt?
'
Except for the part where you clipped my post removing the part that is constructive immediately following your first sentence taken out of context.
EDIT: At any rate - not getting into it about the semantics about forums. Just wanted to provide context for someone that asked about a deck I was working on outside of the "he has bad logic" that had been offered.
People on forums like this crack me up. Writing things like this contribute nothing to the discussion and just serve to make the author feel smarter than the person they are putting down. It is fine to explain why someone / something is wrong - but actually explain why. Just saying "this is wrong" isn't helpful or constructive.
I put a lot of work into that Chord list for the PC and I think it is very reasonable. I talked a bit about it here including talking about why the life combo isn't great, but why I ended up playing it anyways. I went 1-2 at the PC in the modern portion, but anyone who has has played enough events will be able to tell you that a three match sample is far from relevant for determining if a deck is reasonable or not.
People constantly understand the cost of having multiple cards that are a fourth color in this deck. It gets less free with every card you add. I think Baloth is much better than Rhino not only against Liliana decks, but because that fourth point of life is very important against Burn as well.
You are generally the control deck against Abzan Company. Bring in all your removal and your cuts seem fine. I don't mind sorcerer because it interacts with their combo. While you don't care about them gaining infinite life, you DO care about them scrying whenever they want.
Having played a lot of different builds of this deck I can say with a good bit of certainty that builds that play Nahiri are the most forgiving in terms of play mistakes. Having an "opps I won" button wipes away a lot of mistakes.
Evolution leads to a lot of sequencing choices and leaves both sides a lot of room to mess up. I honestly can't see myself going back to playing many or any chords any time soon. Evolution really feels like that extra push the deck needed to compete with the extra fast decks post board.
The deck performs fine without it and the theory still remains about the same in not wanting it.
I am sure it is a passable card. There are literally dozens of choices that are passable and will probably let you keep winning games at every part of the curve in these colors. This does not make them optimal. Even if I did have time to record videos with a card that isn't ideal, being results based after seeing it in a 5~ match video set is NOT good deck building.
People should play what they want - can't wait for someone to play a finks against me in the mirror.
If you see mistakes being made, you should point them out in our chat or in a YouTube comment after the fact. We often stop and pause both sides of matches and rewind / change lines. There is also a strong bias from observers because you can see the contents of both player's hands - see this with events that get cast a lot as well - player XYZ is "bad" because they didn't play around a card that is "obviously" in their opponent's hand.
As far as Rallier goes - I agree it might make Evolution worth trying again. Going to try two different lists on stream tonight that I posted here.
Except it is good deck building advice. You are simply choosing a different way to lose games. The conjecture is essentially:
You lose more games to having a bunch of red lands in your deck that don't cast many of your spells, than you will lose to drawing one copy of Kiki you can't cast when you need to board it in.
I'm not just making stuff up and throwing untested lists together while telling people to get lucky. Magic is a game of variance by design and I am simply picking a different thing to lose to than the traditional lists.
The list I linked has both Kiki and Chord of Calling in it...
'
Except for the part where you clipped my post removing the part that is constructive immediately following your first sentence taken out of context.
EDIT: At any rate - not getting into it about the semantics about forums. Just wanted to provide context for someone that asked about a deck I was working on outside of the "he has bad logic" that had been offered.
People on forums like this crack me up. Writing things like this contribute nothing to the discussion and just serve to make the author feel smarter than the person they are putting down. It is fine to explain why someone / something is wrong - but actually explain why. Just saying "this is wrong" isn't helpful or constructive.
I put a lot of work into that Chord list for the PC and I think it is very reasonable. I talked a bit about it here including talking about why the life combo isn't great, but why I ended up playing it anyways. I went 1-2 at the PC in the modern portion, but anyone who has has played enough events will be able to tell you that a three match sample is far from relevant for determining if a deck is reasonable or not.
Not to mention just being easier to cast.
Evolution leads to a lot of sequencing choices and leaves both sides a lot of room to mess up. I honestly can't see myself going back to playing many or any chords any time soon. Evolution really feels like that extra push the deck needed to compete with the extra fast decks post board.
I am sure it is a passable card. There are literally dozens of choices that are passable and will probably let you keep winning games at every part of the curve in these colors. This does not make them optimal. Even if I did have time to record videos with a card that isn't ideal, being results based after seeing it in a 5~ match video set is NOT good deck building.
People should play what they want - can't wait for someone to play a finks against me in the mirror.