I did another league with a modified deck list (cut the stony silences sb for a runed halo and a gideon ally of zendikar.
This time I went 3-2. Don't want to chuck it up to just luck, but I did loose vs historically one of our better matchups especially with quellers: merfolk.
I lost vs merfolk and lantern control (understandable since I cut stony... oops) . Beat burn, boggles, and tron.
My current build is really good vs both burn and tron. Boggles was more of a toss up, but I was able to win game 2 off the back of counter magic (to keep him from casting totem armor) and engineered explosives. Game 2 he kept a no totem armor hand and I had a turn 3 anger.
EDIT: the mefolk match-up was particularly infuriating. Game 3 we get into top decking situations. He draws master of waves... master of waves... reevery. And I already killed a master earlier with supreme verdict
It looks like I may have come full circle back to my original Jeskai Flash brew.
I still love spell queller. By far my favorite card in modern. I have a weird strategy where I never cut it.... even vs decks with tons of removal. It's just too much of a fantastic tempo swing.
Did a competitve league tonight and went 4-1 loosing only to Eldrazi Tron.
Beat Dredge, BR hallow one, four color living end, and 8 rack.
How did you manage to beat dregde? I always felt Relic of Progenitus is not enough in that matchup and that I need Rest in Peace to really have a chance.
Spell Queller helps alot by being able to exile his enablers instead of countering (such as loom or other flash-back/dredge cards) while also providing a modest clock. I will say this though: it was a harrowing matchup without rest in peace. I got lucky via drawing multiple paths and snapcasters both games I won. I think spell queller helps... but not that much.
The games I won he never hit more than 5 GY based creatures and my removal was able to deal with it.
It looks like I may have come full circle back to my original Jeskai Flash brew.
I still love spell queller. By far my favorite card in modern. I have a weird strategy where I never cut it.... even vs decks with tons of removal. It's just too much of a fantastic tempo swing.
Did a competitve league tonight and went 4-1 loosing only to Eldrazi Tron.
Beat Dredge, BR hallow one, four color living end, and 8 rack.
I honestly think GSZ is fine for the format. At 4 mana I would almost always rather cast a coco to get more value unless I'm digging for a sideboard card. The thing is the format doesn't have many "silver bullets" but it has speed bumps. Kataki isn't an auto scoop for affinity, dredge has tons of removal for all sorts of GY interaction (ravenous trap on the stack, rip is an enchantment, relic is an artifact, yixid jailer is a creature - dredge can beat ALL of them post board), tron can still cast spells even with a bloodmoon out. Boggles doesn't scoop to lili. Yeah sometimes you lose the game before you loosen the lock piece holding down your plan, but they aren't auto hardlocks unless you choose to ignore sideboards all together.
So what if GSZ ramps you. There are a handful of decks that would even care about that anyway. As a creature tutor it's powerful, but it's only green creatures.
As for pod, while I agree it does get progressively better, I tend to feel like people overevaluate strategy hosing cards. It does get better with every creature printed, but doesn't Jace get better as more control cards get printed? Why is this an argument for pod being banned but not for unbanning Jace? The issue with Jace is if a handful of cards like search for azcanta pop up, Jace CAN be very difficult to play against and he CAN be oppressive. He isn't now, I agree, but I don't think it'll be that way forever. If a control deck is able to create a scenario that is similar to the vaccum example, Jace is better then almost any other 4 drop in the format.
Because Jace doesn't necessarily get better with every new control card... I can't believe someone just made that argument.
Jace can be difficulty to play against and can be oppressive... if the Jace player is already ahead. Jace does nothing when you are behind. Absolutly nothing. Better control cards doesn't change that fact.
POD on the other hand can help when you are behind by finding the exact creature you need to stabilize. The more creatures that are added to the format... the stronger that becomes truth.
Ah yes, I'm sure people would have played UR Pyromancer or Kiki Combo in blue if only those cards had been printed when Twin was still legal...
Those decks are still not good... and see barley any play.
So I gues you are right... sub-par decks see more play because there are less other better options? Not sure that's a positive...
Also - kiki only started seeing more play with Jace/search. Hence my comment the diversity had very little to do with Twin ban.
As a massive Twin fan, I'm surprised anyone who plays Blue Control-Combo or Control period, cannot see just how 'next level' Twin is.
In nearly every game I lose, I can easily see where Twin would have had a better shot at winning. Nearly every game. Now, does UWR Control (not Queller) win? Yes it does. Would Twin win more? Yes it would. Its not even an argument.
People only accepted it, because it was around for so long, because you know what is almost exactly like Twin that tilts people to no end? Turns.
EoT 4 - Dictate
Turn 5 - Combo
Turn 5 + X = You die from a Waterfall punching you in the face 3 times, bonus points if its an Infect 7/7 Flying Waterfall.
And people hate it.
There is no world in which Twin comes off, unless Wizards wants to kill the format off. This isnt Jace where some people proclaimed that it would 'end the format, he's too good, and omg he's too expensive'. This is Twin, a deck we know all too well, and can easily draw a line between what people are doing now (UR Breach for example, or the more post-board Control version's of Blue decks) to what we used to be able to do.
Nobody who plays blue is being honest with themselves if they think Twin would be 'fine' for the format. Not saying busted, but 'fine' in terms of the displayed goals, preferences, and play patterns which Wizards have promoted.
EDIT: In fact I remember some Pod players making the same kind of statements I have made about Twin.
"I never felt out of the game, I always had a chance." Thats the hallmark of a deck that is probably too good.
Honestly, twin was never too good. People hate turns because you can't react to it and it's subject to high RNG (a turn 3 dictate could be game over... but it could also do nothing).
Twin never needed to be be banned. The "reasoning" behind the twin ban was faulty at best. They never attained what they hoped to achieve by banning it except for effectively killing control (at the time).
Now I don't think twin will ever be unbanned... at least not for another year or two.
If wizard can continue to print cards that push control decks, twin is unnecessary.
On the same day Wizards releases the competitive league 5-0 list showing 15 distinct Jace the Mind Sculptor decks, saying wizards hasn't achieved "competitive diversity" among blue decks is a very hard position to take.
JTMS was unbanned when twin was banned? That's news to me.... (arguably they should have, but that's a different debate :P)
Wizards has increased the diversity of blue decks. But that was through new cards being added to the modern pool and unbans which took years to implement. The diversity in modern we have today had very little to do with the twin ban. (at most an indirect correlation)
A year ago, I would have fully agreed with you, but I just cannot see it now.
Note: I said I don't think twin ever needed to be banned... not that I think it would be unbanned.
I think if it was unbanned the format would be fine and still relatively diverse. But I also think twin would be a higher risk unban then JTMS.
Just because something could be unbanned... doesn't mean you should do it.
As a massive Twin fan, I'm surprised anyone who plays Blue Control-Combo or Control period, cannot see just how 'next level' Twin is.
In nearly every game I lose, I can easily see where Twin would have had a better shot at winning. Nearly every game. Now, does UWR Control (not Queller) win? Yes it does. Would Twin win more? Yes it would. Its not even an argument.
People only accepted it, because it was around for so long, because you know what is almost exactly like Twin that tilts people to no end? Turns.
EoT 4 - Dictate
Turn 5 - Combo
Turn 5 + X = You die from a Waterfall punching you in the face 3 times, bonus points if its an Infect 7/7 Flying Waterfall.
And people hate it.
There is no world in which Twin comes off, unless Wizards wants to kill the format off. This isnt Jace where some people proclaimed that it would 'end the format, he's too good, and omg he's too expensive'. This is Twin, a deck we know all too well, and can easily draw a line between what people are doing now (UR Breach for example, or the more post-board Control version's of Blue decks) to what we used to be able to do.
Nobody who plays blue is being honest with themselves if they think Twin would be 'fine' for the format. Not saying busted, but 'fine' in terms of the displayed goals, preferences, and play patterns which Wizards have promoted.
EDIT: In fact I remember some Pod players making the same kind of statements I have made about Twin.
"I never felt out of the game, I always had a chance." Thats the hallmark of a deck that is probably too good.
Honestly, twin was never too good. People hate turns because you can't react to it and it's subject to high RNG (a turn 3 dictate could be game over... but it could also do nothing).
Twin never needed to be be banned. The "reasoning" behind the twin ban was faulty at best. They never attained what they hoped to achieve by banning it except for effectively killing control (at the time).
Now I don't think twin will ever be unbanned... at least not for another year or two.
If wizard can continue to print cards that push control decks, twin is unnecessary.
Ugh, I have to roll my eyes when people say k command would be enough to answer it
No, no it wouldn't. Pod was banned at the top of its peak, multiple gp wins, 20 percent meta shares
Every creature deck would become pod, it's laughable that company was even compared to this card. This is multiple uses with all upside and no rng. Silver bullets aren't reduced to just 3 mana or less. Multiple combo pieces and value.
This card would singlehandedly destroy every form of zoo, company, gbx deck. It'd get so bad people would root for tron to be tier 1.
Still a hard no on gsz, it's amazing at every turn, and it poses a risk to being too powerful for combo decks.
Sfm feels like the only realistic unban now. Suggestions like twin and dig through time are a joke
I don't even think SFM is unbanable. Turn 3/4 sword has potential to punish fair decks hard.
pod is just dangerous because of its continuous use. which means that the majority of the deck consists of silver bullets to answer/invalidate any strategy they choose.
one-and-done tutors are fine because it places a burden on the player to make the best use of a limited resource.
GSZ is a plausible unban because it is sorcery speed and can only hit green creatures, so their is a ceiling on what you can accomplish with it.
My problem with green-sun is it scales way too efficiently. If a mana-dork also had an ability that turned it into any threat later in the game, it too would be potentially too good.
POD and Green Sun Zenith will never be unbanned IMO.
Birthing Pod will never be unbanned because it skews the meta.
There is literally no reason to play non-pod creature based decks if you unban it.
Green Sun's Zenith will never be unbanned because as other people have said it's good at every stage of the game.
Plus it acts as a one mana ramp spell. That's way too good for modern.
I suspect if pod was unbanned it wouldn't be played the same in the past. Key facts are:
1) when pod was banned, collected company didn't exist. They are not compatible. Both are great.
2) when pod was banned, kolaghan's command didn't exist. It may seem irrellevant, but it isn't.
3) when pod was banned, eldrazi didn't exist.
4) when pod was banned, tron decks weren't as popular as nowadays.
It may hurt your ears (or eyes), you can view my past opinions on jace, but birthing pod would be completely fine in modern.
1) Pod is arguably better then coco. It performs a similar function with none of the RNG. I don't think coco decks would survive with pod in the format (unless they also run pod).
2) Actually, that is largely irrelevant. Command does not stop pod from activating at least once. Plus pod decks play witness.
I don't even think command would be very good vs pod decks.
3) And? Pod would have easy game vs eldrazi. Especially with big game hunter (TKS wouldn't be able to actually keep them off threats with pod in play).
4) Again... and? The pod player can easily build his 75 to have a good tron matchup.
POD and Green Sun Zenith will never be unbanned IMO.
Birthing Pod will never be unbanned because it skews the meta.
There is literally no reason to play non-pod creature based decks if you unban it.
Green Sun's Zenith will never be unbanned because as other people have said it's good at every stage of the game.
Plus it acts as a one mana ramp spell. That's way too good for modern.
So I just went through and started working a bit more on the spreadsheet, after figuring out some more stuff working on my Ux Tron version, and found an error in the function checking for when a Mox Opal is online immediately. After correcting the function, I found that my numbers were a bit off. Here's what I've got right now:
We've won 1125 of 1627 games where Opal wasn't online immediately (69.15%).
We've won 40 of 54 games where Opal was online immediately (74.07%).
This seems to imply that having Opal online immediately, turn one, does correlate with about a 5% increase in win percentages. The previous erroneous function showed it at a decreased correlating effect.
However, Mox Opal still correlated with a drop in win percentage - from a 70.13% (803 of 1145 games) win rate without one in the opener to 68.64% (324/472 games) with one to 59.38% (38/64) with two. So this made me wonder how this could be possible. If having an Opal online increased the win percentage in a deck full of 1-drop artifacts, how could having an Opal in the opener correlate with lower win percentage?
So what I did was make two additional data points.
The first data point I set was to check and compare games where Opal was a dead card at least until turn two (Opal in hand but not online on turn one). This shows a slight drop in win percentage, from 69.82% (879/1259 games) to 67.77% (286/422 games). That's not a heck of a drop, though.
The second data point I set was to check and compare games where Opal isn't online on turn one, but should come online turn two (I didn't check to see if an opponent somehow prevented this with a discard spell, Chalice of the Void, etc.). For this data point, the win rate went up from 69.02% (1132/1640) to 80.49% (33/41). That's quite a jump, so I'm guessing that there weren't many of the 41 game sample size in which an opponent prevented the Opal from being online on turn two. I had it specifically ignore hands which were already counted for in the "Opal online on turn one" data point, so this is specifically only when it was drawn, not online turn one, but able to be turned on on turn two.
So then I wondered, what if we compared the total number of games where Opal was online on either turn one or two? So I set it up to check that, and got 68.85% (1092/1586) when we didn't have an Opal online at all by turn two and an increase to 76.84% (73/95) when we had an Opal online by turn two, as soon as turn one, combined. EDIT: Fixed.
So I recognize that we need to be careful how we interpret the data, but it's very interesting to me. It appears that overall, having an Opal in the opener correlates to a drop in win percentage over a larger sample size. However, in the relatively small sample size in which Opal is turned on in the first two turns, the win rate does increase a decent amount. I suppose that brings us to a good discussion.
First, what's everyone's opinion on the reliability of that small sample size? I don't want to dismiss it entirely, as it does seem to show a trend, but I'm up for hearing everyone's reasoning and opinions on it.
Second, if the small sample size is accurate, we see that there is a generally negative effect of having an Opal in the opening hand, as the instances where we do have it online by turn two is relatively rare (5.6% of games total). But in those 5.6% of games, our win rate increases by 8%.
So, again, I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this. I understand that typical stock lists seen on MTGGoldfish run four, and prominent recognized players default to four, but I'm looking for independent and rational discussion concerning the evidence, rather than any appeal to authority or bandwagon effect. I'm interested in what each of you, as individuals, think about this development and why.
If anyone sees any more errors in the functions on the spreadsheet, please let me know! I just happened across this one, but having a few other sets of eyes might help.
EDIT 2: I think there's another error in the functions which count up the Turn 1, Turn 2, and Turn 1 or 2 Opal. I'm pretty sure there should be 95 games total (54 turn 1, 41 turn 2), but it's counting it up as 85 instead. Anyone see what might be wrong in the functions? I'm not seeing it (maybe I'm just tired). Fixed it.
1) It is a small sample size; however, it can still provide insight. Also the insight it does provide makes sense. If mox opal is a "dead card" in our hand its like we mulliganed.
2) One problem with this analysis: it does not take into account specific match-ups. It's an aggregated total. The increased win-rate could be substantially higher in certain matchups.
I can name two matchups that would theoretically benefit from a fast mox opal: Jund and any blood moon deck.
Jund because if we have mox opal turned on that quickly it means we were able to get under discard spells. Blood Moon decks because it allows us to actually cast our spells.
I suspect that if you broke out the statistics by deck archtype, the % win ratio with mox opal being turned on by turn 2 would differ radically.
I also suspect it would mirror the matches where we leave mox opal in and/or take it out.
Is Surgical Extraction used anymore? I haven't been using it and most lists I've seen doesnt, but I feel that it can be useful against decks that has a lot of problem cards, specifically RG decks with Tireless Tracker. I also have been having problems vs Through the Breach decks as well but idk if its just me or if its a bad mu
Sam Black did a tournament this weekend, and he was running Surgical. He posted it to the Lantern Facebook group. It can definitely has it's use still, you just need the correct meta for it.
This time I went 3-2. Don't want to chuck it up to just luck, but I did loose vs historically one of our better matchups especially with quellers: merfolk.
I lost vs merfolk and lantern control (understandable since I cut stony... oops) . Beat burn, boggles, and tron.
My current build is really good vs both burn and tron. Boggles was more of a toss up, but I was able to win game 2 off the back of counter magic (to keep him from casting totem armor) and engineered explosives. Game 2 he kept a no totem armor hand and I had a turn 3 anger.
EDIT: the mefolk match-up was particularly infuriating. Game 3 we get into top decking situations. He draws master of waves... master of waves... reevery. And I already killed a master earlier with supreme verdict
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Spell Queller helps alot by being able to exile his enablers instead of countering (such as loom or other flash-back/dredge cards) while also providing a modest clock. I will say this though: it was a harrowing matchup without rest in peace. I got lucky via drawing multiple paths and snapcasters both games I won. I think spell queller helps... but not that much.
The games I won he never hit more than 5 GY based creatures and my removal was able to deal with it.
Edit: cryptic + Geist also helped substantially.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I still love spell queller. By far my favorite card in modern. I have a weird strategy where I never cut it.... even vs decks with tons of removal. It's just too much of a fantastic tempo swing.
Did a competitve league tonight and went 4-1 loosing only to Eldrazi Tron.
Beat Dredge, BR hallow one, four color living end, and 8 rack.
4 Lightning Bolt
3 Serum Visions
3 Lightning Helix
2 Electrolyze
4 Cryptic Command
3 Logic Knot
1 Negate
1 Search for Azcanta
4 Snapcaster Mage
3 Geist of Saint Traft
4 Spell Queller
4 Flooded Strand
3 Celestial Colonnade
2 Field of Ruin
3 Island
1 Mountain
1 Plains
1 Sacred Foundry
1 Hallowed Fountain
2 Steam Vents
2 Sulfur Falls
1 Elspeth, Sun's Champion
2 Crumble to Dust
1 Anger of the Gods
2 Relic of Progenitus
2 Supreme Verdict
1 Izzet Staticaster
1 Engineered Explosives
2 Stony Silence
2 Dispel
1 Vendilion Clique
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Because Jace doesn't necessarily get better with every new control card... I can't believe someone just made that argument.
Jace can be difficulty to play against and can be oppressive... if the Jace player is already ahead. Jace does nothing when you are behind. Absolutly nothing. Better control cards doesn't change that fact.
POD on the other hand can help when you are behind by finding the exact creature you need to stabilize. The more creatures that are added to the format... the stronger that becomes truth.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Those decks are still not good... and see barley any play.
So I gues you are right... sub-par decks see more play because there are less other better options? Not sure that's a positive...
Also - kiki only started seeing more play with Jace/search. Hence my comment the diversity had very little to do with Twin ban.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
JTMS was unbanned when twin was banned? That's news to me.... (arguably they should have, but that's a different debate :P)
Wizards has increased the diversity of blue decks. But that was through new cards being added to the modern pool and unbans which took years to implement. The diversity in modern we have today had very little to do with the twin ban. (at most an indirect correlation)
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Note: I said I don't think twin ever needed to be banned... not that I think it would be unbanned.
I think if it was unbanned the format would be fine and still relatively diverse. But I also think twin would be a higher risk unban then JTMS.
Just because something could be unbanned... doesn't mean you should do it.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Honestly, twin was never too good. People hate turns because you can't react to it and it's subject to high RNG (a turn 3 dictate could be game over... but it could also do nothing).
Twin never needed to be be banned. The "reasoning" behind the twin ban was faulty at best. They never attained what they hoped to achieve by banning it except for effectively killing control (at the time).
Now I don't think twin will ever be unbanned... at least not for another year or two.
If wizard can continue to print cards that push control decks, twin is unnecessary.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I don't even think SFM is unbanable. Turn 3/4 sword has potential to punish fair decks hard.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
My problem with green-sun is it scales way too efficiently. If a mana-dork also had an ability that turned it into any threat later in the game, it too would be potentially too good.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
1) Pod is arguably better then coco. It performs a similar function with none of the RNG. I don't think coco decks would survive with pod in the format (unless they also run pod).
2) Actually, that is largely irrelevant. Command does not stop pod from activating at least once. Plus pod decks play witness.
I don't even think command would be very good vs pod decks.
3) And? Pod would have easy game vs eldrazi. Especially with big game hunter (TKS wouldn't be able to actually keep them off threats with pod in play).
4) Again... and? The pod player can easily build his 75 to have a good tron matchup.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Birthing Pod will never be unbanned because it skews the meta.
There is literally no reason to play non-pod creature based decks if you unban it.
Green Sun's Zenith will never be unbanned because as other people have said it's good at every stage of the game.
Plus it acts as a one mana ramp spell. That's way too good for modern.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
1) It is a small sample size; however, it can still provide insight. Also the insight it does provide makes sense. If mox opal is a "dead card" in our hand its like we mulliganed.
2) One problem with this analysis: it does not take into account specific match-ups. It's an aggregated total. The increased win-rate could be substantially higher in certain matchups.
I can name two matchups that would theoretically benefit from a fast mox opal: Jund and any blood moon deck.
Jund because if we have mox opal turned on that quickly it means we were able to get under discard spells. Blood Moon decks because it allows us to actually cast our spells.
I suspect that if you broke out the statistics by deck archtype, the % win ratio with mox opal being turned on by turn 2 would differ radically.
I also suspect it would mirror the matches where we leave mox opal in and/or take it out.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Surprised to see Sam at a local tournament.
Was originally supposed to go to one but had to apartment look instead : /
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
know how he ended up?
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA