How good is Delver in Modern? I was always intrigued by the theme of the deck and know it's very good in legacy, plus just a fan of the card itself, but how does fare in this format? Is young pyromancer a must have in delver?
I think PyroDelver is worth playing, at least in a vacuum as opposed to the more thread-relevant issue of metagame status.
Sure, you don't have at the very least Daze in Modern, but that just means playing fair as opposed to playing obnoxiously!
Problem's in amassing the needed Scalding Tarns, though...
I play BUG Delver in modern. I have a list that ive been using and its very similar to the Legacy variants. Its super effective and ive only lost to affinity in testing. Ive also gone 4-0 against Twin and 2-2 against Pod
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
I play BUG Delver in modern. I have a list that ive been using and its very similar to the Legacy variants. Its super effective and ive only lost to affinity in testing. Ive also gone 4-0 against Twin and 2-2 against Pod
That is not nearly a large enough sample size for testing.
Remember we saw this exact same thing with the BBE ban. Granted they didn't unban Nacatl at the same time but still.
It took the introduction of Scavenging Ooze for Jund to be a top tier deck again after the Bloodbraid ban. Prior to that, it was trying to get away with 4-color Ajani Vengeant durdle builds with limited success.
The fact that Jund decks now have to play trash like Courser of Kruphix or Chandra, Pyromaster just to hit the 60-card minimum is the most telling indicator of where that archetype lies at this point.
Remember we saw this exact same thing with the BBE ban. Granted they didn't unban Nacatl at the same time but still.
It took the introduction of Scavenging Ooze for Jund to be a top tier deck again after the Bloodbraid ban. Prior to that, it was trying to get away with 4-color Ajani Vengeant durdle builds with limited success.
The fact that Jund decks now have to play trash like Courser of Kruphix or Chandra, Pyromaster just to hit the 60-card minimum is the most telling indicator of where that archetype lies at this point.
Neither of those cards are trash, with chandra showing up in pre ban jund lists.
Remember we saw this exact same thing with the BBE ban. Granted they didn't unban Nacatl at the same time but still.
It took the introduction of Scavenging Ooze for Jund to be a top tier deck again after the Bloodbraid ban. Prior to that, it was trying to get away with 4-color Ajani Vengeant durdle builds with limited success.
The fact that Jund decks now have to play trash like Courser of Kruphix or Chandra, Pyromaster just to hit the 60-card minimum is the most telling indicator of where that archetype lies at this point.
First, there were 4 color Jund build topping tournaments prior to the BBE ban. Second, your idea of trash is not held by the majority. Many feel this incarnation of Chandra is the best one and CoK is a solid to good card.
A good deck building format always leaves a little room for changes for metas. Something BBE does not allow.
Has Merfolk been doing extremely well lately? I'm stumped as to why it's still in the Proven section when decks such as Burn, UR Delver, BG Rock, RG Tron, and/or Living End have been moved to Established. I can totally see why the latter decks would be given their current metagame issues, but I still don't think I'd be taking Merfolk to a big event either.
Is this just oversight, or is it actually a Proven deck? Note I haven't been paying much attention since GP Richmond, so I could be missing something.
First, there were 4 color Jund build topping tournaments prior to the BBE ban.
I'm not talking about 4-color Jund with Bloodbraid Elf. Obviously. I'm talking about the "Ajundi" build that saw some play after Bloodbraid Elf was banned and before the printing of Scavenging Ooze revitalized traditional 3-color builds again. The Ajundi deck saw some modest success, but was not even close to being a top-tier deck as MemoryLapse implied.
I've noticed this deck on mtggoldfish. What's interesting is that although it has only 6 appearances, those are all by the same 2 players. I think it has potential.
I think I've seen that deck. I saw one that works similarly that was RB and used zombies--super brutal and seemed like it has nearly all solid matchups.
I've noticed this deck on mtggoldfish. What's interesting is that although it has only 6 appearances, those are all by the same 2 players. I think it has potential.
Aren't most of the cards that it runs BW Tokens staples? While it may run a few less-than-popular choices like Brimaz, Gatekeeper, and Mirran Crusader, the core still seems the same - Sculler, Confidant, Path, Thoughtseize, Lingering Souls, Swords, Persecution, and LotV are all token staples.
I've noticed this deck on mtggoldfish. What's interesting is that although it has only 6 appearances, those are all by the same 2 players. I think it has potential.
Aren't most of the cards that it runs BW Tokens staples? While it may run a few less-than-popular choices like Brimaz, Gatekeeper, and Mirran Crusader, the core still seems the same - Sculler, Confidant, Path, Thoughtseize, Lingering Souls, Swords, Persecution, and LotV are all token staples.
LOTV is rarely played, confidant is never played due to the interaction with Spectral Procession. I wouldn't call sculler and swords part of the core either; many decks don't even run them anymore. The core of the deck is 8-12 token producers and anthem effects. I wouldn't call any deck with one token-producing spell and no anthems BW tokens.
Has Merfolk been doing extremely well lately? I'm stumped as to why it's still in the Proven section when decks such as Burn, UR Delver, BG Rock, RG Tron, and/or Living End have been moved to Established. I can totally see why the latter decks would be given their current metagame issues, but I still don't think I'd be taking Merfolk to a big event either.
Is this just oversight, or is it actually a Proven deck? Note I haven't been paying much attention since GP Richmond, so I could be missing something.
Merfolk had two successes that got it into Proven.
The first was its finish at PT Valencia. Although it didn't make the T8 of the whole event, it was the 6th highest scoring deck in just the Modern standings; Petr Sochurek piloted it to a 25 point finish. So that got Merfolk one "proven point" in its favor.
The second was its presence on day 2 at both GP Richmond and at PT Valencia. It had 7 appearances at Day 2 of PT Valencia and 21 at Day 2 of GP Richmond. That's 28 total showings in the collective 694 day 2 decks (251 from Valencia and 443 from Richmond). 28/694 = .0403, which is just over the cutoff for Proven.
Here's the thing with criteria: It's all arbitrary in one way or another. Ours have the advantage of being based on the numbers in the metagame instead of just gut intuition. The disadvantage of this is it can sometimes produce seemingly weird results (Merfolk stays in, BG Rock goes). Theoretically, that gets corrected with larger sample sizes. But in this case, we only have 2 mega events between now and the banlist update in January, and only MTGO data from 2/10 - 4/28 (although in that case, the public data was supplemented with data recorded directly from the client, just to increase the sample size). So hopefully things will look more "normal" as we add more data to our dataset.
Has Merfolk been doing extremely well lately? I'm stumped as to why it's still in the Proven section when decks such as Burn, UR Delver, BG Rock, RG Tron, and/or Living End have been moved to Established. I can totally see why the latter decks would be given their current metagame issues, but I still don't think I'd be taking Merfolk to a big event either.
Is this just oversight, or is it actually a Proven deck? Note I haven't been paying much attention since GP Richmond, so I could be missing something.
Merfolk had two successes that got it into Proven.
The first was its finish at PT Valencia. Although it didn't make the T8 of the whole event, it was the 6th highest scoring deck in just the Modern standings; Petr Sochurek piloted it to a 25 point finish. So that got Merfolk one "proven point" in its favor.
The second was its presence on day 2 at both GP Richmond and at PT Valencia. It had 7 appearances at Day 2 of PT Valencia and 21 at Day 2 of GP Richmond. That's 28 total showings in the collective 694 day 2 decks (251 from Valencia and 443 from Richmond). 28/694 = .0403, which is just over the cutoff for Proven.
Here's the thing with criteria: It's all arbitrary in one way or another. Ours have the advantage of being based on the numbers in the metagame instead of just gut intuition. The disadvantage of this is it can sometimes produce seemingly weird results (Merfolk stays in, BG Rock goes). Theoretically, that gets corrected with larger sample sizes. But in this case, we only have 2 mega events between now and the banlist update in January, and only MTGO data from 2/10 - 4/28 (although in that case, the public data was supplemented with data recorded directly from the client, just to increase the sample size). So hopefully things will look more "normal" as we add more data to our dataset.
Do you have an ETA for your statistic of the metagame that you talked about?
Do you have an ETA for your statistic of the metagame that you talked about?
The spreadsheet is actually built and (more or less) ready to go. It even has data in it from 4/27-4/29. We are just tweaking formatting and text at this point. So it should be up either tonight or tomorrow. No later than this weekend though; it's just dependent on when we agree that its in a publicly presentable form.
Do you have an ETA for your statistic of the metagame that you talked about?
The spreadsheet is actually built and (more or less) ready to go. It even has data in it from 4/27-4/29. We are just tweaking formatting and text at this point. So it should be up either tonight or tomorrow. No later than this weekend though; it's just dependent on when we agree that its in a publicly presentable form.
Great.
It's good to see finally some good and more important right information about decks. MTGGoldfish does still list UWR Midrange and UWR Twin as UWR Control for example(granted the difference between midrange and control is not always obvious).
Do you have an ETA for your statistic of the metagame that you talked about?
The spreadsheet is actually built and (more or less) ready to go. It even has data in it from 4/27-4/29. We are just tweaking formatting and text at this point. So it should be up either tonight or tomorrow. No later than this weekend though; it's just dependent on when we agree that its in a publicly presentable form.
Great.
It's good to see finally some good and more important right information about decks. MTGGoldfish does still list UWR Midrange and UWR Twin as UWR Control for example(granted the difference between midrange and control is not always obvious).
Still, it should be easy to tell what is WUR Twin and what is WUR Control. What really annoys me is how they started calling Azorius Midrange (and Azorius Control) Bant Midrange, despite the fact that none of them have green in them.
A small question which I'm not sure has got an easy answer, but what would be the best deck type to play if you do not know what you're going to play against? Are decks like Storm that do not care about the other side of the table better? Are decks like Hatebears that have a broad spectrum of targetting better? Are control decks better? Combo? Or just plain blind aggro or Burn?
Something like project melira, consistent, has the opportunity to do broken things if the opponent isn't prepared or to play a fair grindy game if they are. To have a broad range of powerful options and strategies.
A small question which I'm not sure has got an easy answer, but what would be the best deck type to play if you do not know what you're going to play against? Are decks like Storm that do not care about the other side of the table better? Are decks like Hatebears that have a broad spectrum of targetting better? Are control decks better? Combo? Or just plain blind aggro or Burn?
You play Bogles, because it's a proven (ZING) fact people don't put a lot of thought into winning the Bogles subgame.
But really, just play whatever you're most comfortable with. The difficulty isn't so much in knowing how to beat the opponent, it's in how to get the deck you're playing to beat your opponent.
I've noticed this deck on mtggoldfish. What's interesting is that although it has only 6 appearances, those are all by the same 2 players. I think it has potential.
Dead Guy Ale... It is an interesting deck. I didn't think that it could be made into a modern deck. I mainly know of it as a Legacy Deck. It did have a top32 appearance at a SCG Legacy Open a few weeks ago. But with a general lack of Modern events, it may stay regulated to rogue deck status.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming. Really, all you had to do was explain to him the popularity metric, not give him the lemming hunter manifesto...
A small question which I'm not sure has got an easy answer, but what would be the best deck type to play if you do not know what you're going to play against? Are decks like Storm that do not care about the other side of the table better? Are decks like Hatebears that have a broad spectrum of targetting better? Are control decks better? Combo? Or just plain blind aggro or Burn?
You play Bogles, because it's a proven (ZING) fact people don't put a lot of thought into winning the Bogles subgame.
But really, just play whatever you're most comfortable with. The difficulty isn't so much in knowing how to beat the opponent, it's in how to get the deck you're playing to beat your opponent.
The distinction's meaningful.
Thanks all for the views!
And yes, a meaningful distinction that I often forget. Too often.
Okay, so I'm releasing this link as an open-feedback beta for people to look through. It's not finalized yet but we wanted to get it up to the forum in some way so you guys can look it over.
Are there any improvements/changes you guys want to see? Things you suggest? Formatting requests? Wishlists with the data? I'm looking for any and all feedback on the project because we want this to be a useful tool for the site and the broader MTG Modern community. Let me know what you all think.
Looks a lot like the site I'm making. In the spirit of friendly competition, here's what I'm doing that I see missing from yours: Archetype win % vs other archetypes (you can find this only from Premier top-8 decks, but it's better than nothing), what cards are ALWAYS in a given archetype and which are meta/pilot dependent, actual deck lists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My MTG Site: Graceful Stats (deckbuilding website that actually works on mobile)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think PyroDelver is worth playing, at least in a vacuum as opposed to the more thread-relevant issue of metagame status.
Sure, you don't have at the very least Daze in Modern, but that just means playing fair as opposed to playing obnoxiously!
Problem's in amassing the needed Scalding Tarns, though...
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
I know Tron and Merfolk are historically really bad, but what else?
Thanks
WBB/W TokensWB
WUBAd NauseamWUB
- Commander
WG Captain Sisay's LegendsWG
That is not nearly a large enough sample size for testing.
It took the introduction of Scavenging Ooze for Jund to be a top tier deck again after the Bloodbraid ban. Prior to that, it was trying to get away with 4-color Ajani Vengeant durdle builds with limited success.
The fact that Jund decks now have to play trash like Courser of Kruphix or Chandra, Pyromaster just to hit the 60-card minimum is the most telling indicator of where that archetype lies at this point.
Neither of those cards are trash, with chandra showing up in pre ban jund lists.
First, there were 4 color Jund build topping tournaments prior to the BBE ban. Second, your idea of trash is not held by the majority. Many feel this incarnation of Chandra is the best one and CoK is a solid to good card.
A good deck building format always leaves a little room for changes for metas. Something BBE does not allow.
Is this just oversight, or is it actually a Proven deck? Note I haven't been paying much attention since GP Richmond, so I could be missing something.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
I'm not talking about 4-color Jund with Bloodbraid Elf. Obviously. I'm talking about the "Ajundi" build that saw some play after Bloodbraid Elf was banned and before the printing of Scavenging Ooze revitalized traditional 3-color builds again. The Ajundi deck saw some modest success, but was not even close to being a top-tier deck as MemoryLapse implied.
As is often the case with geniuses, I will not be appreciated until after my time. But that's neither here nor there.
Aren't most of the cards that it runs BW Tokens staples? While it may run a few less-than-popular choices like Brimaz, Gatekeeper, and Mirran Crusader, the core still seems the same - Sculler, Confidant, Path, Thoughtseize, Lingering Souls, Swords, Persecution, and LotV are all token staples.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
LOTV is rarely played, confidant is never played due to the interaction with Spectral Procession. I wouldn't call sculler and swords part of the core either; many decks don't even run them anymore. The core of the deck is 8-12 token producers and anthem effects. I wouldn't call any deck with one token-producing spell and no anthems BW tokens.
Merfolk had two successes that got it into Proven.
The first was its finish at PT Valencia. Although it didn't make the T8 of the whole event, it was the 6th highest scoring deck in just the Modern standings; Petr Sochurek piloted it to a 25 point finish. So that got Merfolk one "proven point" in its favor.
The second was its presence on day 2 at both GP Richmond and at PT Valencia. It had 7 appearances at Day 2 of PT Valencia and 21 at Day 2 of GP Richmond. That's 28 total showings in the collective 694 day 2 decks (251 from Valencia and 443 from Richmond). 28/694 = .0403, which is just over the cutoff for Proven.
Here's the thing with criteria: It's all arbitrary in one way or another. Ours have the advantage of being based on the numbers in the metagame instead of just gut intuition. The disadvantage of this is it can sometimes produce seemingly weird results (Merfolk stays in, BG Rock goes). Theoretically, that gets corrected with larger sample sizes. But in this case, we only have 2 mega events between now and the banlist update in January, and only MTGO data from 2/10 - 4/28 (although in that case, the public data was supplemented with data recorded directly from the client, just to increase the sample size). So hopefully things will look more "normal" as we add more data to our dataset.
Do you have an ETA for your statistic of the metagame that you talked about?
The spreadsheet is actually built and (more or less) ready to go. It even has data in it from 4/27-4/29. We are just tweaking formatting and text at this point. So it should be up either tonight or tomorrow. No later than this weekend though; it's just dependent on when we agree that its in a publicly presentable form.
Great.
It's good to see finally some good and more important right information about decks. MTGGoldfish does still list UWR Midrange and UWR Twin as UWR Control for example(granted the difference between midrange and control is not always obvious).
Still, it should be easy to tell what is WUR Twin and what is WUR Control. What really annoys me is how they started calling Azorius Midrange (and Azorius Control) Bant Midrange, despite the fact that none of them have green in them.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You play Bogles, because it's a proven (ZING) fact people don't put a lot of thought into winning the Bogles subgame.
But really, just play whatever you're most comfortable with. The difficulty isn't so much in knowing how to beat the opponent, it's in how to get the deck you're playing to beat your opponent.
The distinction's meaningful.
Dead Guy Ale... It is an interesting deck. I didn't think that it could be made into a modern deck. I mainly know of it as a Legacy Deck. It did have a top32 appearance at a SCG Legacy Open a few weeks ago. But with a general lack of Modern events, it may stay regulated to rogue deck status.
Be a lemming hunter. Don't be a lemming.
Really, all you had to do was explain to him the popularity metric, not give him the lemming hunter manifesto...
Originally posted by MemoryLapse and DotMatrix
Thanks all for the views!
And yes, a meaningful distinction that I often forget. Too often.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n3z_ASbs0dxCTN5b69pPqZZVfg7nznc4inTJtIdfcdk/pubhtml
Are there any improvements/changes you guys want to see? Things you suggest? Formatting requests? Wishlists with the data? I'm looking for any and all feedback on the project because we want this to be a useful tool for the site and the broader MTG Modern community. Let me know what you all think.
REMEMBER. IT'S JUST A BETA.