Woah woah woah. Swiftspear is not Goblin Guide 5-8. Pretty sure everyone by now has accepted that Swiftspear is miles better than Goblin Guide. The poor old gobbo has been knocked off the top podium into silver. Guide is now a poor man's Swiftspear 5-8.
In certain builds, yes, Swiftspear is better, but such a blanket statement is misleading and inaccurate. Small Zoo only runs 12 instants (4 Helix, 4 Bolt, 4 Path), so Guide is much better than Swiftspear in that build.
4. At the very least, a TC ban would likely increase the number of BGx Midrange decks, which are right now at historic lows at sub 2%. Between MS and TC, it is pretty clear which of the two is really murdering those poor BGx decks. I mean, BGx Midrange is supposed to thrive in the Delver matchup! It was something that kept Delver down for years. And suddenly, Delver is everywhere and BGx midrange can't do drap. TC is the likeliest culprit of that, or at least the disproportionate cause of it relative to MS or other cards in the deck. Don't get me wrong; I don't like those BGx decks much more than most people. But one card shouldn't render them extinct.
Is it Treasure Cruise causing the downfall of BGx, or is it burn? The answer isn't clear. BGx is classically a strong deck against delver, and likely still is. It plays maindeck grave hate to combat Cruise, maindeck discard to combat Cruise, maindeck life gain to survive early aggression, and cards that are individually so much stronger than what delver is cruising into that I don't think the matchup really changes that much. This is what my testing has shown.
Burn on the other hand is, and has been, a terrible matchup for BGx. Treasure Cruise may exacerbate the issue but remove it and it's still a poor matchup unless the deck is heavily tuned to beat burn, which means sacrificing percentage points against the rest of the field. Burn is putting up strong results with and without Treasure Cruise. Banning the card removes BGx's strong matchup against delver by removing delver from the format, leaving burn alone to fill the gap. I can't see this resulting in better BGx representation.
For that matter I don't understand why making BGx viable is, or should be a goal of the format. If the metagame adapts, bringing burn and delver representation back down to sane levels alongside a number of other viable decks, yet BGx still has zero representation is that a problem?
I think Treasure Cruise is in a complicated position. In burn it's essentially a burn spell that does 6-9 damage because it's going to draw you 2-3 Lightning Bolt effects. That's powerful, but comes at the cost of hurting your mirror matchup where you'll be punished for running a more painful manabase; a straight red or r/w deck doesn't need any extra cards to kill you. This is something worth considering when burn makes up so much of the meta.
That's not quite true. Burn decks run about 20 lands on average, so on average there will be 2 burn spells drawn. Saying 2-3 is disingenuous because drawing 3 is as likely as drawing 1. Well, the fetchlands make it marginally more likely to be 3, but on average it's 2. It's more fair to say it draws you 1-3, or, for simplicity's sake, that it draws you on average 2. Of course, we have to also consider non-burn spells that may be in the deck, particularly after sideboarding, such as Wear/Tear.
However, assessing it as a burn spell that deals 6 damage isn't fair either. After all, you have to cast Treasure Cruise, and then you can cast your burn spells after expending the mana on it. Treasure Cruise will always cost a minimum of one mana, and in my experience generally costs more. So best case scenario, it's a spell that costs RRU and deals 6 damage. Which is still quite respectable, but it's still 3 mana (or more) for that. More likely you'll be expending 2-3 mana on it, meaning that the extra burn doesn't generally come into effect until your next turn when you untap.
What's easy to ignore about Treasure Cruise is the opportunity cost. Instead of being a card that hits your opponent immediately, it requires you expend mana to get cards that will do that. On average you will have 2 cards to hit them with instead of 1, but it does slow you down. Is that worth the extra damage? In a lot of cases, yes. But in other cases it can actually be a liability.
Something else worth remembering. Card draw is generally at its weakest in redundant decks; that is, decks that have a lot of cards that basically do the same thing. In those decks, it doesn't matter so much what you're drawing, so the card draw card is weaker because it could be an immediately useful card rather than something to get you cards. It's why Merfolk doesn't play Serum Visions; the deck is sufficiently redundant that it's better that that Serum Visions be something immediately useful, rather than replacing a threat with a card that will just make you spend extra mana to get a threat. And Burn is possibly the most redundant deck that exists.
Something like UR Delver gets considerable strength from card draw because it’s actually quite dependent on having certain cards to do its thing; all the spells in the world don’t help you much if you have no Young Pyromancer, Delver, or Monastery Swiftspear. Similarly, without spells, those cards are pretty unimpressive. Burn, however, is basically a bunch of cards with a very similar purpose, diminishing the strength of card draw.
Something else worth remembering. Card draw is generally at its weakest in redundant decks; that is, decks that have a lot of cards that basically do the same thing. In those decks, it doesn't matter so much what you're drawing, so the card draw card is weaker because it could be an immediately useful card rather than something to get you cards. It's why Merfolk doesn't play Serum Visions; the deck is sufficiently redundant that it's better that that Serum Visions be something immediately useful, rather than replacing a threat with a card that will just make you spend extra mana to get a threat. And Burn is possibly the most redundant deck that exists.
Something like UR Delver gets considerable strength from card draw because it’s actually quite dependent on having certain cards to do its thing; all the spells in the world don’t help you much if you have no Young Pyromancer, Delver, or Monastery Swiftspear. Similarly, without spells, those cards are pretty unimpressive. Burn, however, is basically a bunch of cards with a very similar purpose, diminishing the strength of card draw.
To be fair I think you have to make the distinction between card draw and card selection/filtering. Reloading your hand with TC is just raw card advantage, whereas Serum Visions is card neutral.
Not to say that your point is invalid, but rather that you cannot discount the effectiveness of drawing more (of anything) in a deck that is trying to expend its resources as quickly as possible; rather than trying to trade.
It is yet to be seen whether TC even makes burn decks better. I think it does, because the opportunity cost of splashing non-basics isn't as steep as compared to legacy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I find it kind of funny WoTC introduces three solid cards clearly designed for play in eternal formats in Khans, and not long afterwards they are now in contension for potential ban(s). Did they somehow slip through the cracks at R&D, or does WotC have other cards coming down the pipes in the next set we have no clue about that will help settle down the current meta? Makes me wonder.
I find it kind of funny WoTC introduces three solid cards clearly designed for play in eternal formats in Khans, and not long afterwards they are now in contension for potential ban(s). Did they somehow slip through the cracks at R&D, or does WotC have other cards coming down the pipes in the next set we have no clue about that will help settle down the current meta? Makes me wonder.
Historically, I would say no to the cards coming down the pipe. I doubt Wotc knew what effect those cards would have on the meta. Its either a ban or we wait a few sets to get the answer cards to calm things down. Of course there are those that think they can combat the decks now. Its yet to be seen.
If cruise is banned Delver goes back to tier 2 and burn stays on top. I really like Delver being viable and if burn can somehow be halted BGx can police Delver.
Cruise is amazing but I have resolved 5 cruises in one game and still lost(some kind of midrange?), sadly I cant remember what against but my cruises where mostly lands in an 18 land deck which is some high variance cool story results.
As an aside Is delve currently the only graveyard interaction going on? its been months since I went against storm and I think UWxx gifts/tron has fallen of too.
I mean is it possible that really Zoo is completely broken right now we just aren't seeing as many top 8's because of prevalence?
Zoo destroyed me as UR delver, Not sure if that is worth investigating. Ive also surprisingly had trouble with an aggro green stompy deck that runs vines of the vastwood and that devotion to green pump spell(aggro/midrange that can counter your interaction). Pod also still wrecks me if they can stick a pod or a finks or two shifting back to magma spray/pillar may be needed if forked bolt falls out of favor again.
If we see a ban I think it will be Swiftspear. Delver is in a good position right now but it's indicative of Swiftspears power. Burn is probably too good, which combined with being highly accessible really has the opportunity to warp the paper metagame. Burn is doing about the same with or without TC which means it's most likely Swiftspear that's causing the power gain.
If we see a ban I think it will be Swiftspear. Delver is in a good position right now but it's indicative of Swiftspears power. Burn is probably too good, which combined with being highly accessible really has the opportunity to warp the paper metagame. Burn is doing about the same with or without TC which means it's most likely Swiftspear that's causing the power gain.
Nah, Swiftspear is a fair card. Powerful yes, but I really doubt it is the problem.
Burn has an issue with hitting a 'critical mass' of 'good' cards. It's a deck that is a lot more powerful in eternal formats. I think the way to reign in on burn might actually be to restore the ability of life-gain effects to combat it, by banning Skullcrack. Leave that effect to Flame of the Blood Hand, and Leyline of Punishment and I think that might help reign in on burn. While the thing that I think pushed it over the edge was Eidolon of the Great Revel, it isn't actually the most recent card that is the best one to ban, and Eidolon is a great counter to some degenerate decks. Removing Skullcrack enables the best anti-burn hate, lifegain, to actually be effective in the smallish amounts you'd find in sideboards.
If we see a ban I think it will be Swiftspear. Delver is in a good position right now but it's indicative of Swiftspears power. Burn is probably too good, which combined with being highly accessible really has the opportunity to warp the paper metagame. Burn is doing about the same with or without TC which means it's most likely Swiftspear that's causing the power gain.
Nah, Swiftspear is a fair card. Powerful yes, but I really doubt it is the problem.
Burn has an issue with hitting a 'critical mass' of 'good' cards. It's a deck that is a lot more powerful in eternal formats. I think the way to reign in on burn might actually be to restore the ability of life-gain effects to combat it, by banning Skullcrack. Leave that effect to Flame of the Blood Hand, and Leyline of Punishment and I think that might help reign in on burn. While the thing that I think pushed it over the edge was Eidolon of the Great Revel, it isn't actually the most recent card that is the best one to ban, and Eidolon is a great counter to some degenerate decks. Removing Skullcrack enables the best anti-burn hate, lifegain, to actually be effective in the smallish amounts you'd find in sideboards.
I agree, Skullcrack would be a good ban. It would make cards like Pulse of the Field (and others) a very viable sideboard option again.
In his SCG article Sam does not do well with this deck. He actually loses the match to burn and then gets wrecked by every other deck since he had to be so narrowly aimed.
That being said it's not impossible that a Cruise Control deck can handle the Cruise Aggro decks, but that isn't really a great sign of a healthy format.
In his SCG article Sam does not do well with this deck. He actually loses the match to burn and then gets wrecked by every other deck since he had to be so narrowly aimed.
That's why I think all this focus on specifically beating Delver and Burn are pointless. Too narrow of a focus means your deck will be poorly positioned against a multitude of other decks not named Burn or Delver.
Seriously, banning skullcrack? Seriously? If something's getting banned it is eidolon or cruise we all know it. I can't believe you guys are suggesting skullcrack.
Having to build a deck to specifically battle a certain deck is 1) the definition of warping, and 2) usually leaves that deck open to be beat by other decks in the format. If Sam Black can beat the Delver and Burn decks but not top with the deck, its a losing deck.
So Im finally back after my break from Magic for two and a half months and I find that the Modern landscape has changed radically in my absence. So much for the worry that new sets couldn't effect Modern that much.
I will refrain from judging these new cards right now since I only just began playing again. The meta game percentages and the few articles that I read do worry me a bit though.
So Im finally back after my break from Magic for two and a half months and I find that the Modern landscape has changed radically in my absence. So much for the worry that new sets couldn't effect Modern that much.
I will refrain from judging these new cards right now since I only just began playing again. The meta game percentages and the few articles that I read do worry me a bit though.
Welcome back Galerion, i think the place for you fae is no more (although TC is pretty good in Fae )
- L
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The problem isn't when Scissors says Rock is overpowered, it's when Paper says it is."
-Mark Rosewater
actually cruise although is good but it actually does not make delvers over overpowering. Delvers still get out aggro by affinity and probably out burned by burn. UWR midrange and control also do not see too much issues with fighting u/r delvers with cruise as long as they play in a way to pro actively remove delvers and prepare for them. Jund/ junk and merfolk also doesn't seems to have too much issues with delvers deck so far as well.
My own opinion is that cruise is a strong card and it made delvers become alot more viable but the main power still comes alot from Monastery swiftspear powering the delvers up. A delver that play cruise but without MS is alot less threatening and scary. When I first play against U/R delvers, I was playing too passively and did not really play well due to the how u/r delvers uses MS. But once I realise that as long as I proactively react and remove their creatures especially MS, they really can't do that much even if they managed to resolve cruise in midgame coz the card advantage that they get from cruise in midgame if they do not have a strong start does not give them too much power to catch up if they do not have enough creatures.
Burn however is still a big issue with alot of decks I guess.. Burn is really a deck that is causing alot of decks to modify either their main deck or sb just to deal with them. From my own playgroup of about 10+ ppl, most of made chances to mainboard or sideboard just to counter burn. But of cos cards like chalice of the void is used for both and delvers got the collateral damage in that sense coz some of the cards that is good against burn is good against delvers as well.
So personally though I think cruise although does not make delvers too overpowering, it does affect how modern play. If alot of decks or archtype is trying to splash blue just for cruise then it is probably not a healthy thing still. But definitely something probably need to be done to burn as that is very rampant.. I went to a local modern tournament and the turnout was abt 14 and there is 5 burn decks and that is excluding 6 of my own playgroup which none of us are playing burns or delvers and that is happening for almost for quite a few weeks for the few places that we frequent for tournaments on either tues or thursday and hence the whole group of us have to prepare for burn coz the chances of meeting them is just so high.. lol..
Cruise wouldn't work as a ban against Burn as it was dominating the format before it was even printed. Eidolon is clearly the problem card for Burn as best case scenario it's 2 damage and 1 removal spell but quite often become a lot more damage. It's my view that all that is needed to be banned is Eidolon and the format will sort itself out but at the same time TC is bonkers strong and probably requires a ban on those grounds alone - as much as I actually think TC is a real boon to the format.
There are a lot of myths surrounding Burn's pre-KTK dominance, so I want to straighten those out.
I'm going to use MTGO data because it gave us way more datapoints than paper. So before we even start, let's just remember that this is MTGO and not paper data, and all relevant disclaimers apply.
Before GP Kobe even happened, Burn was a pretty commanding force on the MTGO scene, but not nearly to the extent that people think. From 7/1 - 8/24, Burn made up about 12% of the MTGO metagame. By contrast, the next most-played decks were Affinity with 9% and Melira Pod with 9.5%. So Burn had a slight lead over these two decks, but nothing too insane. We have had numerous periods of MTGO activity where one deck was a few percentage points ahead of others, including UR Twin in the Spring and Melira Pod last summer.
But after GP Kobe, something changed. Burn actually DECREASED its MTGO share, either as more people figured out how to beat the deck, more people just prepared for it with different cards, the metagame shifted away from Burn's easiest matchups, and/or the novelty wore off. From 8/25 - 10/2 (right before KTK was legalized), Burn dropped down to 9.5% of the MTGO metagame. Meanwhile, Affinity rose slightly to equal Burn's share, also at 9.5%, and Melira Pod moved up to be the most-played MTGO deck at about 11%. So contrary to popular opinion, Burn's MTGO share was actually falling before KTK hit.
So people need to be careful when talking about Burn's pre-KTK dominance. The deck had a much more benign metagame share back then, and it didn't look nearly as threatening as it does now.
I'm finding Burn to be a lot stronger due to TC than I had originally thought.
Matchups I found difficult for burn in the month before KTK were those like Affinity. Its one of those rare match ups where Burn has to play control due to affinity's explosiveness - if burn it has to ping off artifacts, its using up gas it needed to go for the dome. But TC essentially lets Burn ignore that completely and refuel for almost free.
It also helps that Delver has a pretty good MU vs the things I'd consider Burn weak to.
Pretty sure dig through time is there to help combo, I don't think those are going to be unbanned to serve as yet another tool for blue. Combo doesn't seem few and far between to me.
Having 6 or 7 things in your grave to cast DTT is going to be hard for combo
UMMMM Splinter twin says hello.
Twin is more of a combo control deck, i meant pure combo
Scapeshift runs Dig Through Time. Cantrips + Ramp are easy enough to pitch into the GY.
I see scapeshift basically the same as twin. Control till you get combo and then win using 2 cards.
I've got an internal metagame right now that I play with friends. UR Delver vs Melira Pod, I keep trying to tune the Melira Pod list but cannot get over 50% G1. This is after a lot of attempts. For a short time I hit 60% but then I updated Delver to use Forked Bolt over Electrolyze and it dropped right back down. I'm limited in the T1 decks I can play against but I can say about this matchup that I'm not using Swiftspear (they're sitting in my Legacy deck... paper cards are fun that way) and the matchup is unfavorable. Post board is worse than preboard as Pod is MB'ing most of the good TC hate but Delver can bring in cards. It's probably just always going to be a bad matchup for Pod.
Well, looks like some people started brewing to combat the "MENACE". Sam Black presents a deck which cannot lose to burn and I think the same applies to UR Delver. If anything, this shows that the tools are there. Yes, the deck can be considered good stuff junk, but hey, it works.
Cuneo also has an interesting take on UB Orb Control, that is resilient to Burn.
I guess cooking time is up. Let's see how "powerful and broken" Burn is.
Sams brew is up on SCG. His conclusions, which are pretty evident when you watch the match are that the red hate cards, even in a metagame that's 50% burn are just too terrible against everything else. They aren't guaranteeing you a win in the match you're designed to beat (though they help a lot) and they're useless elsewhere. Also, the 1 power on Auriok Champion was just too low to impact the board.
Seriously, banning skullcrack? Seriously? If something's getting banned it is eidolon or cruise we all know it. I can't believe you guys are suggesting skullcrack.
It is ludicrous but I can see the logic behind the statement. Banning Skullcrack would likely work as a ban due to it taking away 50% of Burns means of dealing with anti-burn cards and force them to run sub-par cards like Leyline of Punishment for the same effect. Cruise wouldn't work as a ban against Burn as it was dominating the format before it was even printed. Eidolon is clearly the problem card for Burn as best case scenario it's 2 damage and 1 removal spell but quite often become a lot more damage. It's my view that all that is needed to be banned is Eidolon and the format will sort itself out but at the same time TC is bonkers strong and probably requires a ban on those grounds alone - as much as I actually think TC is a real boon to the format. It might well be that I'm being subconsciously biased though, as I'm a Jund player, but that point of view is being shared by quite a few people now so I do believe that that is the best way to deal with the current format.
This comes from a UR Delver player, if you hit Burn and don't hit Delver you're just going to put Delver solidly on top. I've said before that Swiftspear is the ban but to be honest the deck is real good even without it (not running it in my build as I prefer Snapcaster). If you hit TC then Dig Through Time is just going to take it's place and Dig is just as strong. Two bans are probably necessary unless there's an unban that would do it. Mental Misstep would be just about enough but that brings it's own format warping problems. Jitte could probably do it (and it's a little more fair without Stoneforge) as it gains life and destroys x/1's, but it would need a reprint... not that I'm wholly serious about either of those unbans.
Sam was maining 4 TC. It just shows even more how powerful TC is in the format. I stopped playing cards like think twice or dig through time and just straight up 2 Sphinx's Rev and 4 TC. TC isn't a very healthy card as it limits the card drawing options for blue decks in general. Now like Goyf with green, 4 TC is considered a staple for blue in this meta. This doesn't show a very promising meta in the future when the modern PTQ and GPs start showing up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is it Treasure Cruise causing the downfall of BGx, or is it burn? The answer isn't clear. BGx is classically a strong deck against delver, and likely still is. It plays maindeck grave hate to combat Cruise, maindeck discard to combat Cruise, maindeck life gain to survive early aggression, and cards that are individually so much stronger than what delver is cruising into that I don't think the matchup really changes that much. This is what my testing has shown.
Burn on the other hand is, and has been, a terrible matchup for BGx. Treasure Cruise may exacerbate the issue but remove it and it's still a poor matchup unless the deck is heavily tuned to beat burn, which means sacrificing percentage points against the rest of the field. Burn is putting up strong results with and without Treasure Cruise. Banning the card removes BGx's strong matchup against delver by removing delver from the format, leaving burn alone to fill the gap. I can't see this resulting in better BGx representation.
For that matter I don't understand why making BGx viable is, or should be a goal of the format. If the metagame adapts, bringing burn and delver representation back down to sane levels alongside a number of other viable decks, yet BGx still has zero representation is that a problem?
'78 CB750F, '09 CBR600RR
However, assessing it as a burn spell that deals 6 damage isn't fair either. After all, you have to cast Treasure Cruise, and then you can cast your burn spells after expending the mana on it. Treasure Cruise will always cost a minimum of one mana, and in my experience generally costs more. So best case scenario, it's a spell that costs RRU and deals 6 damage. Which is still quite respectable, but it's still 3 mana (or more) for that. More likely you'll be expending 2-3 mana on it, meaning that the extra burn doesn't generally come into effect until your next turn when you untap.
What's easy to ignore about Treasure Cruise is the opportunity cost. Instead of being a card that hits your opponent immediately, it requires you expend mana to get cards that will do that. On average you will have 2 cards to hit them with instead of 1, but it does slow you down. Is that worth the extra damage? In a lot of cases, yes. But in other cases it can actually be a liability.
Something else worth remembering. Card draw is generally at its weakest in redundant decks; that is, decks that have a lot of cards that basically do the same thing. In those decks, it doesn't matter so much what you're drawing, so the card draw card is weaker because it could be an immediately useful card rather than something to get you cards. It's why Merfolk doesn't play Serum Visions; the deck is sufficiently redundant that it's better that that Serum Visions be something immediately useful, rather than replacing a threat with a card that will just make you spend extra mana to get a threat. And Burn is possibly the most redundant deck that exists.
Something like UR Delver gets considerable strength from card draw because it’s actually quite dependent on having certain cards to do its thing; all the spells in the world don’t help you much if you have no Young Pyromancer, Delver, or Monastery Swiftspear. Similarly, without spells, those cards are pretty unimpressive. Burn, however, is basically a bunch of cards with a very similar purpose, diminishing the strength of card draw.
To be fair I think you have to make the distinction between card draw and card selection/filtering. Reloading your hand with TC is just raw card advantage, whereas Serum Visions is card neutral.
Not to say that your point is invalid, but rather that you cannot discount the effectiveness of drawing more (of anything) in a deck that is trying to expend its resources as quickly as possible; rather than trying to trade.
It is yet to be seen whether TC even makes burn decks better. I think it does, because the opportunity cost of splashing non-basics isn't as steep as compared to legacy.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Historically, I would say no to the cards coming down the pipe. I doubt Wotc knew what effect those cards would have on the meta. Its either a ban or we wait a few sets to get the answer cards to calm things down. Of course there are those that think they can combat the decks now. Its yet to be seen.
If cruise is banned Delver goes back to tier 2 and burn stays on top. I really like Delver being viable and if burn can somehow be halted BGx can police Delver.
Cruise is amazing but I have resolved 5 cruises in one game and still lost(some kind of midrange?), sadly I cant remember what against but my cruises where mostly lands in an 18 land deck which is some high variance cool story results.
As an aside Is delve currently the only graveyard interaction going on? its been months since I went against storm and I think UWxx gifts/tron has fallen of too.
Zoo destroyed me as UR delver, Not sure if that is worth investigating. Ive also surprisingly had trouble with an aggro green stompy deck that runs vines of the vastwood and that devotion to green pump spell(aggro/midrange that can counter your interaction). Pod also still wrecks me if they can stick a pod or a finks or two shifting back to magma spray/pillar may be needed if forked bolt falls out of favor again.
Nah, Swiftspear is a fair card. Powerful yes, but I really doubt it is the problem.
Burn has an issue with hitting a 'critical mass' of 'good' cards. It's a deck that is a lot more powerful in eternal formats. I think the way to reign in on burn might actually be to restore the ability of life-gain effects to combat it, by banning Skullcrack. Leave that effect to Flame of the Blood Hand, and Leyline of Punishment and I think that might help reign in on burn. While the thing that I think pushed it over the edge was Eidolon of the Great Revel, it isn't actually the most recent card that is the best one to ban, and Eidolon is a great counter to some degenerate decks. Removing Skullcrack enables the best anti-burn hate, lifegain, to actually be effective in the smallish amounts you'd find in sideboards.
I agree, Skullcrack would be a good ban. It would make cards like Pulse of the Field (and others) a very viable sideboard option again.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I can still see Wizards wanting to implement bans to limit Burn's power, especially since so many decks have to be modified to deal with burn.
That being said it's not impossible that a Cruise Control deck can handle the Cruise Aggro decks, but that isn't really a great sign of a healthy format.
I will refrain from judging these new cards right now since I only just began playing again. The meta game percentages and the few articles that I read do worry me a bit though.
Welcome back Galerion, i think the place for you fae is no more (although TC is pretty good in Fae )
- L
"The problem isn't when Scissors says Rock is overpowered, it's when Paper says it is."
-Mark Rosewater
My own opinion is that cruise is a strong card and it made delvers become alot more viable but the main power still comes alot from Monastery swiftspear powering the delvers up. A delver that play cruise but without MS is alot less threatening and scary. When I first play against U/R delvers, I was playing too passively and did not really play well due to the how u/r delvers uses MS. But once I realise that as long as I proactively react and remove their creatures especially MS, they really can't do that much even if they managed to resolve cruise in midgame coz the card advantage that they get from cruise in midgame if they do not have a strong start does not give them too much power to catch up if they do not have enough creatures.
Burn however is still a big issue with alot of decks I guess.. Burn is really a deck that is causing alot of decks to modify either their main deck or sb just to deal with them. From my own playgroup of about 10+ ppl, most of made chances to mainboard or sideboard just to counter burn. But of cos cards like chalice of the void is used for both and delvers got the collateral damage in that sense coz some of the cards that is good against burn is good against delvers as well.
So personally though I think cruise although does not make delvers too overpowering, it does affect how modern play. If alot of decks or archtype is trying to splash blue just for cruise then it is probably not a healthy thing still. But definitely something probably need to be done to burn as that is very rampant.. I went to a local modern tournament and the turnout was abt 14 and there is 5 burn decks and that is excluding 6 of my own playgroup which none of us are playing burns or delvers and that is happening for almost for quite a few weeks for the few places that we frequent for tournaments on either tues or thursday and hence the whole group of us have to prepare for burn coz the chances of meeting them is just so high.. lol..
There are a lot of myths surrounding Burn's pre-KTK dominance, so I want to straighten those out.
I'm going to use MTGO data because it gave us way more datapoints than paper. So before we even start, let's just remember that this is MTGO and not paper data, and all relevant disclaimers apply.
Before GP Kobe even happened, Burn was a pretty commanding force on the MTGO scene, but not nearly to the extent that people think. From 7/1 - 8/24, Burn made up about 12% of the MTGO metagame. By contrast, the next most-played decks were Affinity with 9% and Melira Pod with 9.5%. So Burn had a slight lead over these two decks, but nothing too insane. We have had numerous periods of MTGO activity where one deck was a few percentage points ahead of others, including UR Twin in the Spring and Melira Pod last summer.
But after GP Kobe, something changed. Burn actually DECREASED its MTGO share, either as more people figured out how to beat the deck, more people just prepared for it with different cards, the metagame shifted away from Burn's easiest matchups, and/or the novelty wore off. From 8/25 - 10/2 (right before KTK was legalized), Burn dropped down to 9.5% of the MTGO metagame. Meanwhile, Affinity rose slightly to equal Burn's share, also at 9.5%, and Melira Pod moved up to be the most-played MTGO deck at about 11%. So contrary to popular opinion, Burn's MTGO share was actually falling before KTK hit.
So people need to be careful when talking about Burn's pre-KTK dominance. The deck had a much more benign metagame share back then, and it didn't look nearly as threatening as it does now.
Matchups I found difficult for burn in the month before KTK were those like Affinity. Its one of those rare match ups where Burn has to play control due to affinity's explosiveness - if burn it has to ping off artifacts, its using up gas it needed to go for the dome. But TC essentially lets Burn ignore that completely and refuel for almost free.
It also helps that Delver has a pretty good MU vs the things I'd consider Burn weak to.
I see scapeshift basically the same as twin. Control till you get combo and then win using 2 cards.
What about Seething Song? Too OP in modern?
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Well it was banned because of too many turn 3 wins. I dont see anything that would have changed that.
Sams brew is up on SCG. His conclusions, which are pretty evident when you watch the match are that the red hate cards, even in a metagame that's 50% burn are just too terrible against everything else. They aren't guaranteeing you a win in the match you're designed to beat (though they help a lot) and they're useless elsewhere. Also, the 1 power on Auriok Champion was just too low to impact the board.
This comes from a UR Delver player, if you hit Burn and don't hit Delver you're just going to put Delver solidly on top. I've said before that Swiftspear is the ban but to be honest the deck is real good even without it (not running it in my build as I prefer Snapcaster). If you hit TC then Dig Through Time is just going to take it's place and Dig is just as strong. Two bans are probably necessary unless there's an unban that would do it. Mental Misstep would be just about enough but that brings it's own format warping problems. Jitte could probably do it (and it's a little more fair without Stoneforge) as it gains life and destroys x/1's, but it would need a reprint... not that I'm wholly serious about either of those unbans.