Frank Karsten tweeted the following picture with the top64 from all the GPs combined. The first interactive deck is 5th and there's another 3 places to the second.
Isn't Bant Eldrazi interactive?
Has removal, discard spells, counter spells (sometime only in the side), blockers and even activated abilities to affect creatures during combat
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Frank Karsten tweeted the following picture with the top64 from all the GPs combined. The first interactive deck is 5th and there's another 3 places to the second.
This is exactly where the term "interactive" loses all meaning.
Uniteractive is Infect, Ad Nauseum, Storm. Decks that don't interact with the opponent, or care about their opponent. Affinity cares plenty about the opponent. Eldrazi, Burn, and Zooicide care as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Frank Karsten tweeted the following picture with the top64 from all the GPs combined. The first interactive deck is 5th and there's another 3 places to the second.
Isn't Bant Eldrazi interactive?
Has removal, discard spells, counter spells (sometime only in the side), blockers and even activated abilities to affect creatures during combat
Depends on which narrative you're trying to push. Bant Eldrazi almost certainly falls into the Midrange family of decks as they are a mixture of threats and disruption.
This also isn't popular opinion, but RG tron has become pretty interactive as well(looking at Losset's running of Bolt and things in the main).
There should be a list somewhere of decks based on:
Linear vs non-linear
Interactive vs non-interactive
...
And possibly Fair vs Unfair (although that one seems to be very vaguely defined, might be hard to actually get an accepted list for it)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
There should be a list somewhere of decks based on:
Linear vs non-linear
Interactive vs non-interactive
...
And possibly Fair vs Unfair (although that one seems to be very vaguely defined, might be hard to actually get an accepted list for it)
Without properly argued definitions of those terms, those lists would be meaningless. I'm working through something like that for a future article, but it's a big issue and I definitely don't think I have all the answers. I also need to refine some definitions before putting anything to print.
There should be a list somewhere of decks based on:
Linear vs non-linear
Interactive vs non-interactive
...
And possibly Fair vs Unfair (although that one seems to be very vaguely defined, might be hard to actually get an accepted list for it)
Someone actually posted one of those X vs. Y graphs a while ago in one of these ban topics that was Linearity vs. Interactivity and put a lot of the common decks on it to show where they were in the continuums. I wasn't in 100% agreement with where everything was put but for the most part I thought it showed it pretty well. I don't know exactly where it was, though. Anyone remember?
EDIT: And of course I manage to find it right after I post this. You can find it here. Though my memory was a bit wrong, it's Fair/Unfair vs. Linear/Interactive which is a little problematic as Interactive and Linear aren't really antonyms, but is still decent. Though as I noted, I have some disagreements; for example, I can't consider Tron to be more unfair than Scapeshift and Twin.
There should be a list somewhere of decks based on:
Linear vs non-linear
Interactive vs non-interactive
...
And possibly Fair vs Unfair (although that one seems to be very vaguely defined, might be hard to actually get an accepted list for it)
Someone actually posted one of those X vs. Y graphs a while ago in one of these ban topics that was Linearity vs. Interactivity and put a lot of the common decks on it to show where they were in the continuums. I wasn't in 100% agreement with where everything was put but for the most part I thought it showed it pretty well. I don't know exactly where it was, though. Anyone remember?
EDIT: And of course I manage to find it right after I post this. You can find it here. Though my memory was a bit wrong, it's Fair/Unfair vs. Linear/Interactive which is a little problematic as Interactive and Linear aren't really antonyms, but is still decent. Though as I noted, I have some disagreements; for example, I can't consider Tron to be more unfair than Scapeshift and Twin.
Thanks!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"What's your plan?" Gideon asked.
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
There should be a list somewhere of decks based on:
Linear vs non-linear
Interactive vs non-interactive
...
And possibly Fair vs Unfair (although that one seems to be very vaguely defined, might be hard to actually get an accepted list for it)
Someone actually posted one of those X vs. Y graphs a while ago in one of these ban topics that was Linearity vs. Interactivity and put a lot of the common decks on it to show where they were in the continuums. I wasn't in 100% agreement with where everything was put but for the most part I thought it showed it pretty well. I don't know exactly where it was, though. Anyone remember?
EDIT: And of course I manage to find it right after I post this. You can find it here. Though my memory was a bit wrong, it's Fair/Unfair vs. Linear/Interactive which is a little problematic as Interactive and Linear aren't really antonyms, but is still decent. Though as I noted, I have some disagreements; for example, I can't consider Tron to be more unfair than Scapeshift and Twin.
The problem I have with this graph is that is considers interactive to be non linear, which I disagree with as infect for example plays alot of interaction to protect its combo, yet it is still linear in how the deck plays out. eg mostly combo.
The definition of linear is where id probably run into dispute, but my definition of it is based from game plan. combining elements of fair/unfair and speed.
This is a breakdown I have done for the current t 1,2,3 metagame using modern nexus stats.
Modern Nexus current tier 1,2,3
Jund 9.8% 9.7% 9.2% interactive/ non linear
Affinity 6.2% 6.2% 6.7% min interactive/ linear
Infect 5.7% 5.8% 3.4% interactive / linear
Burn 5.5% 5.2% 6.7% interative/ linear
Jeskai Control 5.2% 5.4% 4.5% interactive/ non linear
Dredge 4.7% 2.6% 10.9% min interactive/ linear
Eldrazi 4.5% 4.7% 6.2% avg interactive/ avg linear
Death's Shadow Zoo 4.3% 2.5% 10.4% avg interactive/ linear
Merfolk 4.2% 4.5% 3.4% avg interactive/ avg linear
RG Tron 3.8% 3.4% 3.1% avg interactive/ linear
Abzan Company 3.5% 4.1% 0.8% avg interactive/avg linear
Ad Nauseam 3.1% 3.5% 2.5% avg interactive/linear
Scapeshift 2.4% 2.3% 2.8% interactive/ avg linear
Abzan 2.2% 2.4% 1.7% interactive/ non linear
Living End 2.2% 2.1% 2.8% avg interactive/ linear
Gruul Zoo 2.1% 2.2% 0.6% avg interactive/ linear
Death and Taxes 1.9% 1.8% 2.5% interactive/ non linear
Grixis Delver 1.7% 1.7% 1.4% interactive/ non linear
Kiki Chord 1.4% 1.4% 0.3% avg interactive/avg linear
grixis control/Midrange 1.6% 1.7% 0.8% interactive/ non linear
Bogles 1.5% 0.8% 2.8% min interactive/ linear
Elves 1.4% 2.0% 0.6% min interactive/ linear
Jeskai Midrange 1.3% 1.6% 0.8% interactive/ non linear
Through the Breach 1.2% 0.9% 1.1% avg interactive/ linear
Esper Control 1.0% 0.7% 2.2% interactive/ non linear
Blue Moon 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% interactive/ non linear
Soul Sisters 0.6% 0.3% 1.7% avg interactive/avg linear
UW Control 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% interactive/ non linear
Faeries 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% interactive/ non linear
Knightfall 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% avg interactive/avg linear
Pyromancer Ascension 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% min interactive/ linear
5C Aggro 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% avg interactive/ linear
interactive/ non linear 9.8,4.5,2.4,1.9,1.7,1.6,1.3,1.0,.9,.6,.3= 26%
avg interactive/ linear 4.3,3.4,3.1,2.2,2.1,1.2,.1= 16.4%
min interactive/ linear 6.2,4.7,1.5,1.4,.3= 14.1%
avg interactive/avg linear 4.7,4.2,3.5,1.4,.6,.3= 14.7%
interactive/ avg linear 2.4=2.4%
30.5% is linear
17.1% is avg linear
26% is non linear
28.4% is interactive
31.1% is avg interactive
14.1% is min interactive
Maindeck hate against Chalice on one in a Delver or Thing Ascension deck. I don't want to run that much counters as they make the deck less consistent. But on the other hand the deck is literally useless with a Chalice on one. I played last match against Jeskai Habringer which had nahiri, blood moon and chalice in every opening hand! All three games. I could play around Nahiri and Blood Moon a while and lost 2-1, but still. What to do against Chalice. With bad land drops and the wrong draws a simple remand on turn 2 doesn't help ...
Maindeck hate against Chalice on one in a Delver or Thing Ascension deck. I don't want to run that much counters as they make the deck less consistent. But on the other hand the deck is literally useless with a Chalice on one. I played last match against Jeskai Habringer which had nahiri, blood moon and chalice in every opening hand! All three games. I could play around Nahiri and Blood Moon a while and lost 2-1, but still. What to do against Chalice. With bad land drops and the wrong draws a simple remand on turn 2 doesn't help ...
//edit: And as I am probabply wrong here ... Where should my post go?
Generally your post should go into the deck discussion that it is regarding. You can also create a thread in the main modern area about specific problems with a card.
To answer you though, run Shattering Spree. The replicate copies on shattering spree aren't countered by Chalice, only the first one is.
Generally your post should go into the deck discussion that it is regarding. You can also create a thread in the main modern area about specific problems with a card.
To answer you though, run Shattering Spree. The replicate copies on shattering spree aren't countered by Chalice, only the first one is.
Thanks mate. Because the UWR Thing Ascension thread has not much people posting I think I am gonna stick with making a new thread or just let it go since you already answered.
Grixis Control has been kinda supplanted by Grixis Delver atm, which takes the control aspects of the other deck while also presenting a good clock. I've said it many times and I'll repeat it here: until Grixis players learn that just grinding your way into nothingness doesn't win tournaments, Grixis Control will remain a tier 2 deck. Playing Goblin Dark Dwellers and Ancestral Vision is cool and all but if you don't have a way to win the game it doesn't really matter. Out midranging the midrange just leaves you open to everything else.
Grixis Control has been kinda supplanted by Grixis Delver atm, which takes the control aspects of the other deck while also presenting a good clock. I've said it many times and I'll repeat it here: until Grixis players learn that just grinding your way into nothingness doesn't win tournaments, Grixis Control will remain a tier 2 deck. Playing Goblin Dark Dwellers and Ancestral Vision is cool and all but if you don't have a way to win the game it doesn't really matter. Out midranging the midrange just leaves you open to everything else.
that's what I feel when playing Grixis, sometimes it just can't win games even though it grinds them out. Part of me can understand how delver can present a clock and can sometimes just win the game, I just don't like the card
Grixis Control has been kinda supplanted by Grixis Delver atm, which takes the control aspects of the other deck while also presenting a good clock. I've said it many times and I'll repeat it here: until Grixis players learn that just grinding your way into nothingness doesn't win tournaments, Grixis Control will remain a tier 2 deck. Playing Goblin Dark Dwellers and Ancestral Vision is cool and all but if you don't have a way to win the game it doesn't really matter. Out midranging the midrange just leaves you open to everything else.
Grixis Control is tier 2 in my opinion. It's not the best deck but I don't think it's so poorly positioned either. I believe fastlands will it a bit (UR one).
Grixis Control decks don't have enough answers to deal with fast linear decks, not enough life gain to buy time against aggro, and not enough closing speed to match decks that go big. It's a midrange-ish Jund-like deck that is significantly weaker because its answers are conditional and its threat base is more expensive and not as high value. It struggles with a lot of matchups and hasn't put notable results up anywhere in quite some time. It belongs in tier 3. The new UR land will help mitigate life loss from some fetch/shock, but it does nothing to provide better answers or better threats.
But it is interesting seeing you defend these decks over and over, saying they are better than they are, when the people who actually play them seem to feel otherwise.
Grixis Delver and Grixis Control are two very different decks. One of them can survive on conditional and temporary answers because it can clock the opponent for 3 in the air as early as turn 2. The other is trying to play a long grindy value game, which is pretty awful in a meta filled with decks that can consistently kill you on or before turn 3. Its late game also isn't good enough to compete with the other over the top strategies. Grixis Delver is not the best deck in the format by any means, but it's still pretty good (and my current favorite deck to play). Grixis Control is just bad, and is not getting any better.
I have said it before. I have called decks less than Tier 1 as "crap decks." But I am really just overstating very small differences. Nearly any Modern deck in the 3 top tiers can win on any given day, based on their matchups, variance, and how well the person plays that deck (for example if they have played it for a while and know the matchups very well). Grixis Control, IMO, is bad right now. I don't feel like it gives you the "best chance" to win in Modern. Would I be surprised if it won a GP? Yes. Would I be surprised if it won a PPTQ? Maybe slightly, but it's definitely possible on any given day. In my area, we had a PPTQ with 96 players, yes, 96 players. (No, Grixis didn't win, Infect did, but I'm making a point that the PPTQs aren't exactly cream puffs in the matter of attendance.)
Slivers can do well with the right matchups. Lantern can. Even as poorly as GR Tron is positioned, they can if they face only the Jund decks that are trying to beat Infect, Affinity, and Burn. I played against UWR Thing twice at a 6 round FNM yesterday and lost both times, 1-2, including game 1s on the draw when Thing killed me on turn 4 in conjunction with burn. I was on GR Titanshift for reference and a big loser on die rolls. But I beat BW Tokens twice 2-0 very easily, despite having my hand thoroughly discarded early on. So, it would seem that I played in a horrible meta or one where nobody plays good decks. But if you look at the tournament report of my friend running the same 75 at the same tournament, he faced all the decks you would expect, outside of a BUG deck that beat him to be at 4-0 at the time. Modern is a format of variance my friend. If my shuffle for Thing had not allowed them to turn 3 flip and attack and also have double burn spell, while also winning the die roll, maybe I could have done better? Maybe if BW Tokens drew quicker hands and I failed to draw a payoff card (Prime Time, Summoner's Pact for it, or Scapeshift), I would have lost to BW Tokens. So, I went a bit too far to explain my point, but basically my point is that nearly any Tiered Modern deck on any given day can do well.
Look at what Lantern Control did in the past in the hands of Zac Elsik. He is a HERO to many people because people probably considered Lantern Control to be Tier 5 at the time. I certainly did.
*Yes, we get it. Blue is in a tough place and it's not close to the 2 best colors. It doesn't have a Tier 1 deck that can consistently put up results in Modern. But what some fail to realize is this - Infect players, Suicide Zoo players, Affinity players...they all have their ups and downs as well. They're going to have more ups than Blue players because their decks are better at what they do. Right now it doesn't look like Wizards wants to make Blue as powerful as Green or Black in Modern. There's not much players can do about that, although I do in fact agree that enough discord about it could possibly sway Wizards to consider a change.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I have said it before. I have called decks less than Tier 1 as "crap decks." But I am really just overstating very small differences. Nearly any Modern deck in the 3 top tiers can win on any given day, based on their matchups, variance, and how well the person plays that deck (for example if they have played it for a while and know the matchups very well). Grixis Control, IMO, is bad right now. I don't feel like it gives you the "best chance" to win in Modern. Would I be surprised if it won a GP? Yes. Would I be surprised if it won a PPTQ? Maybe slightly, but it's definitely possible on any given day. In my area, we had a PPTQ with 96 players, yes, 96 players. (No, Grixis didn't win, Infect did, but I'm making a point that the PPTQs aren't exactly cream puffs in the matter of attendance.)
Slivers can do well with the right matchups. Lantern can. Even as poorly as GR Tron is positioned, they can if they face only the Jund decks that are trying to beat Infect, Affinity, and Burn. I played against UWR Thing twice at a 6 round FNM yesterday and lost both times, 1-2, including game 1s on the draw when Thing killed me on turn 4 in conjunction with burn. I was on GR Titanshift for reference and a big loser on die rolls. But I beat BW Tokens twice 2-0 very easily, despite having my hand thoroughly discarded early on. So, it would seem that I played in a horrible meta or one where nobody plays good decks. But if you look at the tournament report of my friend running the same 75 at the same tournament, he faced all the decks you would expect, outside of a BUG deck that beat him to be at 4-0 at the time. Modern is a format of variance my friend. If my shuffle for Thing had not allowed them to turn 3 flip and attack and also have double burn spell, while also winning the die roll, maybe I could have done better? Maybe if BW Tokens drew quicker hands and I failed to draw a payoff card (Prime Time, Summoner's Pact for it, or Scapeshift), I would have lost to BW Tokens. So, I went a bit too far to explain my point, but basically my point is that nearly any Tiered Modern deck on any given day can do well.
Look at what Lantern Control did in the past in the hands of Zac Elsik. He is a HERO to many people because people probably considered Lantern Control to be Tier 5 at the time. I certainly did.
*Yes, we get it. Blue is in a tough place and it's not close to the 2 best colors. It doesn't have a Tier 1 deck that can consistently put up results in Modern. But what some fail to realize is this - Infect players, Suicide Zoo players, Affinity players...they all have their ups and downs as well. They're going to have more ups than Blue players because their decks are better at what they do. Right now it doesn't look like Wizards wants to make Blue as powerful as Green or Black in Modern. There's not much players can do about that, although I do in fact agree that enough discord about it could possibly sway Wizards to consider a change.
"But what some fail to realize is this - Infect players, Suicide Zoo players, Affinity players...they all have their ups and downs as well."
like they should, as they are highly linear decks.
its not about ups and downs only though. its about linearity. non linear, highly interactive decks aside from bg/x, have had more down than up in this format, and it would be nice for that to change.
Grixis Control is tier 2 in my opinion. It's not the best deck but I don't think it's so poorly positioned either. I believe fastlands will it a bit (UR one).
Grixis Control decks don't have enough answers to deal with fast linear decks, not enough life gain to buy time against aggro, and not enough closing speed to match decks that go big. It's a midrange-ish Jund-like deck that is significantly weaker because its answers are conditional and its threat base is more expensive and not as high value. It struggles with a lot of matchups and hasn't put notable results up anywhere in quite some time. It belongs in tier 3. The new UR land will help mitigate life loss from some fetch/shock, but it does nothing to provide better answers or better threats.
But it is interesting seeing you defend these decks over and over, saying they are better than they are, when the people who actually play them seem to feel otherwise.
that's pretty much how I feel about Grixis Control right now. Threats are slow and not as good as other decks, some of he answers aren't as great and terrible lifegain. I mean I might just play the deck for a bit til I can finish Jeskai Nahiri
Part of me just doesn't enjoy playing delver, even if it has been putting up better results lately
is there any reason why Grixis control is in developing competitive right now?
Maybe I just haven't been paying attention to results lately
Lists are just too fast for it so grixis has become a tempo deck now because it's removal package is still good, just the way it wins isn't. I still think that the midrange version can be at the level of the delver version with some fine tuning. (it's not very far off if you look at the metagame stats) For example, I'm not a fan of playing AV in a deck that's already good at grinding and the card is dead to snap/jace. Small cleanups like that and trying out new synergies can probably push it to tier 2 again. Now that we got a new 1/4 lifelink for two that might prove to be a nice card out of the sideboard.
The metagame stats show that it's just a baby amount of percentage points away from it being the same. Metagame stats also aren't the most accurate for showing a deck's strength. Personally I think that RG breach decks are tier 1-2 because of their consistent tourney placings at GPs this year but that's just me.
is there any reason why Grixis control is in developing competitive right now?
Maybe I just haven't been paying attention to results lately
Lists are just too fast for it so grixis has become a tempo deck now because it's removal package is still good, just the way it wins isn't. I still think that the midrange version can be at the level of the delver version with some fine tuning. (it's not very far off if you look at the metagame stats) For example, I'm not a fan of playing AV in a deck that's already good at grinding and the card is dead to snap/jace. Small cleanups like that and trying out new synergies can probably push it to tier 2 again. Now that we got a new 1/4 lifelink for two that might prove to be a nice card out of the sideboard.
The metagame stats show that it's just a baby amount of percentage points away from it being the same. Metagame stats also aren't the most accurate for showing a deck's strength. Personally I think that RG breach decks are tier 1-2 because of their consistent tourney placings at GPs this year but that's just me.
I was actually looking at that card on my lunch break, it seems to have potential. Grixis Control seemed to be okay with my experience playing it at a PPTQ this weekend, at least maybe a bit better than tier 3
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Stafftop 8 was something like
1. Infect
2. UR breach
3. skred
4. elves
5. elves
6. not sure
7. no sure
8. RUG scapeshift
is elves really that good or did they just get lucky putting 2 people in the top 8?
I'll try and remember to finish the rest of the top 8 list when it gets posted
Isn't Bant Eldrazi interactive?
Has removal, discard spells, counter spells (sometime only in the side), blockers and even activated abilities to affect creatures during combat
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
This is exactly where the term "interactive" loses all meaning.
Uniteractive is Infect, Ad Nauseum, Storm. Decks that don't interact with the opponent, or care about their opponent. Affinity cares plenty about the opponent. Eldrazi, Burn, and Zooicide care as well.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Depends on which narrative you're trying to push. Bant Eldrazi almost certainly falls into the Midrange family of decks as they are a mixture of threats and disruption.
This also isn't popular opinion, but RG tron has become pretty interactive as well(looking at Losset's running of Bolt and things in the main).
Linear vs non-linear
Interactive vs non-interactive
...
And possibly Fair vs Unfair (although that one seems to be very vaguely defined, might be hard to actually get an accepted list for it)
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
Without properly argued definitions of those terms, those lists would be meaningless. I'm working through something like that for a future article, but it's a big issue and I definitely don't think I have all the answers. I also need to refine some definitions before putting anything to print.
Very interesting stats here. For example, the amount of Blessed Alliance and Collective Brutality is quite surprising ^^
Greetings,
Kathal
PS: Also the quality of the article is really high.
Modern/Legacy
either funpolice (Delver, Deathcloud, UW Control) or the fun decks (especially those ft. Griselbrand)
EDIT: And of course I manage to find it right after I post this. You can find it here. Though my memory was a bit wrong, it's Fair/Unfair vs. Linear/Interactive which is a little problematic as Interactive and Linear aren't really antonyms, but is still decent. Though as I noted, I have some disagreements; for example, I can't consider Tron to be more unfair than Scapeshift and Twin.
Thanks!
"Are you serious?" Chandra replied.
The definition of linear is where id probably run into dispute, but my definition of it is based from game plan. combining elements of fair/unfair and speed.
This is a breakdown I have done for the current t 1,2,3 metagame using modern nexus stats.
Modern Nexus current tier 1,2,3
Jund 9.8% 9.7% 9.2% interactive/ non linear
Affinity 6.2% 6.2% 6.7% min interactive/ linear
Infect 5.7% 5.8% 3.4% interactive / linear
Burn 5.5% 5.2% 6.7% interative/ linear
Jeskai Control 5.2% 5.4% 4.5% interactive/ non linear
Dredge 4.7% 2.6% 10.9% min interactive/ linear
Eldrazi 4.5% 4.7% 6.2% avg interactive/ avg linear
Death's Shadow Zoo 4.3% 2.5% 10.4% avg interactive/ linear
Merfolk 4.2% 4.5% 3.4% avg interactive/ avg linear
RG Tron 3.8% 3.4% 3.1% avg interactive/ linear
Abzan Company 3.5% 4.1% 0.8% avg interactive/avg linear
Ad Nauseam 3.1% 3.5% 2.5% avg interactive/linear
Scapeshift 2.4% 2.3% 2.8% interactive/ avg linear
Abzan 2.2% 2.4% 1.7% interactive/ non linear
Living End 2.2% 2.1% 2.8% avg interactive/ linear
Gruul Zoo 2.1% 2.2% 0.6% avg interactive/ linear
Death and Taxes 1.9% 1.8% 2.5% interactive/ non linear
Grixis Delver 1.7% 1.7% 1.4% interactive/ non linear
Kiki Chord 1.4% 1.4% 0.3% avg interactive/avg linear
grixis control/Midrange 1.6% 1.7% 0.8% interactive/ non linear
Bogles 1.5% 0.8% 2.8% min interactive/ linear
Elves 1.4% 2.0% 0.6% min interactive/ linear
Jeskai Midrange 1.3% 1.6% 0.8% interactive/ non linear
Through the Breach 1.2% 0.9% 1.1% avg interactive/ linear
Esper Control 1.0% 0.7% 2.2% interactive/ non linear
Blue Moon 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% interactive/ non linear
Soul Sisters 0.6% 0.3% 1.7% avg interactive/avg linear
UW Control 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% interactive/ non linear
Faeries 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% interactive/ non linear
Knightfall 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% avg interactive/avg linear
Pyromancer Ascension 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% min interactive/ linear
5C Aggro 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% avg interactive/ linear
interactive/ non linear 9.8,4.5,2.4,1.9,1.7,1.6,1.3,1.0,.9,.6,.3= 26%
avg interactive/ linear 4.3,3.4,3.1,2.2,2.1,1.2,.1= 16.4%
min interactive/ linear 6.2,4.7,1.5,1.4,.3= 14.1%
avg interactive/avg linear 4.7,4.2,3.5,1.4,.6,.3= 14.7%
interactive/ avg linear 2.4=2.4%
30.5% is linear
17.1% is avg linear
26% is non linear
28.4% is interactive
31.1% is avg interactive
14.1% is min interactive
decks playing:
none
Maindeck hate against Chalice on one in a Delver or Thing Ascension deck. I don't want to run that much counters as they make the deck less consistent. But on the other hand the deck is literally useless with a Chalice on one. I played last match against Jeskai Habringer which had nahiri, blood moon and chalice in every opening hand! All three games. I could play around Nahiri and Blood Moon a while and lost 2-1, but still. What to do against Chalice. With bad land drops and the wrong draws a simple remand on turn 2 doesn't help ...
The deck looks like this at the moment:
3 Faithless Looting
4 Flooded Strand
4 Gitaxian Probe
1 Hallowed Fountain
3 Island
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Lightning Helix
4 Manamorphose
1 Mountain
1 Polluted Delta
4 Pyromancer Ascension
3 Remand
2 Sacred Foundry
4 Scalding Tarn
4 Serum Visions
1 Steam Vents
1 Sulfur Falls
4 Thing in the Ice
4 Thought Scour
2 Visions of Beyond
3 Blood Moon
2 Dispel
1 Engineered Explosives
3 Path to Exile
2 Rest for the Weary
1 Swan Song
1 Wear // Tear
Greetings
King
//edit: And as I am probabply wrong here ... Where should my post go?
UWRWorking on: Pyromancer AscensionUR
Generally your post should go into the deck discussion that it is regarding. You can also create a thread in the main modern area about specific problems with a card.
To answer you though, run Shattering Spree. The replicate copies on shattering spree aren't countered by Chalice, only the first one is.
Thanks mate. Because the UWR Thing Ascension thread has not much people posting I think I am gonna stick with making a new thread or just let it go since you already answered.
UWRWorking on: Pyromancer AscensionUR
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffMaybe I just haven't been paying attention to results lately
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staffthat's what I feel when playing Grixis, sometimes it just can't win games even though it grinds them out. Part of me can understand how delver can present a clock and can sometimes just win the game, I just don't like the card
decks playing:
none
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Grixis Control decks don't have enough answers to deal with fast linear decks, not enough life gain to buy time against aggro, and not enough closing speed to match decks that go big. It's a midrange-ish Jund-like deck that is significantly weaker because its answers are conditional and its threat base is more expensive and not as high value. It struggles with a lot of matchups and hasn't put notable results up anywhere in quite some time. It belongs in tier 3. The new UR land will help mitigate life loss from some fetch/shock, but it does nothing to provide better answers or better threats.
But it is interesting seeing you defend these decks over and over, saying they are better than they are, when the people who actually play them seem to feel otherwise.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Grixis Delver and Grixis Control are two very different decks. One of them can survive on conditional and temporary answers because it can clock the opponent for 3 in the air as early as turn 2. The other is trying to play a long grindy value game, which is pretty awful in a meta filled with decks that can consistently kill you on or before turn 3. Its late game also isn't good enough to compete with the other over the top strategies. Grixis Delver is not the best deck in the format by any means, but it's still pretty good (and my current favorite deck to play). Grixis Control is just bad, and is not getting any better.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Slivers can do well with the right matchups. Lantern can. Even as poorly as GR Tron is positioned, they can if they face only the Jund decks that are trying to beat Infect, Affinity, and Burn. I played against UWR Thing twice at a 6 round FNM yesterday and lost both times, 1-2, including game 1s on the draw when Thing killed me on turn 4 in conjunction with burn. I was on GR Titanshift for reference and a big loser on die rolls. But I beat BW Tokens twice 2-0 very easily, despite having my hand thoroughly discarded early on. So, it would seem that I played in a horrible meta or one where nobody plays good decks. But if you look at the tournament report of my friend running the same 75 at the same tournament, he faced all the decks you would expect, outside of a BUG deck that beat him to be at 4-0 at the time. Modern is a format of variance my friend. If my shuffle for Thing had not allowed them to turn 3 flip and attack and also have double burn spell, while also winning the die roll, maybe I could have done better? Maybe if BW Tokens drew quicker hands and I failed to draw a payoff card (Prime Time, Summoner's Pact for it, or Scapeshift), I would have lost to BW Tokens. So, I went a bit too far to explain my point, but basically my point is that nearly any Tiered Modern deck on any given day can do well.
Look at what Lantern Control did in the past in the hands of Zac Elsik. He is a HERO to many people because people probably considered Lantern Control to be Tier 5 at the time. I certainly did.
*Yes, we get it. Blue is in a tough place and it's not close to the 2 best colors. It doesn't have a Tier 1 deck that can consistently put up results in Modern. But what some fail to realize is this - Infect players, Suicide Zoo players, Affinity players...they all have their ups and downs as well. They're going to have more ups than Blue players because their decks are better at what they do. Right now it doesn't look like Wizards wants to make Blue as powerful as Green or Black in Modern. There's not much players can do about that, although I do in fact agree that enough discord about it could possibly sway Wizards to consider a change.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)"But what some fail to realize is this - Infect players, Suicide Zoo players, Affinity players...they all have their ups and downs as well."
like they should, as they are highly linear decks.
its not about ups and downs only though. its about linearity. non linear, highly interactive decks aside from bg/x, have had more down than up in this format, and it would be nice for that to change.
bottom line
decks playing:
none
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staffthat's pretty much how I feel about Grixis Control right now. Threats are slow and not as good as other decks, some of he answers aren't as great and terrible lifegain. I mean I might just play the deck for a bit til I can finish Jeskai Nahiri
Part of me just doesn't enjoy playing delver, even if it has been putting up better results lately
Lists are just too fast for it so grixis has become a tempo deck now because it's removal package is still good, just the way it wins isn't. I still think that the midrange version can be at the level of the delver version with some fine tuning. (it's not very far off if you look at the metagame stats) For example, I'm not a fan of playing AV in a deck that's already good at grinding and the card is dead to snap/jace. Small cleanups like that and trying out new synergies can probably push it to tier 2 again. Now that we got a new 1/4 lifelink for two that might prove to be a nice card out of the sideboard.
http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-jul-16/
The metagame stats show that it's just a baby amount of percentage points away from it being the same. Metagame stats also aren't the most accurate for showing a deck's strength. Personally I think that RG breach decks are tier 1-2 because of their consistent tourney placings at GPs this year but that's just me.
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffI was actually looking at that card on my lunch break, it seems to have potential. Grixis Control seemed to be okay with my experience playing it at a PPTQ this weekend, at least maybe a bit better than tier 3