EDIT: What I originally typed was a bit inflammatory, my apologies. Anyway, what you characterize is actually not what I said. But I agree, there's no point in discussing this any further.
To be fair, remanding your own spell _is_ a common line of play. And lots of decks do play Remand (e.g. Scapeshift, Storm, the now-banned Twin, some Delver decks).
I think the crux of the disagreement is that our only objective metrics of power is popularity and tournament placement due to time and skill constraints - not all of us play at the highest level nor have the time to extensively test every single deck. That's why some posters argue that Nahiri is by far the strongest card in SOI - its proven to be able to play at the top tables consistently.
If Traverse the Ulvenwald ends up being really good, time will probably tell. After all, stuff like Amulet, no-lords Goblins, and Chapin-styled Grixis control were a bit of slow burners and only really took off once people noticed it was doing very well in MTGO or tournaments. But its in the brewer's job to show proof that its actually usable (e.g. topping with RUG deck running Traverse) let alone the most powerful card in the set.
I feel like I don't really get you, sorry, you just always talk about data and stats and stuff, but do you actually test, or play? I mean, do you think Mono Blue Devotion in Standard was made by looking at already made decks and magically appeared? How do you think Chalice Eldrazi came to be? Don't you, for one second, imagine that decks are made by trying and playing games? I don't get this approach of just looking at websites, again, how can you know is something is good if nobody is even testing the deck? Do you think Pros just "pigeon chess" and are sometimes lucky?
lmao. I've written various primers for this very site. Bob Huang, an actual competitive player, has said that my Ad Nauseam primer is one of the best he has ever read. What have you done?
Why did people even regard mono-blue devotion as a good deck? Because players were putting up results with it. There are 8 pages of mono-blue Devotion decks on mtgtop8. I'm certainly not going to say that mono-blue devotion is unplayable after looking at that.
I know something is good if it puts up results. Simple as that. How the deck came to be is irrelevant. I acknowledge that the hive mind can figure things out much better than a lone player like myself. I do all these card evaluations to challenge myself; to see how well my predictions line up with reality. Reality is Nahiri seeing play in 61 recorded decks on mtgtop8. Reality is Traverse seeing play in 8 recorded decks. Reality is 6 of those Traverse decks being Suicide Zoo, and Traverse being played as a 1-of SB card.
I don't see the point of card evaluation if you're just going to declare that you win on every card that you picked before they are even released, by the metric of "if I can brew with it, it is a playable card". Any card can be brewed with, so any card is playable by that logic. That's totally useless.
Pros do get things wrong. Kibler was extremely confident in Daybreak Ranger and bought something like 200 copies of the card. What happened after it turned out that Daybreak Ranger wasn't actually good? He didn't stick his fingers in his ears and claim victory because "it seemed good in my testing, so it's playable" - he took it like a man and admitted he was wrong. If you've lost, you tip your king over as an admission of that. You don't knock down all the other pieces and ***** on the board.
I feel like I don't really get you, sorry, you just always talk about data and stats and stuff, but do you actually test, or play? I mean, do you think Mono Blue Devotion in Standard was made by looking at already made decks and magically appeared? How do you think Chalice Eldrazi came to be? Don't you, for one second, imagine that decks are made by trying and playing games? I don't get this approach of just looking at websites, again, how can you know is something is good if nobody is even testing the deck? Do you think Pros just "pigeon chess" and are sometimes lucky?
lmao. I've written various primers for this very site. Bob Huang, an actual competitive player, has said that my Ad Nauseam primer is one of the best he has ever read. What have you done?
Why did people even regard mono-blue devotion as a good deck? Because players were putting up results with it. There are 8 pages of mono-blue Devotion decks on mtgtop8. I'm certainly not going to say that mono-blue devotion is unplayable after looking at that.
I know something is good if it puts up results. Simple as that. How the deck came to be is irrelevant. I acknowledge that the hive mind can figure things out much better than a lone player like myself. I do all these card evaluations to challenge myself; to see how well my predictions line up with reality. Reality is Nahiri seeing play in 61 recorded decks on mtgtop8. Reality is Traverse seeing play in 8 recorded decks. Reality is 6 of those Traverse decks being Suicide Zoo, and Traverse being played as a 1-of SB card.
I don't see the point of card evaluation if you're just going to declare that you win on every card that you picked before they are even released, by the metric of "if I can brew with it, it is a playable card". Any card can be brewed with, so any card is playable by that logic. That's totally useless.
Pros do get things wrong. Kibler was extremely confident in Daybreak Ranger and bought something like 200 copies of the card. What happened after it turned out that Daybreak Ranger wasn't actually good? He didn't stick his fingers in his ears and claim victory because "it seemed good in my testing, so it's playable" - he took it like a man and admitted he was wrong. If you've lost, you tip your king over as an admission of that. You don't knock down all the other pieces and ***** on the board.
The thing is, I know Traverse is good because I've tried it for 100+ hours... I've been wrong with many cards before, like anyone here, as some look really good on paper and turn out crap. If that happens, I'm just disappointed and move on. I'm not saying Traverse is theoretically good, I'm saying it because I've played with it for 3 months and I know how backbreaking it can be and how much card advantage it can generate.
If you've done Primers, then you above all should know how much testing needs to be done to find you which card are good or not. I think the sir above me me hit the nail in the head (@terrifiktorcoal), as decks like Bloom were slow burners.. if you did the "check top 8" approach with Bloom, you would have said it was terrible, period. You can't deny that.
About Mono-U devotion.. well obviously you can say that it's good now, as it was top tier for all that Standard. Was it in the top 8 website before the pro Tour? Nope. So, it wasn't good then? Why wasn't it good before the Pro Tour and suddenly it was after it? Hmmmmmm
People usually only play what is popular, it's a chain reaction. But hey, Bloom picked up and was eventually even banned.
PM: I've done quite many things, I've created Hooting Mandrils, a bit hilariously had to stop discussing TarmoTwin cause Ofelia send me a message that he was bringing it to the Pro tour (and the Dickmann added Oozes and top8'd!), made Goryo's Kiki along with quite a few more decks (I have hundreds of concepts scribbled, as I said), and have written some half-primers for decks, although they are not here yet published. As I've said, because of my work I don't have that much time, but writing is one of my favorite things in the world, and I'm planning to take time and do some of that. Wish days had 48 h!
Do you think you're the only one who has tried Traverse? Tons of people have. It was one of the most hyped cards of the set. Yet they all failed to post results with it, other than the Suicide Zoo SBers. If you cannot put up any results with Traverse, and nobody else can even though collectively, they have been working on it longer than you, what does that say about the card?
Every newly printed card starts out in 0 decks. That's why I only come back to them 3 months later, after they've had the time to prove themselves by accumulating results. If they failed to put up results in that time, they're unplayable. If they put up results later, you can come back to me to tell me I was wrong. Until then, keep waiting.
If you think that everyone else is just stupid for not being able to see how good Traverse is, then what you have to do next is very simple. Since Traverse is such a good card, it should be able to beat other decks easily. Beating other decks in competitive tournaments wins you prizes. So just go out there and earn the easy money. You don't have to do anything for me - just do it for yourself.
Yeah, I've doing so great in testing with deck that I might just do that. The problem is, as I've already said, that I'm really average playing. Brewing might make it for it maybe
This kind of reasoning is exactly why the best and most frequent posters on this board never get much better.
It should be pretty easy to see the hole in the logic chain that says a card can't be playable unless someone else is playing it. I'm sure the very intelligent people on the board can see it.
An argument that says, "I'm not going to invest time in a card no one else plays" is defensible and will be right the vast majority of the time, but is still going to make mistakes.
A lot of times, to get better results, you have to take some risks.
This kind of reasoning is exactly why the best and most frequent posters on this board never get much better.
It should be pretty easy to see the hole in the logic chain that says a card can't be playable unless someone else is playing it. I'm sure the very intelligent people on the board can see it.
An argument that says, "I'm not going to invest time in a card no one else plays" is defensible and will be right the vast majority of the time, but is still going to make mistakes.
A lot of times, to get better results, you have to take some risks.
In the abstract what you say is certainly true. But when Traverse shows very few results, none of which are meaningful, and it's an obviously weak card to begin with, it's simply not worth wasting time on.
A lot of times, to get better results, you have to take some risks.
In the abstract what you say is certainly true. But when Traverse shows very few results, none of which are meaningful, and it's an obviously weak card to begin with, it's simply not worth wasting time on.[/quote]
I wouldn't say it's "obviously" weak. Worldly Tutor into your hand would be insane. The problem is, there are no decent decks which can reliably achieve delirium and also post regular results. If such a deck existed independently of Traverse, then the card could be good. But Modern can't seem to find such a deck at any competitive level, so all the delirium cards get sunk. not just Traverse because it's "obviously weak."
In the abstract what you say is certainly true. But when Traverse shows very few results, none of which are meaningful, and it's an obviously weak card to begin with, it's simply not worth wasting time on.
I wouldn't say it's "obviously" weak. Worldly Tutor into your hand would be insane. The problem is, there are no decent decks which can reliably achieve delirium and also post regular results. If such a deck existed independently of Traverse, then the card could be good. But Modern can't seem to find such a deck at any competitive level, so all the delirium cards get sunk. not just Traverse because it's "obviously weak."
It's obviously weak because it's only Lay of the Land unless you have Delirium, and all the Delirium cards get sunk. What you said and what I said aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, unless I'm really misinterpreting you, your point supports mine.
In the abstract what you say is certainly true. But when Traverse shows very few results, none of which are meaningful, and it's an obviously weak card to begin with, it's simply not worth wasting time on.
I wouldn't say it's "obviously" weak. Worldly Tutor into your hand would be insane. The problem is, there are no decent decks which can reliably achieve delirium and also post regular results. If such a deck existed independently of Traverse, then the card could be good. But Modern can't seem to find such a deck at any competitive level, so all the delirium cards get sunk. not just Traverse because it's "obviously weak."
It's obviously weak because it's only Lay of the Land unless you have Delirium, and all the Delirium cards get sunk. What you said and what I said aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, unless I'm really misinterpreting you, your point supports mine.
If you're saying delirium is bad and hard to fulfill, then we agree. If you're saying Traverse is bad even if delirium was active, then we disagree.
In the abstract what you say is certainly true. But when Traverse shows very few results, none of which are meaningful, and it's an obviously weak card to begin with, it's simply not worth wasting time on.
I wouldn't say it's "obviously" weak. Worldly Tutor into your hand would be insane. The problem is, there are no decent decks which can reliably achieve delirium and also post regular results. If such a deck existed independently of Traverse, then the card could be good. But Modern can't seem to find such a deck at any competitive level, so all the delirium cards get sunk. not just Traverse because it's "obviously weak."
It's obviously weak because it's only Lay of the Land unless you have Delirium, and all the Delirium cards get sunk. What you said and what I said aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, unless I'm really misinterpreting you, your point supports mine.
If you're saying delirium is bad and hard to fulfill, then we agree. If you're saying Traverse is bad even if delirium was active, then we disagree.
Then we agree When deciding whether Traverse is good, part of the consideration must be whether Delirium is achievable and how easily.
It should be pretty easy to see the hole in the logic chain that says a card can't be playable unless someone else is playing it. I'm sure the very intelligent people on the board can see it.
That's why I wait three months for people to start putting up results first. I believe that's enough time for the entire playerbase to find a winning deck that includes the card. If they can't do it by then, the card is unplayable.
I believe this also gives enough time for the hyped cards to lose steam and for us to see them for what they really are. Sword of the Meek was unbanned at the same time that SOI became legal. Sword put up extremely promising results in its first month - 14 decks on mtgtop8. At the time of writing there are 20 Sword decks on mtgtop8. It put up even fewer results in the last two months combined than it did in its first month. Today most of us would view Sword as an unplayable card, or "fringe playable" if you prefer softer terminology like that.
An argument that says, "I'm not going to invest time in a card no one else plays" is defensible and will be right the vast majority of the time, but is still going to make mistakes.
I don't play with cards that I consider bad. However, I don't stop others from doing that. I can live without being the first person to "discover" a deck. So go ahead, brew with your pet cards, get some results recorded on mtgtop8, then you can come back and tell me I was wrong. Until then, keep waiting.
So I know that this is the SOI thread but we're getting a lot of new cards that make the delirium payoff better/delirium easier to attain. I personally don't plan to build w/ Traverse and I think it is only good in dedicated delirium decks. But I do think if the card was not good before it has become a lot better now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks:
UG Merfolk RG 8-Whack BWG Abzan midrange GRB Living End UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin" RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!" BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
Do you think you're the only one who has tried Traverse? Tons of people have. It was one of the most hyped cards of the set. Yet they all failed to post results with it, other than the Suicide Zoo SBers. If you cannot put up any results with Traverse, and nobody else can even though collectively, they have been working on it longer than you, what does that say about the card?
Every newly printed card starts out in 0 decks. That's why I only come back to them 3 months later, after they've had the time to prove themselves by accumulating results. If they failed to put up results in that time, they're unplayable. If they put up results later, you can come back to me to tell me I was wrong. Until then, keep waiting.
If you think that everyone else is just stupid for not being able to see how good Traverse is, then what you have to do next is very simple. Since Traverse is such a good card, it should be able to beat other decks easily. Beating other decks in competitive tournaments wins you prizes. So just go out there and earn the easy money. You don't have to do anything for me - just do it for yourself.
Meh this reasoning is pretty flawed since it was the only delirium card that was even playable from last set. Pros such as Sam Black are convinced that the card is at least decent. (hell he ran it in a tournament because he really believed in it) Don't count the card out until Edritch Moon is out for a few months.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
Do you think you're the only one who has tried Traverse? Tons of people have. It was one of the most hyped cards of the set. Yet they all failed to post results with it, other than the Suicide Zoo SBers. If you cannot put up any results with Traverse, and nobody else can even though collectively, they have been working on it longer than you, what does that say about the card?
Every newly printed card starts out in 0 decks. That's why I only come back to them 3 months later, after they've had the time to prove themselves by accumulating results. If they failed to put up results in that time, they're unplayable. If they put up results later, you can come back to me to tell me I was wrong. Until then, keep waiting.
If you think that everyone else is just stupid for not being able to see how good Traverse is, then what you have to do next is very simple. Since Traverse is such a good card, it should be able to beat other decks easily. Beating other decks in competitive tournaments wins you prizes. So just go out there and earn the easy money. You don't have to do anything for me - just do it for yourself.
Meh this reasoning is pretty flawed since it was the only delirium card that was even playable from last set. Pros such as Sam Black are convinced that the card is at least decent. (hell he ran it in a tournament because he really believed in it) Don't count the card out until Edritch Moon is out for a few months.
I'm certainly no Sam Black, but I just don't see it. I firmly believe that the non-Delirium effect needs to be at the LEAST slightly under playable (but just a smidge) in order to justify the card. Traverse's non-Delirium effect is Lay of the Land. That's not even close.
That said, if there's a shell that can repeatedly and quickly turn on Delirium, without the rest of the deck being soft to easily boarded/splashed grave hate, then I'll reconsider.
I'm still surprised Thing in the Ice didn't make any waves. Its flip condition is fairly easy, it's bolt-proof, and the payoff is enormous
Well, I think it's just not a great fit for this format. Other than Lightning Bolt, the most common removal is Abrupt Decay, Terminate, and Path, which all see a lot of play and which all outright kill it. It also loses to Spell Snare which Nahiri decks are main decking right now. And in Modern I don't think the flip payoff is nearly as good as you might think. In order for a creature to be playable in Modern it has to do something immediately and/or be a game-winner and/or provide a large advantage if you get to untap with it. When creatures are already passing that bar, getting them back into your hand to deploy again isn't that big of a deal. The flip is a powerhouse against Token strategies, but those aren't Tier 1 in Modern.
can't say i'm completely happy with the set. I was enthusiastic for the transform and meld creatures that they spoiled early. I was hoping for several more to come out. I was like finally some playable BFMs but sadly we only got like 3 combinations of Meld. other thing is its only eternal formats that can run them effectively since you need tutors.
the new Noose Constrictor should make madness viable since its what modern has been missing (a wild mongrel variant).
emerge casting costs could have had a lot of potential, but none of the eldrazi that have it really do anything to own the game when they ETB......
another set with some innovative twist, but nothing that is powerful that stands out among it.
There's too much mixing of SOI and EMN discussion here, and most of it is focused around a single deck. If you want to discuss EMN, go to the EMN thread. If you want to discuss Traverse and delirium, start a thread about that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I think the crux of the disagreement is that our only objective metrics of power is popularity and tournament placement due to time and skill constraints - not all of us play at the highest level nor have the time to extensively test every single deck. That's why some posters argue that Nahiri is by far the strongest card in SOI - its proven to be able to play at the top tables consistently.
If Traverse the Ulvenwald ends up being really good, time will probably tell. After all, stuff like Amulet, no-lords Goblins, and Chapin-styled Grixis control were a bit of slow burners and only really took off once people noticed it was doing very well in MTGO or tournaments. But its in the brewer's job to show proof that its actually usable (e.g. topping with RUG deck running Traverse) let alone the most powerful card in the set.
Why did people even regard mono-blue devotion as a good deck? Because players were putting up results with it. There are 8 pages of mono-blue Devotion decks on mtgtop8. I'm certainly not going to say that mono-blue devotion is unplayable after looking at that.
I know something is good if it puts up results. Simple as that. How the deck came to be is irrelevant. I acknowledge that the hive mind can figure things out much better than a lone player like myself. I do all these card evaluations to challenge myself; to see how well my predictions line up with reality. Reality is Nahiri seeing play in 61 recorded decks on mtgtop8. Reality is Traverse seeing play in 8 recorded decks. Reality is 6 of those Traverse decks being Suicide Zoo, and Traverse being played as a 1-of SB card.
I don't see the point of card evaluation if you're just going to declare that you win on every card that you picked before they are even released, by the metric of "if I can brew with it, it is a playable card". Any card can be brewed with, so any card is playable by that logic. That's totally useless.
Pros do get things wrong. Kibler was extremely confident in Daybreak Ranger and bought something like 200 copies of the card. What happened after it turned out that Daybreak Ranger wasn't actually good? He didn't stick his fingers in his ears and claim victory because "it seemed good in my testing, so it's playable" - he took it like a man and admitted he was wrong. If you've lost, you tip your king over as an admission of that. You don't knock down all the other pieces and ***** on the board.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
The thing is, I know Traverse is good because I've tried it for 100+ hours... I've been wrong with many cards before, like anyone here, as some look really good on paper and turn out crap. If that happens, I'm just disappointed and move on. I'm not saying Traverse is theoretically good, I'm saying it because I've played with it for 3 months and I know how backbreaking it can be and how much card advantage it can generate.
If you've done Primers, then you above all should know how much testing needs to be done to find you which card are good or not. I think the sir above me me hit the nail in the head (@terrifiktorcoal), as decks like Bloom were slow burners.. if you did the "check top 8" approach with Bloom, you would have said it was terrible, period. You can't deny that.
About Mono-U devotion.. well obviously you can say that it's good now, as it was top tier for all that Standard. Was it in the top 8 website before the pro Tour? Nope. So, it wasn't good then? Why wasn't it good before the Pro Tour and suddenly it was after it? Hmmmmmm
People usually only play what is popular, it's a chain reaction. But hey, Bloom picked up and was eventually even banned.
PM: I've done quite many things, I've created Hooting Mandrils, a bit hilariously had to stop discussing TarmoTwin cause Ofelia send me a message that he was bringing it to the Pro tour (and the Dickmann added Oozes and top8'd!), made Goryo's Kiki along with quite a few more decks (I have hundreds of concepts scribbled, as I said), and have written some half-primers for decks, although they are not here yet published. As I've said, because of my work I don't have that much time, but writing is one of my favorite things in the world, and I'm planning to take time and do some of that. Wish days had 48 h!
Every newly printed card starts out in 0 decks. That's why I only come back to them 3 months later, after they've had the time to prove themselves by accumulating results. If they failed to put up results in that time, they're unplayable. If they put up results later, you can come back to me to tell me I was wrong. Until then, keep waiting.
If you think that everyone else is just stupid for not being able to see how good Traverse is, then what you have to do next is very simple. Since Traverse is such a good card, it should be able to beat other decks easily. Beating other decks in competitive tournaments wins you prizes. So just go out there and earn the easy money. You don't have to do anything for me - just do it for yourself.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
It should be pretty easy to see the hole in the logic chain that says a card can't be playable unless someone else is playing it. I'm sure the very intelligent people on the board can see it.
An argument that says, "I'm not going to invest time in a card no one else plays" is defensible and will be right the vast majority of the time, but is still going to make mistakes.
A lot of times, to get better results, you have to take some risks.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I wouldn't say it's "obviously" weak. Worldly Tutor into your hand would be insane. The problem is, there are no decent decks which can reliably achieve delirium and also post regular results. If such a deck existed independently of Traverse, then the card could be good. But Modern can't seem to find such a deck at any competitive level, so all the delirium cards get sunk. not just Traverse because it's "obviously weak."
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
If you're saying delirium is bad and hard to fulfill, then we agree. If you're saying Traverse is bad even if delirium was active, then we disagree.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I believe this also gives enough time for the hyped cards to lose steam and for us to see them for what they really are. Sword of the Meek was unbanned at the same time that SOI became legal. Sword put up extremely promising results in its first month - 14 decks on mtgtop8. At the time of writing there are 20 Sword decks on mtgtop8. It put up even fewer results in the last two months combined than it did in its first month. Today most of us would view Sword as an unplayable card, or "fringe playable" if you prefer softer terminology like that.
I don't play with cards that I consider bad. However, I don't stop others from doing that. I can live without being the first person to "discover" a deck. So go ahead, brew with your pet cards, get some results recorded on mtgtop8, then you can come back and tell me I was wrong. Until then, keep waiting.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
RG 8-Whack
BWG Abzan midrange
GRB Living End
UWB Spirit Control
GU Kruphix's "Hug Assassin"
RW Kalemne's "Play Fatties and Hope for the Best!"
BUGW Atraxa's "All counters, all the time"
Meh this reasoning is pretty flawed since it was the only delirium card that was even playable from last set. Pros such as Sam Black are convinced that the card is at least decent. (hell he ran it in a tournament because he really believed in it) Don't count the card out until Edritch Moon is out for a few months.
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/)
That said, if there's a shell that can repeatedly and quickly turn on Delirium, without the rest of the deck being soft to easily boarded/splashed grave hate, then I'll reconsider.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
the new Noose Constrictor should make madness viable since its what modern has been missing (a wild mongrel variant).
emerge casting costs could have had a lot of potential, but none of the eldrazi that have it really do anything to own the game when they ETB......
another set with some innovative twist, but nothing that is powerful that stands out among it.
There's too much mixing of SOI and EMN discussion here, and most of it is focused around a single deck. If you want to discuss EMN, go to the EMN thread. If you want to discuss Traverse and delirium, start a thread about that.