I agree with modern not being a PT format, but unfortunately it's a popular format that Wizards decided to put their back behind. I'm expecting the entire market to be turbulent as the pro's take their own crack at the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I reserve judgement for another 5 days. If no deck warps the format or breaks the PT, I am certain that PT will be a positive thing in our beloved format.
Also, I am afraid that if Modern PT is to be removed again, Modern will fall into slow decay.
That's what bugs me about the PT: The best thing people can hope for is that it doesn't spike some card someone was after too hard and that the pros don't crack the format wide open like they did back with the Eldrazi and Eye of Ugin. The pros hate it as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I reserve judgement for another 5 days. If no deck warps the format or breaks the PT, I am certain that PT will be a positive thing in our beloved format.
Also, I am afraid that if Modern PT is to be removed again, Modern will fall into slow decay.
That's what bugs me about the PT: The best thing people can hope for is that it doesn't spike some card someone was after too hard and that the pros don't crack the format wide open like they did back with the Eldrazi and Eye of Ugin. The pros hate it as well.
I reserve judgement for another 5 days. If no deck warps the format or breaks the PT, I am certain that PT will be a positive thing in our beloved format.
Also, I am afraid that if Modern PT is to be removed again, Modern will fall into slow decay.
That's what bugs me about the PT: The best thing people can hope for is that it doesn't spike some card someone was after too hard and that the pros don't crack the format wide open like they did back with the Eldrazi and Eye of Ugin. The pros hate it as well.
To be fair though, the PT itself has caused or heavily influenced most bans in Modern's history. Without a PT, it takes a whole lot more to justify banning something.
I reserve judgement for another 5 days. If no deck warps the format or breaks the PT, I am certain that PT will be a positive thing in our beloved format.
Also, I am afraid that if Modern PT is to be removed again, Modern will fall into slow decay.
That's what bugs me about the PT: The best thing people can hope for is that it doesn't spike some card someone was after too hard and that the pros don't crack the format wide open like they did back with the Eldrazi and Eye of Ugin. The pros hate it as well.
I don't agree with all of his points and some of his points seem/are outright wrong. But I do agree with his thesis, which is that Modern should probably not be a PT format and that it will likely result in more harm than good.
What about this was a good article? It was 5000 words of "I don't think Modern should be a PT format because it's hard to get an edge in such a diverse metagame and if wizards wants to change that it might ruin the format with bans, etc." k. that's a tweet buddy not an article.
What if wizards wants to just leave it the way it is for the most part (with the same incremental banning approach they have taken for years) and people just tough it out?
He essentially rehashed all the same talking points we've heard on this issue and even brought back the old "we need more sideboard cards!" or "More eyes on the format aren't necessarily better!" I'm nearly 100% positive I've read 75% of this article in the last year elsewhere
Personally, I love the modern pro tour and have always loved it. It's the one pro tour event I tune in for because it's accessible. I don't need to have followed or played this specific season of standard to be invested in a deck or know what all the cards do. I tune in exclusively for modern GPs and the pro tour is a chance to see even higher level play.
While I play legacy I don't watch legacy GPs because the narrow card pool and proliferation of brainstorm decks is extremely tedious to watch. The narrow field and narrow card pool combine to be not particularly exciting to watch for me.
If Wizards can just settle down and do it infrequently enough that it doesn't get stale, I think it'll be fine -- and it'll also drive some excitement back into the format that's lacking without this level of attention. I think it's just as likely to stir up the meta with some new technology as it is to cause some urgent ban (if not quite a bit moreso).
To be fair though, the PT itself has caused or heavily influenced most bans in Modern's history. Without a PT, it takes a whole lot more to justify banning something.
I'd rather wizards just get better at managing the format and not focus so much on the PT results. They're clearly capable of using data and they have a lot more than us, so presumably they can just settle down and not ban something immediately after the PT because it did well, until it is reflected in the actual metagame.
I reserve judgement for another 5 days. If no deck warps the format or breaks the PT, I am certain that PT will be a positive thing in our beloved format.
Also, I am afraid that if Modern PT is to be removed again, Modern will fall into slow decay.
That's what bugs me about the PT: The best thing people can hope for is that it doesn't spike some card someone was after too hard and that the pros don't crack the format wide open like they did back with the Eldrazi and Eye of Ugin. The pros hate it as well.
To be fair though, the PT itself has caused or heavily influenced most bans in Modern's history. Without a PT, it takes a whole lot more to justify banning something.
Which it should be. It should take a lot to justify a banning, because this isnt't a digital product, and to ban a card is kind of like taking money away from someone. Pros need not to defend the laziness or bad communication put in practice within Wotc when it comes to designing new cards that can, and did, break Modern in half.
Not having Modern, the most popular format, not in the PT is a mistake. Its ignoring the biggest section of your consumer, which is just a stupid business decision. As Modern players, we should be celebrating that the format is in the PT rather than being afraid of bannings that come with it. We should be blaming Wotc on fast and rash banning decisions rather than claiming the format better suits non-competitve players.
Based on the recent Standard bannings, it looks like Wotc has been changing the way they go about bans where they at last show actual statistics at least
I don't agree with all of his points and some of his points seem/are outright wrong. But I do agree with his thesis, which is that Modern should probably not be a PT format and that it will likely result in more harm than good.
What about this was a good article? It was 5000 words of "I don't think Modern should be a PT format because it's hard to get an edge in such a diverse metagame and if wizards wants to change that it might ruin the format with bans, etc." k. that's a tweet buddy not an article.
What if wizards wants to just leave it the way it is for the most part (with the same incremental banning approach they have taken for years) and people just tough it out?
He essentially rehashed all the same talking points we've heard on this issue and even brought back the old "we need more sideboard cards!" or "More eyes on the format aren't necessarily better!" I'm nearly 100% positive I've read 75% of this article in the last year elsewhere
Personally, I love the modern pro tour and have always loved it. It's the one pro tour event I tune in for because it's accessible. I don't need to have followed or played this specific season of standard to be invested in a deck or know what all the cards do. I tune in exclusively for modern GPs and the pro tour is a chance to see even higher level play.
While I play legacy I don't watch legacy GPs because the narrow card pool and proliferation of brainstorm decks is extremely tedious to watch. The narrow field and narrow card pool combine to be not particularly exciting to watch for me.
If Wizards can just settle down and do it infrequently enough that it doesn't get stale, I think it'll be fine -- and it'll also drive some excitement back into the format that's lacking without this level of attention. I think it's just as likely to stir up the meta with some new technology as it is to cause some urgent ban (if not quite a bit moreso).
To be fair though, the PT itself has caused or heavily influenced most bans in Modern's history. Without a PT, it takes a whole lot more to justify banning something.
I'd rather wizards just get better at managing the format and not focus so much on the PT results. They're clearly capable of using data and they have a lot more than us, so presumably they can just settle down and not ban something immediately after the PT because it did well, until it is reflected in the actual metagame.
Like I said in the quoted post, I agree with his thesis that Modern should probably not be on the PT, but disagree with many of his supporting points. PTs, for whatever reason, tend to induce bannings. Some are legit, some are not. I would rather we not have that specter always hanging over the format. I don't want Wizards to think they need to change Modern because vocal, whiny pros think it's unsolvable.
What I'm finding more frustrating is that the only modern pro tour is taking place this weekend, and nearly every website has barely written about modern, it's all on standard and limited.
...I actually completely agree with Diva, she's pretty spot on
She's pretty right in that they'll probably shatter the illusion of there being so many decks when there's truly only a few worth playing on a competitive level.
Like I said in the quoted post, I agree with his thesis that Modern should probably not be on the PT, but disagree with many of his supporting points. PTs, for whatever reason, tend to induce bannings. Some are legit, some are not. I would rather we not have that specter always hanging over the format. I don't want Wizards to think they need to change Modern because vocal, whiny pros think it's unsolvable.
I guess I would classify it more as a "very long, somewhat suspect" read than a "great" read. Most of his ideas are regurgitated and many of them are actively sketchy. And I wondered what about it you thought was "great" other than the thesis.
It's chock full of glorious whoppers such as this:
Here’s my big issue: If I were able to 100% completely predict a metagame and know exactly how many of every single deck would show up in the next Modern tournament and what kind of sideboard strategies they would be utilizing, would I be able to create a large metagame advantage? I firmly believe that answer is “no.”
and this:
Knowing what all my matchups were at GP Santa Clara, I would have made no changes to my Modern deck, and my record wasn’t particularly good.
As far as the pro tour precipitating bannings -- that's something Wizards can just stop doing if they want. Because it has in the past doesn't mean it will in the future, especially if they took our feedback to settle down about it.
GDS has things over 4 or 5C, we know those things, but in the end it mostly comes down to 2 cards: Snapcaster Mage and Stubborn Denial. It's my opinion that what Snap adds doesn't offset the advantages a green build has. And the green build can just play Stubborn Denial, which is the actual most important one of the two.
GDS is a deck that plays a lot of air in the form of cantrips, and it has to pay mana for most of those, unlike 5C. It has a very low threat density and some of those threats just doesn't cut it in many matchups. It has a fail rate, those games where you are spinning your wheels trying desperately to find a threat to then find a Tasigur your opponent laughs about. 5C has a higher threat count and the threats are on average larger, it's a more aggressive deck which makes it so it's better against GDS's bad matchups. You can see how people have been realizing this as of late and have been making GDS look closer to 5C, playing multiple TBR's and even cutting Tasigurs for more Anglers.
I believe most of the domination of GDS among the DS decks came from a time where people flocked to decks like UW to beat up on Jund DS, and GDS is much better vs decks like UW than Jund DS, even if it's still a dog. So people moved into GDS massively. But then, several decks that beat GDS appeared, and people slowly dropped GDS until it had the shares it has today.
What they didn't do was walk the next 2 steps.
1- Identifying that green DS is better vs those decks
2- Identifying that the critical card that made GDS so good was actually Stubborn Denial, and then jam it into 4/5C DS accordingly
So they abandoned the original, crude Jund DS decks for the more refined GDS, and when GDS started to fail in the face of targeted attacks, they didn't think of going back to a more refined form of Jund DS that has the best of both decks. The amount of cantrips in GDS is a bug, not a feature. They need them to support a low land count and a low threat count that includes delve creatures, since that's the only way to keep the amount of interaction needed in such a deck.
I hope the modern PT is won by a random player who just won a qualifying tournament. Pros are mad that field is wide open, when the reality is that makes it more fair. Randomness via matchups affects everyone. And Pros are among the biggest whiners on the planet. Half of them, and EFro is a big example of this, think they are entitled to results (he may call it pro equity, but screw him honestly). It's made worse because WOTC thinks pros are draws over the decks. I really don't care how EFro does, or Pascal Maynard, or Reid Duke, or anyone else unless a close friend of mine qualified. I just want to watch the matches.
Do more people actually care about who wins, or the decks that win and the matches we see?
I honestly couldnt care less about the individual players, I follow decks, I want decks or styles, to archetypes, to win. The players dont matter to me in the least.
Do more people actually care about who wins, or the decks that win and the matches we see?
I honestly couldnt care less about the individual players, I follow decks, I want decks or styles, to archetypes, to win. The players dont matter to me in the least.
I root for Wescoe because he seems like a genuine and cool dude and usually sticks to his guns. I respect him, but other than that I just want to see good and exciting matches. I don't even care what the decks are, much less the players, as long as the games are close and interesting to watch.
Do more people actually care about who wins, or the decks that win and the matches we see?
I honestly couldnt care less about the individual players, I follow decks, I want decks or styles, to archetypes, to win. The players dont matter to me in the least.
Definitely decks/archetypes for me, too, which is something I love about modern. It really rewards deck knowledge of your outs vs. the meta. Nothing I love more than watching Nikachu destroy some pro with merfolk or something
GDS has things over 4 or 5C, we know those things, but in the end it mostly comes down to 2 cards: Snapcaster Mage and Stubborn Denial. It's my opinion that what Snap adds doesn't offset the advantages a green build has. And the green build can just play Stubborn Denial, which is the actual most important one of the two.
GDS is a deck that plays a lot of air in the form of cantrips, and it has to pay mana for most of those, unlike 5C. It has a very low threat density and some of those threats just doesn't cut it in many matchups. It has a fail rate, those games where you are spinning your wheels trying desperately to find a threat to then find a Tasigur your opponent laughs about. 5C has a higher threat count and the threats are on average larger, it's a more aggressive deck which makes it so it's better against GDS's bad matchups. You can see how people have been realizing this as of late and have been making GDS look closer to 5C, playing multiple TBR's and even cutting Tasigurs for more Anglers.
I believe most of the domination of GDS among the DS decks came from a time where people flocked to decks like UW to beat up on Jund DS, and GDS is much better vs decks like UW than Jund DS, even if it's still a dog. So people moved into GDS massively. But then, several decks that beat GDS appeared, and people slowly dropped GDS until it had the shares it has today.
What they didn't do was walk the next 2 steps.
1- Identifying that green DS is better vs those decks
2- Identifying that the critical card that made GDS so good was actually Stubborn Denial, and then jam it into 4/5C DS accordingly
So they abandoned the original, crude Jund DS decks for the more refined GDS, and when GDS started to fail in the face of targeted attacks, they didn't think of going back to a more refined form of Jund DS that has the best of both decks. The amount of cantrips in GDS is a bug, not a feature. They need them to support a low land count and a low threat count that includes delve creatures, since that's the only way to keep the amount of interaction needed in such a deck.
We'll see if I'm right or not.
I don't always agree with you, but this analysis is spot on. It is something I've been thinking since GDS appeared, that it is not a great deck, but I just couldn't justify it (and results were pointing otherwise). However ur analysis is great.
4/5c DS isn't all sunshine and roses though holydiva.
It has alot of issues GDS doesn't have, starting with the extremely shaky 18 lands 4/5 color manabase they need to have access to Stubborn Denial and some form of value in their deck (I mean seriously, a single GQ on one of your lands often cuts you off that color while PtE's are almost free) and continuing with the 8 0cc redraws you can have multiples in your starting hand, often giving you completely random hands. Serum Visions may cost 1 mana but it at least gives you 3 looks at a threat. All of your threats are also vulnerable to fatal push giving GDS a big edge when they face each other, a MU you didn't address but is very relevant.
DSJ having "the best of both decks" is a gross overstatement imo, I'd honestly also like to see that list of several MU's where DSJ is that much better than GDS.
GDS has things over 4 or 5C, we know those things, but in the end it mostly comes down to 2 cards: Snapcaster Mage and Stubborn Denial. It's my opinion that what Snap adds doesn't offset the advantages a green build has. And the green build can just play Stubborn Denial, which is the actual most important one of the two.
GDS is a deck that plays a lot of air in the form of cantrips, and it has to pay mana for most of those, unlike 5C. It has a very low threat density and some of those threats just doesn't cut it in many matchups. It has a fail rate, those games where you are spinning your wheels trying desperately to find a threat to then find a Tasigur your opponent laughs about. 5C has a higher threat count and the threats are on average larger, it's a more aggressive deck which makes it so it's better against GDS's bad matchups. You can see how people have been realizing this as of late and have been making GDS look closer to 5C, playing multiple TBR's and even cutting Tasigurs for more Anglers.
I believe most of the domination of GDS among the DS decks came from a time where people flocked to decks like UW to beat up on Jund DS, and GDS is much better vs decks like UW than Jund DS, even if it's still a dog. So people moved into GDS massively. But then, several decks that beat GDS appeared, and people slowly dropped GDS until it had the shares it has today.
What they didn't do was walk the next 2 steps.
1- Identifying that green DS is better vs those decks
2- Identifying that the critical card that made GDS so good was actually Stubborn Denial, and then jam it into 4/5C DS accordingly
So they abandoned the original, crude Jund DS decks for the more refined GDS, and when GDS started to fail in the face of targeted attacks, they didn't think of going back to a more refined form of Jund DS that has the best of both decks. The amount of cantrips in GDS is a bug, not a feature. They need them to support a low land count and a low threat count that includes delve creatures, since that's the only way to keep the amount of interaction needed in such a deck.
We'll see if I'm right or not.
That's a pretty respectable assessment. I did notice that GDS was beginning to blend closer to a 4C build. And you're right, Stubborn Denial is the most important card in that deck. It also doesn't crumble to UW/Jeskai decks. GDS has really seen it's great matchups disappear. I look at goldfish and I think, "...where's it's good matchups gone?" The deck relies on play skill more than any deck in modern now, outside of Lantern. If this deck was jund/junk, it'd fall into tier 2 with how it fairs against the rest of tier 1.
We'll see, GDS at this point is more about leveraging skills than metagaming, but it's free wins are significantly less.
4/5c DS isn't all sunshine and roses though holydiva.
It has alot of issues GDS doesn't have, starting with the extremely shaky 18 lands 4/5 color manabase they need to have access to Stubborn Denial and some form of value in their deck (I mean seriously, a single GQ on one of your lands often cuts you off that color while PtE's are almost free) and continuing with the 8 0cc redraws you can have multiples in your starting hand, often giving you completely random hands. Serum Visions may cost 1 mana but it at least gives you 3 looks at a threat. All of your threats are also vulnerable to fatal push giving GDS a big edge when they face each other, a MU you didn't address but is very relevant.
DSJ having "the best of both decks" is a gross overstatement imo, I'd honestly also like to see that list of several MU's where DSJ is that much better than GDS.
And you're spot on this, too, Gurmag/Tasigur being unpunishable is a huge deal. Push singlehandedly brought Goyf down to earth with the rest of the field.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Spirits
That's what bugs me about the PT: The best thing people can hope for is that it doesn't spike some card someone was after too hard and that the pros don't crack the format wide open like they did back with the Eldrazi and Eye of Ugin. The pros hate it as well.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Eye of Ugin or Eldrazi Temple would have been banned anyways regardless of the Pro Tour tbh
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
To be fair though, the PT itself has caused or heavily influenced most bans in Modern's history. Without a PT, it takes a whole lot more to justify banning something.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
We already knew BFZ was a mistake of a design. Eldrazi Winter would have definitely occurred regardless
If anything like that ever happens, I'm not opposed to an emergency banning, 3 months of Eldrazi was way too long.
What about this was a good article? It was 5000 words of "I don't think Modern should be a PT format because it's hard to get an edge in such a diverse metagame and if wizards wants to change that it might ruin the format with bans, etc." k. that's a tweet buddy not an article.
What if wizards wants to just leave it the way it is for the most part (with the same incremental banning approach they have taken for years) and people just tough it out?
He essentially rehashed all the same talking points we've heard on this issue and even brought back the old "we need more sideboard cards!" or "More eyes on the format aren't necessarily better!" I'm nearly 100% positive I've read 75% of this article in the last year elsewhere
Personally, I love the modern pro tour and have always loved it. It's the one pro tour event I tune in for because it's accessible. I don't need to have followed or played this specific season of standard to be invested in a deck or know what all the cards do. I tune in exclusively for modern GPs and the pro tour is a chance to see even higher level play.
While I play legacy I don't watch legacy GPs because the narrow card pool and proliferation of brainstorm decks is extremely tedious to watch. The narrow field and narrow card pool combine to be not particularly exciting to watch for me.
If Wizards can just settle down and do it infrequently enough that it doesn't get stale, I think it'll be fine -- and it'll also drive some excitement back into the format that's lacking without this level of attention. I think it's just as likely to stir up the meta with some new technology as it is to cause some urgent ban (if not quite a bit moreso).
I'd rather wizards just get better at managing the format and not focus so much on the PT results. They're clearly capable of using data and they have a lot more than us, so presumably they can just settle down and not ban something immediately after the PT because it did well, until it is reflected in the actual metagame.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Which it should be. It should take a lot to justify a banning, because this isnt't a digital product, and to ban a card is kind of like taking money away from someone. Pros need not to defend the laziness or bad communication put in practice within Wotc when it comes to designing new cards that can, and did, break Modern in half.
Not having Modern, the most popular format, not in the PT is a mistake. Its ignoring the biggest section of your consumer, which is just a stupid business decision. As Modern players, we should be celebrating that the format is in the PT rather than being afraid of bannings that come with it. We should be blaming Wotc on fast and rash banning decisions rather than claiming the format better suits non-competitve players.
Based on the recent Standard bannings, it looks like Wotc has been changing the way they go about bans where they at last show actual statistics at least
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Like I said in the quoted post, I agree with his thesis that Modern should probably not be on the PT, but disagree with many of his supporting points. PTs, for whatever reason, tend to induce bannings. Some are legit, some are not. I would rather we not have that specter always hanging over the format. I don't want Wizards to think they need to change Modern because vocal, whiny pros think it's unsolvable.
What I'm finding more frustrating is that the only modern pro tour is taking place this weekend, and nearly every website has barely written about modern, it's all on standard and limited.
He repeatedly states that Modern is the best format, and is what Wizards should hope for when trying to present 'this is what Magic is'.
That said, the issue of how Pro's feel, how it presents when Pro's try and 'break it' is something I could do without.
So what REALLY is gained by having a Pro Tour? Why is that better, than GPs?
Spirits
Why the hell is the protour on a Superbowl weekend?
Ugh.
I live in Philly, so obviously this tournament is a spec in comparison.
She's pretty right in that they'll probably shatter the illusion of there being so many decks when there's truly only a few worth playing on a competitive level.
Can you explain your reasoning for this?
I guess I would classify it more as a "very long, somewhat suspect" read than a "great" read. Most of his ideas are regurgitated and many of them are actively sketchy. And I wondered what about it you thought was "great" other than the thesis.
It's chock full of glorious whoppers such as this:
and this:
As far as the pro tour precipitating bannings -- that's something Wizards can just stop doing if they want. Because it has in the past doesn't mean it will in the future, especially if they took our feedback to settle down about it.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
This analysis is spot on.
Do more people actually care about who wins, or the decks that win and the matches we see?
I honestly couldnt care less about the individual players, I follow decks, I want decks or styles, to archetypes, to win. The players dont matter to me in the least.
Spirits
I root for Wescoe because he seems like a genuine and cool dude and usually sticks to his guns. I respect him, but other than that I just want to see good and exciting matches. I don't even care what the decks are, much less the players, as long as the games are close and interesting to watch.
Definitely decks/archetypes for me, too, which is something I love about modern. It really rewards deck knowledge of your outs vs. the meta. Nothing I love more than watching Nikachu destroy some pro with merfolk or something
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
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
It has alot of issues GDS doesn't have, starting with the extremely shaky 18 lands 4/5 color manabase they need to have access to Stubborn Denial and some form of value in their deck (I mean seriously, a single GQ on one of your lands often cuts you off that color while PtE's are almost free) and continuing with the 8 0cc redraws you can have multiples in your starting hand, often giving you completely random hands. Serum Visions may cost 1 mana but it at least gives you 3 looks at a threat. All of your threats are also vulnerable to fatal push giving GDS a big edge when they face each other, a MU you didn't address but is very relevant.
DSJ having "the best of both decks" is a gross overstatement imo, I'd honestly also like to see that list of several MU's where DSJ is that much better than GDS.
That's a pretty respectable assessment. I did notice that GDS was beginning to blend closer to a 4C build. And you're right, Stubborn Denial is the most important card in that deck. It also doesn't crumble to UW/Jeskai decks. GDS has really seen it's great matchups disappear. I look at goldfish and I think, "...where's it's good matchups gone?" The deck relies on play skill more than any deck in modern now, outside of Lantern. If this deck was jund/junk, it'd fall into tier 2 with how it fairs against the rest of tier 1.
We'll see, GDS at this point is more about leveraging skills than metagaming, but it's free wins are significantly less.
And you're spot on this, too, Gurmag/Tasigur being unpunishable is a huge deal. Push singlehandedly brought Goyf down to earth with the rest of the field.