People have been saying this but I honestly don't get it. What is funny about it? It is possible that they had decided on this inclusion before the design of Liliana's Triumph. Why is it a net negative or a ridiculous fact that they included Diabolic Edict? It still is an iconic card, it still was not legal for modern, maybe they didn't even know. So what?
Archmage's Charm, have they finally made a Cancel with enough upside to be Modern playable? Seems like an interesting card.
I think so. It basically is a solid answer to anything that isn't a two drop. It steals one-drops against aggro decks, counters spells from combo, and generates CA against control and midrange, all at instant speed. And because it does everything, it means more room in a control deck's 75 for more specific cards.
Each set another bombcard, another great addition to blue no matter if it's standard or modern horizon. I hope it helps crying less in next time my blue friends. You build decks and 2 months later you need build again because so many great possibilitys. Maybe it's now enough?
Each set another bombcard, another great addition to blue no matter if it's standard or modern horizon. I hope it helps crying less in next time my blue friends
People have been saying this but I honestly don't get it. What is funny about it? It is possible that they had decided on this inclusion before the design of Liliana's Triumph. Why is it a net negative or a ridiculous fact that they included Diabolic Edict? It still is an iconic card, it still was not legal for modern, maybe they didn't even know. So what?
This set was supposed to represent cards to be inserted into Modern that were too powerful for Standard. So it's at least a little head-scratchingly confusing to see Edict after they just introduced a strictly better version into Standard. It's another representation of disconnect at R&D.
Blue must be really funny playing now. You even have no stock list anymore, because to many great cards to try them all
And still no meaningful way to deal with most resolved permanents! 😂
In all seriousness, some of these new toys are great, but it will be interesting which color they have to be paired with in order to not die, and then actually win the game. Now that we have a free protection spell, Monastery Mentor is looking mighty fine.
People have been saying this but I honestly don't get it. What is funny about it? It is possible that they had decided on this inclusion before the design of Liliana's Triumph. Why is it a net negative or a ridiculous fact that they included Diabolic Edict? It still is an iconic card, it still was not legal for modern, maybe they didn't even know. So what?
This set was supposed to represent cards to be inserted into Modern that were too powerful for Standard. So it's at least a little head-scratchingly confusing to see Edict after they just introduced a strictly better version into Standard. It's another representation of disconnect at R&D.
You could have it worse. At least you're a blue player watching this set. Imagine how the midrange/shadow players feel so far watching all this.
Blue is legit the fair decks now, and GBx/Shadow feel like the stepchild now.
No joke, blue has so many exciting things now. I'm definitely happy for all these toys they got. I'm really not understanding the *****ing about counter spell. The archetype has honestly gotten a massive boon in the past two years.
I'm not sure I love the idea of SFM being unbanned anymore...I think UW midrange/control would see a major restructure but I don't love the risk. I'm beginning to agree---what is she benefitting in modern right now? DnT? It's certainly not UW decks. Abzan...has some serious fundamental issues that is outdated in modern now. Abzan would still be a very bad deck.
By the way, GDS is a perfectly reasonable deck. People don't get this, but if you're a good player it's secretly quite good against Ux too.
Good deck in general? Yes.
Good in this meta? No.
Good against UW? No.
Secretly good against UW? No
Good at your local FNM because the UW players there are bad? YAS, QUEEN!
I played Grixis Shadow since its birth and UW since Modern's birth. They are the two decks I've got more testing with.
People REALLY tend to overrate UWx Control win percentage against GDS. And I mean it.
Recent lists with 4 maindeck Stubborn Denial aren't easy to handle for decks which are quite clunky and pack lots of overcosted spells. Expecially when you're forced to play different Wraths (due to Meddling Mage) and/or Terminus.
I'm not sure I love the idea of SFM being unbanned anymore...I think UW midrange/control would see a major restructure but I don't love the risk. I'm beginning to agree---what is she benefitting in modern right now? DnT? It's certainly not UW decks. Abzan...has some serious fundamental issues that is outdated in modern now. Abzan would still be a very bad deck.
The difference is that Counterspell is a specific card people want and what was given wasn't good enough compared to SFM being a potential and you saying it's not good enough.
Good at your local FNM because the UW players there are bad? YAS, QUEEN!
We can agree GDS is a good deck in general. Whether or not it's good in this metagame is a bit more of an open question, because I don't know if we can define a "this metagame" for all people. The metagames will vary between a GP, an SCG Open, a large regional/local event, MTGO queues, Challenges, FNMs, etc. There are probably metagames that it is good for and bad for.
I can unambiguously say that GDS is probably not favored against UWx. In an aggregate of my own MWP data and data compiled by Tobi Henke from GP this year, GDS is about 40%-60% against UWx. That's not unwinnable by any means, and I'm sure good players can bring that closer to the 45%-55% "slightly unfavorable" range, but it's not a secretly good matchup by all indicators I've seen.
This set was supposed to represent cards to be inserted into Modern that were too powerful for Standard. So it's at least a little head-scratchingly confusing to see Edict after they just introduced a strictly better version into Standard. It's another representation of disconnect at R&D.
Not every card in the set needs to match that definition. There's no statement I am aware of that says 100% of cards in this set need to be too powerful for Standard. The set is just generally geared this way. For instance, FoN would be obscene in Standard. Wall of One Thousand Cuts literally wouldn't see play. Nor would Goatnap. Plenty of other cards are probably at an appropriate Standard power level on their own: see Nature's Chant or Man-o'-War. The existence of these cards doesn't suggest any "disconnect at R&D." It just shows that the set was never intended to consist of cards that are solely for Modern and otherwise too powerful for Standard. Unless you are aware of a specific promise Wizards made in this regard, this seems more like a case of audience misinterpretation than false advertising or disconnect.
Each set another bombcard, another great addition to blue no matter if it's standard or modern horizon. I hope it helps crying less in next time my blue friends
Not every card in the set needs to match that definition. There's no statement I am aware of that says 100% of cards in this set need to be too powerful for Standard. The set is just generally geared this way. For instance, FoN would be obscene in Standard. Wall of One Thousand Cuts literally wouldn't see play. Nor would Goatnap. Plenty of other cards are probably at an appropriate Standard power level on their own: see Nature's Chant or Man-o'-War. The existence of these cards doesn't suggest any "disconnect at R&D." It just shows that the set was never intended to consist of cards that are solely for Modern and otherwise too powerful for Standard. Unless you are aware of a specific promise Wizards made in this regard, this seems more like a case of audience misinterpretation than false advertising or disconnect.
i dunno what qualifies as a disconnect, but diabolic edict showing up IS likely indicative of some 'one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing' going on. the timeline of design and development isnt always clear, but there had to have been some overlap between WAR and MH1. therefore diabolic edict getting a slot either means the team on MH1 was unaware that a functional reprint with fringe upside was being put into another set, or they knew and disregarded it 'just because'.
diabolic edict and innocent blood were commonly suggested reprint candidates in mh1 that i rated as very reasonable power level wise, and when liliana's triumph showed up i personally figured which one (if any) was chosen might serve as a litmus test to see how much design teams communicated and shared information with eachother. its not fullproof, as there are the 'just because' reasons; however if diabolic edict got one of the, what looks to be, rare 'iconic reprint' slots knowing full well it probably would see zero play in modern for no other reason than randomly sleeving up the version (triumph or edict) you owned then that isnt a good look either.
if it is the case of either team just not knowing, im not saying it is some glaring example of ineptitude or incompetence or whatever; however i would consider it a flaw in their design management. the result being that what would otherwise have been a very well received card, heightening appeal for a product, is now getting a lukewarm reception or just outright confusion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
It's a matter of fact that Pro Players running GDS stated they were more than 50% against UW Control. And I agree, after playing both of them for a long time. Problem is, newcomers to GDS (even if they are good players) don't really know how to handle the matchup. Heck, GDS is *by far* the most difficult deck I ever played in Modern, and I can totally understand this. But that's the ONLY reason why people tend to consider UWx a bad matchup. It's definitely at least 50-50.
And, to be fair, I'm not supporting GDS chances in the metagame cause I play it. I play 10-15 different decks at once. UW Control included. So, yeah, it's nothing like bringing water to my mill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I think so. It basically is a solid answer to anything that isn't a two drop. It steals one-drops against aggro decks, counters spells from combo, and generates CA against control and midrange, all at instant speed. And because it does everything, it means more room in a control deck's 75 for more specific cards.
That's what I'm saying.
I complained for a long time about Blue in Modern. That was BEFORE cards such as Search for Azcanta, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Teferi, Hero of Dominaria, Thing in the Ice, Opt, Field of Ruin and such were printed/exported. And this set is giving us several presents. I do love where we are at, right now, and don't get the complaining tweakings in the slightest.
This set was supposed to represent cards to be inserted into Modern that were too powerful for Standard. So it's at least a little head-scratchingly confusing to see Edict after they just introduced a strictly better version into Standard. It's another representation of disconnect at R&D.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
And still no meaningful way to deal with most resolved permanents! 😂
In all seriousness, some of these new toys are great, but it will be interesting which color they have to be paired with in order to not die, and then actually win the game. Now that we have a free protection spell, Monastery Mentor is looking mighty fine.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
You could have it worse. At least you're a blue player watching this set. Imagine how the midrange/shadow players feel so far watching all this.
Blue is legit the fair decks now, and GBx/Shadow feel like the stepchild now.
No joke, blue has so many exciting things now. I'm definitely happy for all these toys they got. I'm really not understanding the *****ing about counter spell. The archetype has honestly gotten a massive boon in the past two years.
Good deck in general? Yes.
Good in this meta? No.
Good against UW? No.
Secretly good against UW? No
Good at your local FNM because the UW players there are bad? YAS, QUEEN!
As neat as it is, even if the cycle is fully completed, these equipment are no more playable than they have been for the last several years.
Maybe they'll pull the rug out and surprise us with her?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'm not sure I love the idea of SFM being unbanned anymore...I think UW midrange/control would see a major restructure but I don't love the risk. I'm beginning to agree---what is she benefitting in modern right now? DnT? It's certainly not UW decks. Abzan...has some serious fundamental issues that is outdated in modern now. Abzan would still be a very bad deck.
I played Grixis Shadow since its birth and UW since Modern's birth. They are the two decks I've got more testing with.
People REALLY tend to overrate UWx Control win percentage against GDS. And I mean it.
Recent lists with 4 maindeck Stubborn Denial aren't easy to handle for decks which are quite clunky and pack lots of overcosted spells. Expecially when you're forced to play different Wraths (due to Meddling Mage) and/or Terminus.
The difference is that Counterspell is a specific card people want and what was given wasn't good enough compared to SFM being a potential and you saying it's not good enough.
"Reveal a Dragon"
We can agree GDS is a good deck in general. Whether or not it's good in this metagame is a bit more of an open question, because I don't know if we can define a "this metagame" for all people. The metagames will vary between a GP, an SCG Open, a large regional/local event, MTGO queues, Challenges, FNMs, etc. There are probably metagames that it is good for and bad for.
I can unambiguously say that GDS is probably not favored against UWx. In an aggregate of my own MWP data and data compiled by Tobi Henke from GP this year, GDS is about 40%-60% against UWx. That's not unwinnable by any means, and I'm sure good players can bring that closer to the 45%-55% "slightly unfavorable" range, but it's not a secretly good matchup by all indicators I've seen.
Not every card in the set needs to match that definition. There's no statement I am aware of that says 100% of cards in this set need to be too powerful for Standard. The set is just generally geared this way. For instance, FoN would be obscene in Standard. Wall of One Thousand Cuts literally wouldn't see play. Nor would Goatnap. Plenty of other cards are probably at an appropriate Standard power level on their own: see Nature's Chant or Man-o'-War. The existence of these cards doesn't suggest any "disconnect at R&D." It just shows that the set was never intended to consist of cards that are solely for Modern and otherwise too powerful for Standard. Unless you are aware of a specific promise Wizards made in this regard, this seems more like a case of audience misinterpretation than false advertising or disconnect.
diabolic edict and innocent blood were commonly suggested reprint candidates in mh1 that i rated as very reasonable power level wise, and when liliana's triumph showed up i personally figured which one (if any) was chosen might serve as a litmus test to see how much design teams communicated and shared information with eachother. its not fullproof, as there are the 'just because' reasons; however if diabolic edict got one of the, what looks to be, rare 'iconic reprint' slots knowing full well it probably would see zero play in modern for no other reason than randomly sleeving up the version (triumph or edict) you owned then that isnt a good look either.
if it is the case of either team just not knowing, im not saying it is some glaring example of ineptitude or incompetence or whatever; however i would consider it a flaw in their design management. the result being that what would otherwise have been a very well received card, heightening appeal for a product, is now getting a lukewarm reception or just outright confusion.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)It's a matter of fact that Pro Players running GDS stated they were more than 50% against UW Control. And I agree, after playing both of them for a long time. Problem is, newcomers to GDS (even if they are good players) don't really know how to handle the matchup. Heck, GDS is *by far* the most difficult deck I ever played in Modern, and I can totally understand this. But that's the ONLY reason why people tend to consider UWx a bad matchup. It's definitely at least 50-50.
And, to be fair, I'm not supporting GDS chances in the metagame cause I play it. I play 10-15 different decks at once. UW Control included. So, yeah, it's nothing like bringing water to my mill.