All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Lineage 2 Revolution DB
 
Jaya Ballard Returns
 
The Magic Market Index for Nov 17, 2017
  • posted a message on Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
    Yeah, I just don't really get why you would splash unless it's to address a specific problem, and I can't think of a problem we have that I would want to splash a color to address. The Shadow matchup is already quite good, for instance. So I'm confused about your motives.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • posted a message on Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
    Quote from sporenfrosch »
    IF you play white, you should really try to build with Eldrazi Displacer Main and think about Stonly Silence as well as Rest in Piece in the Sideboard. Those are in my opinion most likey the biggest gains from playing white. If you opt not to play white, Dismember offers very good colorless removal.
    RiP, Stony, Displacer all big but Thalia is the 4th major reason to splash W IMO. It's the only color I can honestly see splashing for, and it's for those cards. Dismember covers the same ground as Path. All that said I hold that colorless and Chalice are better. Play Bant if you want white hosers.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from Albegas »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Standard continues to suck. Check out the horror of GP Portland and the Standard decks in the SCG Open and Cassic. What Modern-related implications do you think are in the pipeline? Is it a lack of strong answers? If so, better answers could filter into Modern after entering Standard. Is it a lack of color balance? Archetype diversity? I'm just curious how you think Wizards' R&D response to the *****show of Energy is going to play out for us. Thoughts?
    I think one thing that isn't emphasized enough lately is that Standard shouldn't need bans. Rotation should remove unwanted elements quickly enough to where bans shouldn't be needed even in twisted metas, but the recent bans have led people to treat Standard like other non-rotating formats. I don't play standard, so my opinion shouldn't hold much weight, but I really think that they should hold out on bans until Dominaria for no other reason than to restore faith that Standard is reasonably safe to invest in so long as you don't buy cards that'll quickly rotate out. If the B&R committee spends too much time talking about Standard to talk about Modern until February, that's fine with me, but I'd like to see a return to normalcy in the sense that Standard ban talk is an oxymoron and the B&R List committee can more or less ignore Standard. If they do ban something in Standard, I have literally 0 investment, but I really hope that regardless of Standard's state and future bans that it will not reflect future standards of banning for Modern and Legacy
    Wizards appears to ban cards in Standard primarily banned on attendance---remember their bottom line. If they can identify glaring faults with the format (such as one deck taking up 50% of the metagame), and attendance also drops significantly for whatever reason, expect a ban there. The reason Standard hasn't had many bans over the years is probably that attendance hasn't plummeted often. With Modern gaining popularity and becoming more accessible thanks to reprints, though, players have a great alternative should that format be in a weird place.

    My theory: Modern drew players away from a boring Standard last season, and the dip in attendance was so significant that Wizards took action with multiple bans. Modern reprint sets are all but guaranteed to sell big, so it's not like Wizards will stop printing those. But making Modern more affordable by doing so certainly generates a tension with keeping players in Standard, since the pressure rises to make that format at least diverse/enjoyable enough for players to not want to switch over to non-rotating constructed formats. This tension hasn't existed until recently, which is why we haven't seen mass Standard bannings in so long (until now).
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
    Quote from skeeler87 »
    Out:
    4x Dismember
    🧐
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Are we allowed to ban or limit the number of comments a user is allowed to make? Please don't mark this as trolling but I truly believe that if the radicals and sh*t stirrer's weren't allowed to fill this thread with opinion>fact type mentality then we would be able to have much more real conversations or discussions on the banlist topic. It may not be intentional, but those types of people are just screaming "troll" to me and in other places that kind of attitude is not welcomed. It makes me not want to post or even read anything on this thread because I know that no matter what is being discussed there is going to be a small group of dissatisfied players (usually the usual suspects) who feed nonsense and misinformation in here. There is a big difference between using a specific data set vs opinion or anecdotal evidence and even when presented evidence from unbiased faces, they refute the evidence. Honestly, sounds a lot like Trump and his 'fake news' narrative.
    This thread serves a very specific purpose on MTGS, and that's to keep other threads from derailing into banlist talk. It's not to artificially create a heavily moderated conversation that favors specific narratives over others (although the heated nature of debates held here frequently violate the board's rules, and the thread ends up heavily moderated for that reason). In light of that fact, this suggestion seems totally unreasonable---posters of all types must be allowed, or their ban talk risks escaping quarantine.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Quote from ashtonkutcher »
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
    A little off-topic but I would love to know where you got this information. Here in Boston the claim does check out, but I've played Modern regularly in many other cities and it seems like a 50/50 split or worse regarding how many of my opponents went to college (I am chatty).

    Looking at my group of Moderners at the local level, I'd estimate 75% are in college or have graduated from college. Like you, I'm chatty. But I have no idea what the breakdown is at the regional, national, or international level.
    Very interesting, thanks. Would be great to have some real stats on this but I fear it's too niche to ever be picked up by REAL SCIENTISTS 👩🏽‍🔬👨🏻‍🔬 Even anecdotally though I find your analysis fascinating and would be interested in hearing the experience of other users here, too (shame we can't control for chattiness).

    On another note, published a piece this morning that looks at Fatal Push's now 10-month history in Modern and at the metagame shifts that have taken place around it. Hopefully it dispels a couple myths I've seen in this thread, among them that Modern is solved or stagnant and that Push's presence reduces diversity among playable creatures. The article also explores the fair decks I think will do well in the format's near future, namely Jekskai, Mardu, and Jund. Read it here: http://modernnexus.com/fatal-push-retrospect-future-fair/
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Also, it's fairly easy to differentiate between doctored/twisted analysis and honest/reasonable analysis. Most people that play Modern are fairly well-educated and can make that distinction.
    A little off-topic but I would love to know where you got this information. Here in Boston the claim does check out, but I've played Modern regularly in many other cities and it seems like a 50/50 split or worse regarding how many of my opponents went to college (I am chatty).
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from cfusionpm »
    Hard to have facts when Wizards uses broad and vague terminology while also purposely hiding and misrepresenting data.

    That, and just about any form of data can be used to represent any stance if you control the framing. So it's a little more complex than just "facts" and "feelings."
    Ehhh, not as hard as this thread can make it seem.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Primer] Monkey Grow (RUG/Temur Delver)
    Quote from Savari94 »
    I played the needle and held up spell pierce to get to ee next turn with hunt master alive because it was going to be hard to come back without him. If they attacked with what they had on board I would have lived at one with monkey and hm left. They played another 2 Mana anthem so I died. Was hoping they tried for another pw or more tokens. I just felt it was still winnable and was wondering how other people thought was the correct play.
    Could be counting wrong (either us or mnesci is) but this is my line too. Odds are they don't draw something good and try flashing back Souls, which we can Pierce (and don't even need to thanks to EE). Spend the next turn wiping with EE and then start flipping Hunt again.

    JW, why did you post a Counter-Cat question in this thread?
    Posted in: Developing Competitive (Modern)
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from ktkenshinx »
    Honestly, this isn't just engine combo. It's all Tier 1 decks. And some Tier 2 and 3 decks for good measure. This year alone, we've seen serious ban discussion from multiple segments of the community aimed at DS, Temple, Chalice, Tron lands, Valakut, Titan, Mox Opal, CoCo, Cavern of Souls, Blood Moon, Puresteel Paladin, SSG, Street Wraith, and probably another dozen cards I don't remember. Ban mania is endless. Unfortunately, Storm may actually violate the T4 rule, so this ban talk is far more justified than most of the other 2017 ban talk.
    TW: semantics

    What about your last sentence is unfortunate? That Storm perhaps violates the T4 rule? Aren't decks springing up occasionally that do violate the T4 rule an inevitability of positive factors, such as new cards printed and strategy discovered? In that case there's nothing unfortunate about Storm gunning for a ban, it's just a fact of Modern life. Or are you saying it's unfortunate that players also clamor for more unjustified bans?
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Featured Thread -] WUR Delver
    Quote from toroks »
    Ok, Chart a Course, do we have time to durdle around with it? It should be awesome in slow and grindy matchups, obviously, but how about the fast ones? Any experience?

    I think it should require at least 8 one-drop creatures, as only 4 delvers doesn't make it consistent. It has anti-synergy with Swiftspear, so maybe in a Steppe Lynx-build? The extra card draw from chart should fuel him good. Gonna try something like this, I think:


    I've always been turned off by the tension between Delver and Steppe --- one requires us to play many i/s, the other many lands, and a successful Delver shell in UWx probably wants Queller and Snapcaster, meaning it's tough to fit all that stuff. But I also love Lynx's implications with Chart a Course (makes drawing fetchlands great again) and think you may be on to something here. I'll mess around too; the primary question I think we should look to answer is what the optimal numbers are for creatures/spells/lands. Once/if we find an internally consistent shell, we can consider matchups etc.
    Posted in: Developing Competitive (Modern)
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from h0lydiva »
    One thing I'm noticing, through playing (though I'm not playing all that much so well, it can all be random) and through watching streams, is that Dredge seems to be creeping back into existence.

    So I ask you: What consequences will that have for the meta?
    The meta should remain as cyclical as ever. Dredge is a lot like Affinity in terms of getting hated out, fading into the shadows, and then springing up again when players start dedicating sideboard slots to beating whatever's topping more lately (in this case, Thalia decks). It just surges and recedes on a smaller and more long-term scale than Affinity does, for two reasons:

    1. Affinity is the better deck with a higher constant metagame share, so it stays in most players' minds even when it's having a bad couple weeks. Plus, perhaps obviously, more players are on the deck.
    2. Graveyard hate has wider applications than artifact hate, so players are less likely to pack dedicated hate cards for Dredge (Surgical and Relic are much less effective vs. the deck than, say, Leyline and Rest in Peace, but are better-suited to open metagames for their added utility).

    These factors combine to ensure Dredge rises and falls in bursts less noticeable than Affinity's, and that it takes longer to do so. The sky is definitely not falling when Dredge goes from 1% to 3%; check the standings again in a month or two.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Primer] Monkey Grow (RUG/Temur Delver)
    Quote from mnesci »
    Are you saying you don't like the delayed draw from Bauble? The fact that we don't get to see the card right away does slow us down somewhat, in comparison to a card like Probe.

    If that is your main problem, I think cutting Bauble is defensible. I think its benefits outweigh that aspect, but the logic makes sense. I'm working on a more Tempo-focused Shoal build myself that I will hopefully test out soon. Going up on Shoal makes Bauble a lot worse, so I'm going to start by trimming one. I think cutting Bauble is even more defensible when you are actively trying to support Shoal more.

    If you aren't aiming at maximizing Shoal's potential, I think that Bauble is something that you want. It can slow us down a bit, but it can also speed us up. The main draw then is the fact that we have a ~56 card deck, meaning we are more likely to draw our best cards. If you take that kind of approach, I'd just trim whatever other cards you find lackluster and add the burn/tap effects to get more reach. I think I'm going to take this sort of approach for my Tempo build, running a couple of Baubles and just trimming whatever cards I like least.
    Good analysis. It's Bauble or Shoal IMO.

    @ON nobody said Bauble "was" Probe. But Probe is banned and Bauble is the best pound-for-pound replacement re: velocity. Overloading removal spells is a Goyf-supporting plan I endorse, as is making him huge, but your build doesn't seem to do either of those things very well.

    Regarding Alchemist, thinking of it as a worst-case-scenario removal magnet won't do you any favors because the card costs 2CMC and dies to all the 1CMC removal spells. Cards must trade with answers at parity to be considered for that role, i.e. Monastery Swiftspear. Otherwise you're just opening yourself up to free tempo losses.
    Posted in: Developing Competitive (Modern)
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (Rules Update 27/10/17)
    Quote from h0lydiva »
    Quote from gkourou »
    I am saying this only because I am watching a continuous trend by you. Some months ago, GDS was a really busted deck that had to go and eventually would go(your claims). There is nothing wrong with that, it was your opinion but it proved to be somewhat hasty.

    This time around, I see that you are moving towards a Storm ban, based on (what? I didnt understant to be honest) very prematurely (again).

    Maybe you are rushing some ban suggestions off again? We could give it a little time.

    While I thought DSJ, GDS, E-Tron were going to be safe from a bannings standpoint, I think Storm is going to be a ban candidate this time around.

    Reasons?
    - Sheridan's data on turn 4 rule violations.
    - The nature of the deck being supremely unfun to play against.


    Well, in my opinion, it's a bit of everything. Though something like it being supremely unfun to play against is not a criteria that seems to matter much, is it? Like, how many decks in Modern are supremely unfun to play against? All of them?

    But well, yes, it is a bit unfun to play against, a bit too good, a bit too resilient, a bit too fast... seems to me like it's a bit too everything. But I understand they might not be inclined to ban decks for being a bit too everything and would rather ban the ones that are way too something.

    I was watching Caleb play it today vs Selfeisek's Mardu list (which has a buttload of discard spells and cheap removal), opp has a Leyline of the Void opener to go with discard spell into creature into Lingering Souls, start pressuring... and Caleb just killed them turn 5 without even needing to deal with the Leyline. Same the following game where opp had several disruptive spells into cast Leyline... into die.

    A combo deck that is best attacked through gy hate, but can kill you even through hardcore gy hate cards, coupled with disruption and pressure, without even needing to get rid of the problematic card (meaning, those were kind of creative kills, but they can just Wipe Away the Leyline/RiP/Relic/Spellbomb and kill you normally) is simply too good at what it does.

    One of the sneaky ways the newest lists basically laugh at gy hate and even removal is by playing 3 Grapeshots. You don't need your graveyard and you don't need a creature, you just need to spend several turns cantripping until you are in some sort of danger and then blow your whole hand worth of rituals and Morphoses, Grapeshot and Remand.

    And then there's the early Empty kills, and then the normal creature+Gifts kill. So you need removal, you need discard, you need countermagic, you need gy hate, you need sweepers, you need so many things to be safe that the whole thing is a bit stupid in my opinion.

    Yeah, obviously the deck has some bad matchups, but that has happened with every deck ever, even the busted ones, so pointing it out doesn't really mean much.
    The data we do have strongly suggests that Storm does not take up an obscene (8%+) share of the metagame (most put it somewhere around 4%), and there's yet to be a card banned for not being "fun." So whether or not Storm is banned probably depends on whether or not it violates the Turn 4 Rule. Sheridan's analysis is a great starting point, but of course there's work to be done on this front. Holy, your post does none of that work and ignores the question at hand. Nothing here is an argument.

    I have always believed that those clamoring for bans (or unbans, though the waters are murkier there) are the ones on whom the onus falls to provide evidence. If you want to make a case for Storm being banned, make a case, and not a long post listing a bunch of irrelevant reasons why Storm is "good" (protip: most successful Modern decks are "good").
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Featured Thread -] WUR Delver
    Quote from tlhunter07 »
    So I'll be honest after thinking about it for a little, Modern doesn't reward you for 2 for 1ing yourself. That's one of the reasons I don't really like shoal.
    in fact it does, handsomely

    Or do you have another explanation as to why Simian Spirit Guide, Goblin Guide, Faithless Looting, Surgical Extraction, Hollow One, Vapor Snag, Collective Brutality, Ghost Quarter, etc. etc. etc. are Modern staples? "Thinking about it for a little" is great, but I don't see how it compares to a) my hard experience or b) the hard fact that Modern decks frequently two-for-one themselves to great success.
    Posted in: Developing Competitive (Modern)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.