So, I read Ross Merriam's article. I had my hopes up that it would be interesting, but apparently he blames Twitter for the increasing disdain of Tron. At first I thought it was another joke (the Nickleback comparison was kinda funny), but he seems to be serious about it. Twitter, really? The discussion about Tron and Ancient Stirrings, specifically, has been all over the place. I read opinions about it in every MtG forum I frequent, I have seen the topic brought up in various streams that I watched. I have heard it discussed in voice chats and in real life. But now I have to rethink if all of this actually happened, because it might have been a giant Twitter conspiracy that I just happened to miss out on because I, like most people I know, don't give a flying chirp about Twitter.
People complain about Tron here, Reddit and in person. Almost everytime I see anyone get matched against tron at my LGS, it's met with a massive groan. Even the burn or affinity players.
Twitter just allows players to instantly complain to known WotC people (mtgaaron is a common one) 2 minutes after losing to turn 3 Tron 2 games in a row.
Good to see this is still the "Unban Twin discussion/Control players complain about Tron" thread. All is right in the world.
Not complaining, just saying reality. Damping Sphere was supposed to be some savior hate for Tron and it's not. Anyone with a bad Tron matchup could have told you that. It can help, but it's certainly no Stony Silence against Affinity.
Alpine Moon is just as bad and will have similarly mediocre effects.
Which brings us right back to banning Ancient Stirrings, since all the hate has been ineffective.
Need the hate to be an indestructible artifact or enchantment... Turn off their nature's claim
Just want to say, this is easily the best post I've seen in regards to preordain vs ancient stirings I've seen in ages.
I started modern 2ish years ago, and it was fine when stirings was a niche card in tron, but now there's so many apparently colourless decks making use of it, it's starting to feel bad.
Ross Merrian made an article in SCG premium. Anyone can put here the lists he talks to we can see his ideas for the deck, please.
He posted an untested Grixis list. I don't think it's an improvement over straight UR.
It's an interesting concept, I'd drop the tasigur and keep P&K, but it's effectively splashing black for kommand main & brutality + nihil in the side, whilst improving EE activations.
Hey everyone! Made an account to finally start posting and hopefully contribute to tuning these lists! I'm planning on posting my results here (mainly play in paper so it'll be somewhat infrequent).
Trying to keep this list together and play it for a few weeks as I have a tendency to tinker like crazy before getting a valid sample size.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
8 cantrips seems quite high to me.
I take it you're just giving up the tron match up?
0 land destruction anywhere just seems a bit brave IMO. Only having 2 Damping Sphere doesn't seem enough.
I also feel this line up is very weak to dredge, with no anger of the gods.
the hangup is finding out who gains more by having stuff like tutors or better cantrips. for instance would GSZ help a creature toolbox deck filled with various 'answer' creatures, or would it better serve a combo deck. likewise would better blue cantrips help control more, or blue aggro/combo.
There was some testing done on modernexus.com by David Ernenwein regarding Preordain in Gifts Storm and UW Control (before Jace). It seemed that it helped the win percentage of UW Control more in most matchups more so than Gifts Storm. I feel if you are worried about Blue Aggro, or Tempo, that is the least of our concerns. Tempo is absolutely TRASH in Modern. I realize that it represents the best deck in Legacy, possibly a deck that needs something banned. But that should not be a reason for keeping it down in Modern. It would be pretty sweet to have a solid Tempo deck in Modern! Right now, the best we have are Faeries and Bant Spirits.
But I see your point - who is going to DO the testing to see what is helped more? And will their words or testing be taken seriously?
yeah i read that article a while back, and it makes sense. a deck like storm is overloaded with cantrips, therefore 4 being better out of the 10 or 11 they run is less impactful than upgrading the only 4 cantrips a control deck is running. though i suspect if preordain was legal control would likely run 6 or 7 as the standard.
on the surface a deck that is naturally redundant to support a linear gameplan gains less from selection. however its usually not that simple.
i will say that ironworks being able to run stirrings is just another slap in the face for blue players. pretty much any deck that can run mox opal and stirrings has a serious leg up on the format because both those cards are clear outliers in power level when they work.
As a primarily control/tempo player i'd love to see preordain unbanned, from memory the modernnexus article said for storm it wasn't that much different to sleight of hand whilst it actually helped the UW control deck in terms of selection.
For me, I think the worst thing I did was act pretty salty. I have a bad habit of saying, "good job" after I've been mana screwed or lose with 12 lands in play and 5 more in hand. I'm being completely facetious and I'm pretty sure the opponent realizes it.
weirdly, I don't have an issue with mana flood, it happens... usually I see the funny side of it and once opponent realises I've got nothing, it can become a game of "can I draw a land" if your opponent is good natured enough.
the closest I ever get to raging is either being mana screwed (22-24 lands in the deck, should NOT be sitting on turn 5 with only 2 lands) or if I am just unable to find an answer/interaction (2x terminate, 4 bolt, 3 push and dismember in the deck, and I've died to a single goyf with 6 cards in hand).
the point i was trying to get across is that if you truly think hollow one is broken, unhealthy, toxic, etc there is nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around it - you want the deck gone. bans are how this is best accomplished, and the method that wotc would most likely use based on precedent.
better to understand whether the deck is actually too good or if you just dont like losing to it.
I view it similar to dredge with GGT, the deck concept/idea itself is fine, it just needs one of its more powerful enablers taken away, and of goblin lore and burning inquiry, I feel inquiry is the worse of the 2.
if people think hollow one is a problem then the most effective solution is bannings. unbanning stuff and hoping it helps against one deck has never been wizards method of choice. so id keep that in mind. is the deck broken and bad for the format? or is it just a good deck?
i still think the deck is within the acceptable limits. however you wouldnt hear a peep outa me if street wraith or hollow one itself took a dirt nap.
i think humans is a better deck between the two. it plays more 'fair' or w/e you wanna call it, but it does it better than any other aggro deck ive seen in a while.
good decks also take a while to overthrow. grixis death shadow and eldrazi tron showcased that pretty well.
IMO, it's burning inquiry that needs to go, I don't think the creature package is an issue, it's the ability of a SINGLE card to enable hollow two/three on turn 1, whilst potentially messing with your opponent.
I don't think Hollow One itself would be the card banned. Get rid of Burning Inquiry and get rid of Street Wraith, and Hollow One decks still retain their overall gameplan but are unable to put a Hollow One on the battlefield T1. That at least gives other decks a chance to use removal without completely nuking the entire deck.
Street wraith is fine for the moment, needing a faithless looting + street wraith in order to get a crazy turn 1 is more acceptable than just a burning inquiry.
I don't think Humans is the problem, I think it's RB Hollow One.
I voiced my concern for this deck a few months ago, and I don't feel differently. I have the deck in paper and on mtgo and none of it feels healthy for a modern; it feels toxic at times. It's made me lose interest in Jund because the deck just hands me so many free wins in a color pie I enjoy.
Let's see what happens though.
I used to be opposed to GSZ, but after seeing Jace being so underwhelming I'm willing to give it a try. If Dig Through Time wasn't so worrisome to powering up linear combo decks, I'd probably be ok with that card, too.
Modern isn't bad but I think the format should be observed.
Well Humans doesn't break the 3 Turn or Less Rule. I mean sure it can set up a strong board state by Turn 3 but it cannot outright win by that point or even 4.
Hollow One on the other hand has a decent chance of finishing someone on turn 3 or 4 outright with some combination of two early hollow ones and some combination of lightning bolt, flameblade, flamewake and bloodghast.
When GGT was legal, dredge didn't win on turn 3, but it would create disgusting board states. Humans is basically a better merfolk IMO.
To my mind hollow one does similar things to dredge, but it really requires hate on 2 parts (4 toughness from hollow one) and graveyard hate from Phoenix and bloodghasts. The fact that burning inquiry can also disrupt your opponent's hand, and it's pretty bad IMO.
The inherent issue with interactive vs non-interactive or linear vs non-linear is that we have no definition to go by. What makes a card interactive and to what degree does a deck need to be built to qualify as interactive? Thought Knot Seer is interaction, but how many cards does a deck need to be interactive 10, 15, 20?
I'd say anything that has at a playset of a card that does something to an opponents hand and/or board, with a total of at least 10 cards, so if it has removal, counter spells, discard or wraths. MOST planeswalkers that see play do at least one of those things as well.
Someone with cards who do very little in terms of deliberately interacting with an opponents hand or board are what I classify as un-interactive, if burn was all Lava Spike rather than lightning bolt which can (and does) hit creatures, i'd call it un-interactive.
Decks like bogles, hollow one, dredge, amulet, living end, grishoalbrand and infect are all very uninteractive decks, they do their thing and basically go "if you can't answer this, I win"
humans, tron, titan shift (bolt & anger/sun) and storm (remand) have SOME interaction
Affinity & burn vary a lot, sometimes they don't care, other times it's very interactive
GBx, jeskai, D&T, Deaths shadow, mardu pyro, ponza, company decks, a lot of these care about what your opponent is doing
I think interaction, means "i am casting cards with the only intent being from slowing you down and removing your hand, board, stack, or graveyard'.
Bogles, is not interaction.
Tron, has some interaction.
Jund, is interaction.
UWR, is the definition of interaction.
Infect, is not interaction.
Hollow One, is not interaction.
Dredge, is not interaction.
UW, is interaction.
Burn, is interaction
Humans, has some interaction, between Meddling, and Freesail or whatever its called.
I mean its like calling ETron 'interactive' because it has Thoughtknot. I give that a solid 'meh'.
I'd classify E-Tron as reasonably un-interactive, apart from dismember, warping wail and all is dust there's not much there. TKS is kinda interactive, but yeah, solid "meh"
Bogles is effectively Boxer B being told "you can't block punches from Boxer A's right hand, UNLESS you brought a drink bottle with the pepsi logo on it, if you did, you can block".
An "un-interactive" deck in modern is the equivalent of someone who goes in with effectively the same plan every game "left hook, right hook, double jab cut, uppercut" and hopes the opponent can't answer them. You don't care what they're doing, or where they are positioned in the ring, you just know if you land most of those hits, you win!
As for "interactive", it's having the ability to deflect/block those punches (but needing to draw them at the right time), or trying to manoeuvre your opponent so they're in the corner and unable to move whilst you finish them off.
thats your hang up? storm? what would they cut and what would they gain by nuking their graveyard with delve? the deck could probably contort to accommodate dig, but would the result be better than gifts storm? color me dubious.
there might be some fringe or unknown deck waiting to be busted so dig might never make the cut on that alone. however i dont see dig slotting into any existing decks and being too good.
maybe blue doesnt need that level of help, but ive found it odd it is almost never brought up in these unban discussions.
I'm with you for a DTT unban (with TC never being unbanned), and I can't comment too much on what it enabled as I only really started paying attention to modern just after the B&R announcement. I think people remember TC being so good, and that takes DTT with it.
People complain about Tron here, Reddit and in person. Almost everytime I see anyone get matched against tron at my LGS, it's met with a massive groan. Even the burn or affinity players.
Twitter just allows players to instantly complain to known WotC people (mtgaaron is a common one) 2 minutes after losing to turn 3 Tron 2 games in a row.
Need the hate to be an indestructible artifact or enchantment... Turn off their nature's claim
Or just wait for WotC to print it on a creature.
Just want to say, this is easily the best post I've seen in regards to preordain vs ancient stirings I've seen in ages.
I started modern 2ish years ago, and it was fine when stirings was a niche card in tron, but now there's so many apparently colourless decks making use of it, it's starting to feel bad.
It's an interesting concept, I'd drop the tasigur and keep P&K, but it's effectively splashing black for kommand main & brutality + nihil in the side, whilst improving EE activations.
8 cantrips seems quite high to me.
I take it you're just giving up the tron match up?
0 land destruction anywhere just seems a bit brave IMO. Only having 2 Damping Sphere doesn't seem enough.
I also feel this line up is very weak to dredge, with no anger of the gods.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mtgo-standings/modern-challenge-2018-04-29#standings
Humans was 3rd, 4th. 12th, 27th and 32nd.
As a primarily control/tempo player i'd love to see preordain unbanned, from memory the modernnexus article said for storm it wasn't that much different to sleight of hand whilst it actually helped the UW control deck in terms of selection.
weirdly, I don't have an issue with mana flood, it happens... usually I see the funny side of it and once opponent realises I've got nothing, it can become a game of "can I draw a land" if your opponent is good natured enough.
the closest I ever get to raging is either being mana screwed (22-24 lands in the deck, should NOT be sitting on turn 5 with only 2 lands) or if I am just unable to find an answer/interaction (2x terminate, 4 bolt, 3 push and dismember in the deck, and I've died to a single goyf with 6 cards in hand).
I view it similar to dredge with GGT, the deck concept/idea itself is fine, it just needs one of its more powerful enablers taken away, and of goblin lore and burning inquiry, I feel inquiry is the worse of the 2.
IMO, it's burning inquiry that needs to go, I don't think the creature package is an issue, it's the ability of a SINGLE card to enable hollow two/three on turn 1, whilst potentially messing with your opponent.
Street wraith is fine for the moment, needing a faithless looting + street wraith in order to get a crazy turn 1 is more acceptable than just a burning inquiry.
When GGT was legal, dredge didn't win on turn 3, but it would create disgusting board states. Humans is basically a better merfolk IMO.
To my mind hollow one does similar things to dredge, but it really requires hate on 2 parts (4 toughness from hollow one) and graveyard hate from Phoenix and bloodghasts. The fact that burning inquiry can also disrupt your opponent's hand, and it's pretty bad IMO.
I'd say anything that has at a playset of a card that does something to an opponents hand and/or board, with a total of at least 10 cards, so if it has removal, counter spells, discard or wraths. MOST planeswalkers that see play do at least one of those things as well.
Someone with cards who do very little in terms of deliberately interacting with an opponents hand or board are what I classify as un-interactive, if burn was all Lava Spike rather than lightning bolt which can (and does) hit creatures, i'd call it un-interactive.
Decks like bogles, hollow one, dredge, amulet, living end, grishoalbrand and infect are all very uninteractive decks, they do their thing and basically go "if you can't answer this, I win"
humans, tron, titan shift (bolt & anger/sun) and storm (remand) have SOME interaction
Affinity & burn vary a lot, sometimes they don't care, other times it's very interactive
GBx, jeskai, D&T, Deaths shadow, mardu pyro, ponza, company decks, a lot of these care about what your opponent is doing
I'd classify E-Tron as reasonably un-interactive, apart from dismember, warping wail and all is dust there's not much there. TKS is kinda interactive, but yeah, solid "meh"
An "un-interactive" deck in modern is the equivalent of someone who goes in with effectively the same plan every game "left hook, right hook, double jab cut, uppercut" and hopes the opponent can't answer them. You don't care what they're doing, or where they are positioned in the ring, you just know if you land most of those hits, you win!
As for "interactive", it's having the ability to deflect/block those punches (but needing to draw them at the right time), or trying to manoeuvre your opponent so they're in the corner and unable to move whilst you finish them off.
I'm with you for a DTT unban (with TC never being unbanned), and I can't comment too much on what it enabled as I only really started paying attention to modern just after the B&R announcement. I think people remember TC being so good, and that takes DTT with it.