Folks i need help this is my deck build fo GP Sao Paulo, is no etched main a problem?
Would you be able to provide a larger image/decklist? I'm having a bit of trouble making out some of the SB cards and numbers (though might just be my computer).
That being said, no etched main is definitely going to hurt you long run in a GP. It represents a near impossible to answer threat against every non-eldrazi deck. I'm assuming you're focusing on master of etherium main for E-tron? That MU shouldn't be much of an issue due to how favored we are in it. I'd personally run at least 2 etched main.
Also, it looks like you're running a full set of galvanic blast. Between that, the set of masters, and the glint-nest crane's, you're going VERY heavy on the colored spells. Deferring to affinity-pro Frank Karsten, you don't really want more than 7 colored spells pre or post-board. It WILL trip you up a not-insignificant amount of the time, especially over the course of an event the size of a GP.
Also a friendly reminder (though I have seen more people doing it with success lately), modular from arcbound ravager does not work w/ a rest in peace in play.
I am not vehemently opposed to any of the main unbans being discussed. I do think it is a bit silly to look at a healthy diverse meta and say "hey everything's been going great being left alone to self-regulate, so let's mess with it!" My fear is that any unban would simply reduce the diversity of fair decks to "either play BBE Jund or do something crazier." And we do have a number of fair deck options in the format with Death Shadow Jund (no delve creatures remember), Abzan midrange, UW Control, and hatebears, plus lower tier options like Jund midrange and Jeskai control. I don't think it is possible for every guild/shard color combo to be equally viable at the same time, and hence I constantly ask why people seem to think certain ones are entitled to exist as tier 1 options at any given point. I double down when the same midrange or fair deck proponents call for bans on any deck that would be a bad matchup, as if that deck not only has a right to exist competitively but also without any bad deck matchups.
I would argue that because we have a healthy and diverse meta, it is the best time to unban cards. It's in this type of metagame where you want to experiment with unbanning cards. Does it break the metagame? Whoops. Ban it again and the metagame should return to the state it was at before. Doesn't break the metagame? Cool. Modern now has a new tool to work with and maybe a few new decks spring up.
That's how I see it anyway
GGT unban and re-ban was a good six months of misery. I don't know if I want to suffer through BBE Jund while WOTC decides whether it needs to be re-banned. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This line of thinking though never allows for another unban and that just seems wrong.
Formats shouldn't be addressed by something "seeming" wrong. There are literally dozens of viable decks. You can go to MtgGoldfish, MtgTop8, any site that compiles data and see results on everything from Grixis Shadow to RG Ponza seeing success. The only people that benefit from an unban of BBE are people who, for some reason, think modern sucks unless they get to play BBE. I don't think its worth the risk to satisfy a very small number of people, especially when I see zero upside. And that zero is a result of diminishing marginal returns. There are thirty viable decks in modern. If you don't like any of them, pick a format with the deck you do want to play, then. At some point people are just being picky, which goes back to the "junders wanna jund, but it isn't junding unless its tier 1."
....what? Not a single jund player is making the argument you claim they're making. I would be 100% fine with BBE coming off, and I can tell you right now there is a 0% chance I would ever play it.
The majority of us agree that the meta has dozens of viable decks with different strategies to play from. If a card can come off the banned list without hurting the meta, then that benefits everyone: people who would play it, people who wouldn't, and wizards themselves considering they stated one of their goals is to maintain as small a banned list as possible.
I am not vehemently opposed to any of the main unbans being discussed. I do think it is a bit silly to look at a healthy diverse meta and say "hey everything's been going great being left alone to self-regulate, so let's mess with it!" My fear is that any unban would simply reduce the diversity of fair decks to "either play BBE Jund or do something crazier." And we do have a number of fair deck options in the format with Death Shadow Jund (no delve creatures remember), Abzan midrange, UW Control, and hatebears, plus lower tier options like Jund midrange and Jeskai control. I don't think it is possible for every guild/shard color combo to be equally viable at the same time, and hence I constantly ask why people seem to think certain ones are entitled to exist as tier 1 options at any given point. I double down when the same midrange or fair deck proponents call for bans on any deck that would be a bad matchup, as if that deck not only has a right to exist competitively but also without any bad deck matchups.
I would argue that because we have a healthy and diverse meta, it is the best time to unban cards. It's in this type of metagame where you want to experiment with unbanning cards. Does it break the metagame? Whoops. Ban it again and the metagame should return to the state it was at before. Doesn't break the metagame? Cool. Modern now has a new tool to work with and maybe a few new decks spring up.
That's how I see it anyway
GGT unban and re-ban was a good six months of misery. I don't know if I want to suffer through BBE Jund while WOTC decides whether it needs to be re-banned. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In all fairness, the dredge nonsense was moreso due to printing insolent neonate, prized amalgam, and cathartic reunion one after the other and thinking that was a totally reasonable thing to do.
All investments carry risk. You buy stock in a company knowing it could go bankrupt in a month due to a massive financial scandal. You buy a house knowing a flood could wipe it out. You buy a modern deck and at least SHOULD know that at any time that a ban, unban, or shift in the metagame will render your deck less valuable. It is not WOTCs responsibility to ensure your deck retains or even gains value over time. If that is an issue, you should look to invest in CDs or bonds and play MtG purely for entertainment and budget accordingly.
On the unban matter:
I am not vehemently opposed to any of the main unbans being discussed. I do think it is a bit silly to look at a healthy diverse meta and say "hey everything's been going great being left alone to self-regulate, so let's mess with it!" My fear is that any unban would simply reduce the diversity of fair decks to "either play BBE Jund or do something crazier." And we do have a number of fair deck options in the format with Death Shadow Jund (no delve creatures remember), Abzan midrange, UW Control, and hatebears, plus lower tier options like Jund midrange and Jeskai control. I don't think it is possible for every guild/shard color combo to be equally viable at the same time, and hence I constantly ask why people seem to think certain ones are entitled to exist as tier 1 options at any given point. I double down when the same midrange or fair deck proponents call for bans on any deck that would be a bad matchup, as if that deck not only has a right to exist competitively but also without any bad deck matchups.
There are basically two trains of thought for the unban rationale. A meta is healthy and doesn't have clear best deck or problem and therefore can handle the introduction of new cards vs. a meta is unhealthy and the injection of new cards will help solve the current meta problems.
The problems with that second line of thought is 1. historically, wizards doesn't unban cards to solve problem metas. They are significantly more likely to ban cards from the problems (troll, eye of ugin, bloom). 2. Let's say they unban a card to fix a bad meta and the meta gets worse. Now you made an already unhealthy meta worse, and you can either keep the card unbanned or re-ban it, bringing you right back to where you began - a problematic meta.
Ubanning a card during a healthy meta gives you a fail-safe to fall back on; if the card is a problem, you have the solution right in front of you and a "guaranteed" healthy meta to revert to. You control the upside and the risk, something you wouldn't be able to do waiting for an unhealthy meta.
Hate to burst everyone's bubble here but getting both SFM and BBE in the same announcement is all but impossible.
On the other hand there is a worse scenario, one in which you get exactly what you want and it doesn't matter anyway (Thopter Foundry comes to mind).
I wouldn't call that a worse case scenario. I am perfectly fine with cards coming off the banned list and it not breaking Modern in half.
Exactly. If cards can come off the banned list and it not matter, that is far from a worse scenario. Even something like the grave troll case which definitely DID have a negative impact on modern showed wizards willing to unban dangerous cards and evaluate/act on them based on the results.
With the meta this healthy and self-regulating, now is the time to try reintroducing cards, not during a problem meta as a shot in the dark band-aid attempt. At least we know that if they were to unban SFM/BBE and they wreck havoc, they could quickly revert to a healthy meta with a re-ban (which they've already shown a willingness to do w/ GGT). And even though the financial side of things really shouldn't play a large factor in banlist management, the fallout from re-banning SFM or BBE would be significantly less than something like Jace.
Aether grid is definitely a powerhouse in the MU, but just like stony/kataki is a 1 or 2 of in the board, so is aether grid, so it ends up evening out a bit. I'd say the biggest issue is there aren't nearly enough people playing tokens to get better and more consistent data (you should have seen how quickly people jumped down my throat when I said tokens has the capacity to be a top deck in another thread). For example, I won my last two Gx tron MU's w/ tokens through good discard and anguished unmakings. But I digress for going off topic.
Being in the affinity thread and bringing this back to relevant discussion, you should definitely throw away all of your katakis. It's a jerk card for jerk people
I run one stony in the board. As a player on both sides of the aisle, here's at least my rationale:
As an affinity player, no card wrecks you as hard as kataki. The advantage tokens has is that you often know whether the affinity player has removal after turn 1 discard. So then why don't I run kataki? Due to every other artifact MU. Tokens is already heavily favored against affinity, so between the two "big" hosers, I feel like we should focus on one or the other. Between zealous persecution, sundering growth, board wipes, pithing needle, and all of our 1/1 fliers, we don't really need that much more to skew the MU in our favor, so IMO we only need 1 of either kataki or stony (this is unless of course your meta is HEAVY on artifact decks). Stony has the benefit of not only doing work against KCI and thopter decks, but being better against decks like ad naus. than a kataki would.
If cheeri0s ever becomes more played, I would consider changing the stony for kataki, but as of now I feel comfortable enough not playing both or just kataki.
Any time! I play both decks, and aside from a nut draw involving a turn 2 etched champion followed up w/ plating and neither getting discarded, it honestly is an atrocious MU pre-board. A turn 1 steel overseer helps to keep things like skirge/pest alive, but then you're banking on tokens not having removal. Then you have to deal with awful SB cards like zealous persecution, stony silence, sundering growth and the like. But that is the benefit of playing affinity, even in horrific MU's, a nut draw can still net you a win if the opponent stumbles.
I respectfully disagree in regards to the other MU's listed (even though tokens should still be favored in all of them). Grixis shadow and delver can still discard and counter the most problematic pieces pre-board while jund shadow can produce a large trampler and has access to semi-board wipes with maelstrom pulse. I admittedly have little experience in the tokens v. esper control MU's, so I can't speak to that end as confidently. The biggest issue affinity has in the MU in comparison to the other decks you listed is how little play you have pre-board, which takes away one of the largest advantages there is to playing affinity - being favored game 1.
When I started playing modern, the only deck I had was affinity and the only decks my friend had were tokens and jeskai control. It was.....rough.
What do you guys typically board in/out against BW Tokens?
In, I'm thinking Ghaipur Aether Grid (2), Whipflare (1), Blood Moon (1), Etched Champion (2-3)... maybe one Stubborn?
I'm not sure what to take out though. Does it make sense to pull all four Galvanics? Which creatures does it make sense to pull given how much spot removal Tokens runs?
Thanks in advance for your help!
It's an awful MU that only gets worse post-board. Aether grid and whipflares for sure, any etched champions, but probably not blood moon. It can slow them down, but they can definitely function enough off of one basic until stabilization (think bitterblossom). I can see justification for either stubborn denial or thoughtseize (preemptively attack stony, and even if you miss there are generally great targets like intangible virtue/spectral procession or their planeswalkers).
Out: you have options depending on their build, but i'd prioritize taking out signal pest (terrible against 1/1 fliers), galvanic blast (you're bringing in a lot of colored spells, so you want to even this out somewhere. plus aiming it at blocking tokens feels terrible), and depending on your number of 3-drops, master of etherium (again, colored spell ratios and they have just so much removal). Etherium is nice to pump up all of our x/1 artifacts, but tokens generally won't have a hard time removing him.
In my experience, this isn't just one of the worst matchups for affinity, but one of the worst mu's a modern deck has in the format. Second only to something like burn vs. soul sisters.
How does one attack ETron? Other than "hope they stumble" or "damage race," what can decks actually do? Mind you that, as I mentioned last page, answers like Ceremonious Rejection are handled by their 4x, main deck Chalice of the Void. Hitting their lands doesn't really hurt them, all their creatures are hugely-advantageous 2-for-1s, they pack one-sided board wipes that get rid of all your non-land permanents, they have access to tons of graveyard hate, countermagic for sorceries, additional board wipes, and a top end that nobody can compete with, all with a pain-free manabase that gets to run multiple sol lands and utility lands at no detriment to color fixing.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like when this deck loses, it's only because it loses to itself or to an explosive hand out of a hyper aggro deck.
Dismissing ceremonious rejection due to chalice would be like dismissing kor firewalker against burn due to skullcrack. Yeah, they have a 4-of that can answer the problem, but that problem still needs to be answered. In the rejection/e-tron case, we're talking about a a chalice that can't be cheated out turn 1 can can be stopped by the very card that answers the rest of the deck.
Between Chalice and Cavern of Souls, you can't reliably count on Rejection to save you. It's definitely good, but it's not even back-breaking. It's more of a speed bump.
Remember, Chalice is a 4x main, meaning they'll have one to play on turn 2 nearly 50% of the time. Chalice also shuts off lots of cards from lots of decks, not just Rejection. The card wrecks hard and is played in the main deck with virtually no downside.
Yet Eldrazi Tron is not putting up nearly the same numbers as its eye of ugin predecessor. Its just good against some decks.
So you would advise waiting for it's metagame share to be greater then the combined share of all the other tier one decks before considering bans? Pretty slick.
The problem with rejection Vs chalice is what happens when they draw and cast chalice before you find your counter. SSG is still a card which those decks can play if they prioritize chalice enough, like they did at the pt.
Running SSG in e-tron to cheat out chalice is purposefully running a less-optimized version of the deck to help in corner cases. This discussion took a weird turn from "e-tron is too strong" to "temple is too strong" to "chalice makes rejection pointless".
Yes, if you draw and cast a chalice on 1 before your opponent draws ceremonious rejection, you will be at an advantage. Also important to note: Storm will be beat if you cast rule of law before the storm player has remand, lantern will be beat if you cast stony silence before lantern can discard it, and 3-color decks will be beat if you draw and cast blood moon before they fetch for basics. You can't just turn an argument into "well if they have an answer for my answer first, that is unfair." Well, you can, it just isn't a good argument.
[quote from="cfusionpm »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/780164-temporary-state-of-the-meta-thread-rules-update-7?comment=1159"]Yet Eldrazi Tron is not putting up nearly the same numbers as its eye of ugin predecessor. Its just good against some decks.
So is your issue with eldrazi temple, chalice of the void, cavern of souls, or every card that gives control a hard time? I'm sorry if that comes off as aggressive, it just seems like the issue is one of the more common ones in the thread - people wanting their decks to have less bad matchups.
I'm genuinely curious about how to attack the deck. Is ETron losing to itself enough? How else do you attack this deck other than a narrow sideboard card that is not super powerful and easily defeated or playing a fast aggro deck while dodging Chalice?
E-tron has a difficult time with fast aggro, go wide, and graveyard-based strategies. Affinity has a big advantage, dredge is good, and merfolk (from my limited experience) also has a good matchup. Then there are combo decks like storm (favored) and ad naus. (favored but less so). There isn't a singular hoser card a la stony silence or rest in peace for the matchup, but there are several cards that help which decks already run incidentally. Things like blood moon/spreading seas/rejection.
How does one attack ETron? Other than "hope they stumble" or "damage race," what can decks actually do? Mind you that, as I mentioned last page, answers like Ceremonious Rejection are handled by their 4x, main deck Chalice of the Void. Hitting their lands doesn't really hurt them, all their creatures are hugely-advantageous 2-for-1s, they pack one-sided board wipes that get rid of all your non-land permanents, they have access to tons of graveyard hate, countermagic for sorceries, additional board wipes, and a top end that nobody can compete with, all with a pain-free manabase that gets to run multiple sol lands and utility lands at no detriment to color fixing.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like when this deck loses, it's only because it loses to itself or to an explosive hand out of a hyper aggro deck.
Dismissing ceremonious rejection due to chalice would be like dismissing kor firewalker against burn due to skullcrack. Yeah, they have a 4-of that can answer the problem, but that problem still needs to be answered. In the rejection/e-tron case, we're talking about a a chalice that can't be cheated out turn 1 can can be stopped by the very card that answers the rest of the deck.
Between Chalice and Cavern of Souls, you can't reliably count on Rejection to save you. It's definitely good, but it's not even back-breaking. It's more of a speed bump.
Remember, Chalice is a 4x main, meaning they'll have one to play on turn 2 nearly 50% of the time. Chalice also shuts off lots of cards from lots of decks, not just Rejection. The card wrecks hard and is played in the main deck with virtually no downside.
So is your issue with eldrazi temple, chalice of the void, cavern of souls, or every card that gives control a hard time? I'm sorry if that comes off as aggressive, it just seems like the issue is one of the more common ones in the thread - people wanting their decks to have less bad matchups.
How does one attack ETron? Other than "hope they stumble" or "damage race," what can decks actually do? Mind you that, as I mentioned last page, answers like Ceremonious Rejection are handled by their 4x, main deck Chalice of the Void. Hitting their lands doesn't really hurt them, all their creatures are hugely-advantageous 2-for-1s, they pack one-sided board wipes that get rid of all your non-land permanents, they have access to tons of graveyard hate, countermagic for sorceries, additional board wipes, and a top end that nobody can compete with, all with a pain-free manabase that gets to run multiple sol lands and utility lands at no detriment to color fixing.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like when this deck loses, it's only because it loses to itself or to an explosive hand out of a hyper aggro deck.
Dismissing ceremonious rejection due to chalice would be like dismissing kor firewalker against burn due to skullcrack. Yeah, they have a 4-of that can answer the problem, but that problem still needs to be answered. In the rejection/e-tron case, we're talking about a a chalice that can't be cheated out turn 1 can can be stopped by the very card that answers the rest of the deck.
Speaking only for myself, I mean knee-jerk reaction as in the discussion has moved from ban GDS to ban opal to ban temple over the course of a month after respective strong finishes. People also seem to focus a lot on theoretical or potential problems regarding cards from all those decks (street wraith, opal, temple), just like some justify wanting SSG banned over its "potential" threat.
I'm all for rational discussion on merit-based bannings, but this forum in particular likes to move from recent winning deck to recent winning deck while throwing in the occasional SSG ban suggestion in the face of a healthy format. I just don't think being a vocal advocate for a ban based on potential rather than consistent results helps. It really just perpetuates fear of more bannings.
Would you be able to provide a larger image/decklist? I'm having a bit of trouble making out some of the SB cards and numbers (though might just be my computer).
That being said, no etched main is definitely going to hurt you long run in a GP. It represents a near impossible to answer threat against every non-eldrazi deck. I'm assuming you're focusing on master of etherium main for E-tron? That MU shouldn't be much of an issue due to how favored we are in it. I'd personally run at least 2 etched main.
Also, it looks like you're running a full set of galvanic blast. Between that, the set of masters, and the glint-nest crane's, you're going VERY heavy on the colored spells. Deferring to affinity-pro Frank Karsten, you don't really want more than 7 colored spells pre or post-board. It WILL trip you up a not-insignificant amount of the time, especially over the course of an event the size of a GP.
Also a friendly reminder (though I have seen more people doing it with success lately), modular from arcbound ravager does not work w/ a rest in peace in play.
....what? Not a single jund player is making the argument you claim they're making. I would be 100% fine with BBE coming off, and I can tell you right now there is a 0% chance I would ever play it.
The majority of us agree that the meta has dozens of viable decks with different strategies to play from. If a card can come off the banned list without hurting the meta, then that benefits everyone: people who would play it, people who wouldn't, and wizards themselves considering they stated one of their goals is to maintain as small a banned list as possible.
In all fairness, the dredge nonsense was moreso due to printing insolent neonate, prized amalgam, and cathartic reunion one after the other and thinking that was a totally reasonable thing to do.
There are basically two trains of thought for the unban rationale. A meta is healthy and doesn't have clear best deck or problem and therefore can handle the introduction of new cards vs. a meta is unhealthy and the injection of new cards will help solve the current meta problems.
The problems with that second line of thought is 1. historically, wizards doesn't unban cards to solve problem metas. They are significantly more likely to ban cards from the problems (troll, eye of ugin, bloom). 2. Let's say they unban a card to fix a bad meta and the meta gets worse. Now you made an already unhealthy meta worse, and you can either keep the card unbanned or re-ban it, bringing you right back to where you began - a problematic meta.
Ubanning a card during a healthy meta gives you a fail-safe to fall back on; if the card is a problem, you have the solution right in front of you and a "guaranteed" healthy meta to revert to. You control the upside and the risk, something you wouldn't be able to do waiting for an unhealthy meta.
Exactly. If cards can come off the banned list and it not matter, that is far from a worse scenario. Even something like the grave troll case which definitely DID have a negative impact on modern showed wizards willing to unban dangerous cards and evaluate/act on them based on the results.
With the meta this healthy and self-regulating, now is the time to try reintroducing cards, not during a problem meta as a shot in the dark band-aid attempt. At least we know that if they were to unban SFM/BBE and they wreck havoc, they could quickly revert to a healthy meta with a re-ban (which they've already shown a willingness to do w/ GGT). And even though the financial side of things really shouldn't play a large factor in banlist management, the fallout from re-banning SFM or BBE would be significantly less than something like Jace.
Aether grid is definitely a powerhouse in the MU, but just like stony/kataki is a 1 or 2 of in the board, so is aether grid, so it ends up evening out a bit. I'd say the biggest issue is there aren't nearly enough people playing tokens to get better and more consistent data (you should have seen how quickly people jumped down my throat when I said tokens has the capacity to be a top deck in another thread). For example, I won my last two Gx tron MU's w/ tokens through good discard and anguished unmakings. But I digress for going off topic.
Being in the affinity thread and bringing this back to relevant discussion, you should definitely throw away all of your katakis. It's a jerk card for jerk people
As an affinity player, no card wrecks you as hard as kataki. The advantage tokens has is that you often know whether the affinity player has removal after turn 1 discard. So then why don't I run kataki? Due to every other artifact MU. Tokens is already heavily favored against affinity, so between the two "big" hosers, I feel like we should focus on one or the other. Between zealous persecution, sundering growth, board wipes, pithing needle, and all of our 1/1 fliers, we don't really need that much more to skew the MU in our favor, so IMO we only need 1 of either kataki or stony (this is unless of course your meta is HEAVY on artifact decks). Stony has the benefit of not only doing work against KCI and thopter decks, but being better against decks like ad naus. than a kataki would.
If cheeri0s ever becomes more played, I would consider changing the stony for kataki, but as of now I feel comfortable enough not playing both or just kataki.
I respectfully disagree in regards to the other MU's listed (even though tokens should still be favored in all of them). Grixis shadow and delver can still discard and counter the most problematic pieces pre-board while jund shadow can produce a large trampler and has access to semi-board wipes with maelstrom pulse. I admittedly have little experience in the tokens v. esper control MU's, so I can't speak to that end as confidently. The biggest issue affinity has in the MU in comparison to the other decks you listed is how little play you have pre-board, which takes away one of the largest advantages there is to playing affinity - being favored game 1.
When I started playing modern, the only deck I had was affinity and the only decks my friend had were tokens and jeskai control. It was.....rough.
It's an awful MU that only gets worse post-board. Aether grid and whipflares for sure, any etched champions, but probably not blood moon. It can slow them down, but they can definitely function enough off of one basic until stabilization (think bitterblossom). I can see justification for either stubborn denial or thoughtseize (preemptively attack stony, and even if you miss there are generally great targets like intangible virtue/spectral procession or their planeswalkers).
Out: you have options depending on their build, but i'd prioritize taking out signal pest (terrible against 1/1 fliers), galvanic blast (you're bringing in a lot of colored spells, so you want to even this out somewhere. plus aiming it at blocking tokens feels terrible), and depending on your number of 3-drops, master of etherium (again, colored spell ratios and they have just so much removal). Etherium is nice to pump up all of our x/1 artifacts, but tokens generally won't have a hard time removing him.
In my experience, this isn't just one of the worst matchups for affinity, but one of the worst mu's a modern deck has in the format. Second only to something like burn vs. soul sisters.
Running SSG in e-tron to cheat out chalice is purposefully running a less-optimized version of the deck to help in corner cases. This discussion took a weird turn from "e-tron is too strong" to "temple is too strong" to "chalice makes rejection pointless".
Yes, if you draw and cast a chalice on 1 before your opponent draws ceremonious rejection, you will be at an advantage. Also important to note: Storm will be beat if you cast rule of law before the storm player has remand, lantern will be beat if you cast stony silence before lantern can discard it, and 3-color decks will be beat if you draw and cast blood moon before they fetch for basics. You can't just turn an argument into "well if they have an answer for my answer first, that is unfair." Well, you can, it just isn't a good argument.
Edit: bolded the part people must have missed in replies.
E-tron has a difficult time with fast aggro, go wide, and graveyard-based strategies. Affinity has a big advantage, dredge is good, and merfolk (from my limited experience) also has a good matchup. Then there are combo decks like storm (favored) and ad naus. (favored but less so). There isn't a singular hoser card a la stony silence or rest in peace for the matchup, but there are several cards that help which decks already run incidentally. Things like blood moon/spreading seas/rejection.
So is your issue with eldrazi temple, chalice of the void, cavern of souls, or every card that gives control a hard time? I'm sorry if that comes off as aggressive, it just seems like the issue is one of the more common ones in the thread - people wanting their decks to have less bad matchups.
Dismissing ceremonious rejection due to chalice would be like dismissing kor firewalker against burn due to skullcrack. Yeah, they have a 4-of that can answer the problem, but that problem still needs to be answered. In the rejection/e-tron case, we're talking about a a chalice that can't be cheated out turn 1 can can be stopped by the very card that answers the rest of the deck.
I'm all for rational discussion on merit-based bannings, but this forum in particular likes to move from recent winning deck to recent winning deck while throwing in the occasional SSG ban suggestion in the face of a healthy format. I just don't think being a vocal advocate for a ban based on potential rather than consistent results helps. It really just perpetuates fear of more bannings.