Did anybody else see the U tron list that snagged the 1st place at the GP? I'm interested in a few things about that deck.
They cut all copies of remand
Two copied of nimble obstructionist; but that begs the question why?
Why play kefnet? Seems too slow for an aggro meta.
I'm assuming the Nimble Obstructionist was added in place of Remand because it's 1 cmc more for a hard counter + card draw. It's also flexible as a blocker or a clock (with flying and flash, no less), if the matchup doesn't call for a significant number of counters. A decent number of matchups call for a chalice on 1 and/or 2. If you Chalice on 2, Remand is out, but Obstructionist is still viable. Also, in that IQ, there were 3 burn decks in the top 8, making Remand feel real awful against all those 1 and 2 CMC spells.
I don't know about Kefnet the Mindful... Assuming he's in the opening hand, T1 - land, 6 cards in hand, 7 if on draw, 5 or 6 if you play a map. T2 - draw, land, remain at 6/7 or 5/6, crack map then go to 6/7. T3 - draw, land, Kefnet, drop to 6/7. So, maybe on T3, but unlikely, he's a 5/5. More likely on T4 he's a 5/5 because you'll have likely naturally drawn your 7th card or, at worst, you can activate Kefnet and draw the 7th.
In a fast aggro or combo deck matchup, I don't see Kefnet as an overly useful inclusion. However, against control or midrange, I think it's a useful addition. The longer the game is likely to go, the more powerful he is, imo.
...
Lantern isnt bad I haven't had too many issues with it but UB mill just wrecks me for some reason. We have 2 mill players on occasion but one of them exclusively plays it but it seems like I get matched with him every week lol. I need to actually keep notes so I can figure out why I lose to it
Take a look at a UB Mill decklist or, depending on how friendly the guy(s) is/are at your store, take a look at their decks and talk to them or figure out what cards you need to worry about.
As I said in a previous post, if you're going to Expedition Map, transmute Tolaria West, tutor with a Mage, you better have counter magic in hand with sufficient mana ready to go.
I think the big issue you and others may have with mill is the assumed speed of the deck. It can feel like you're drowning when you get milled 20 cards in one turn. Just remember, it's not the fastest deck in the format. It can't overwhelm you with creatures like an aggro deck, so the battlefield plane shouldn't be too worrisome for you, so when it's the choice between bouncing/killing a creature and having mana for countering a mill spell, counter. The actual process of milling is very unlikely to occur by T4, so you have time to stabilize and get something going in most games. Don't lose your head is what I'm saying and make hasty decision because you incorrectly assume you're hosed.
I've Found mill to be an utterly abysmal matchup. If you are playing chalice that can help, its probably not worth packing cards for imo though. Line up your counterspells right, Nimble obstructionist if you are playing it can stop field of ruins and qhost quarters from forcing you to shuffle.
i have yet to get a nimble obstructionist so ill definitely be getting one to try out. but ive noticed it can be a difficult match up putting down a clock is hard with them (at least in my lgs) running fatal push main.
Are we talking true mill or lantern style mill? I don't have much experience with UB Mill, having only played the matchup once or twice. From my recollection, it was a free win. HOWEVER, there can be significant variance in the UB Mill deck construction, as, from my experience at least, it is a "pet" deck that guys tailor to their personal style. Don't counter the small mill cards and don't search your library, unless you have counter mana up for the Archive Trap.
Lantern mill I have played several times and find that to be a semi-favorable matchup as well. Commit // Memory is a great card for either matchup, "true/traditional" mill and lantern. For lantern, either establish an early creature board or get Chalice out on 1. Alternatively, commit to the bounce / draw game to dig for an Ugin or Slaver, especially if Ensnaring Bridge is established.
Has anyone tried Warping Wail? I'm playing 2 main deck right now just to get a feeling for the card. Let's look at the different modes first:
...
What did you swap out for the Wails?
I like your analysis and the idea. I had tried the card in the past, main board, and side. I was running a different list at that time, but your analysis and laying out the cards it hits, I could see swapping it in for the Spatials I have in the main. I feel as though I'm typically targeting the creatures you listed with a Spatial, anyway, so may as well use card that has additional utility.
Obviously, the big downside is there are a number of creatures that Wail won't hit and, some of those listed, as you also note, can get out of range through triggers, like Prowess.
I like the idea though and will test it out to see what my personal thoughts are.
I’ve been wondering for a while if the second tutor effect should be trinket mage, treasure mage or fabricate. For now I’m using trinket to get all our great small 1 ofs. The body is just too relevant.
Also I hear U tron just down 8th at a GP? That’s pretty good right.
Both utilize "Traditional" style lists, with little Karn and Talismans.
Now, we just need more of those types of finishes so we know there is some consistency in the power of the deck in this meta, rather than "luck", "dodging", or any other excuse we can come up with.
Forgive my ignorance, but could anyone enlighten me how Trading Post should be of benefit to us? Is this banking on having the time to go through the whole Post cycle? Shenanigans with Wurmcoil Engine? Shenanigans with Academy Ruins? I don‘t usually find myself in position to freely sacrifice artifacts or creatures, nor do I have the time to go through the first two steps.
Multiple options, depending on board state and deck building preferences. Just another option to allow us to engage in, as you say, "shenanigans".
I believe the creature sacrifice option is looking more at the expendable tutors that are potentially useless on board, after their triggers have resolved (ie., Trinket Mage and Treasure Mage). Solemn Simulacrum would also be a viable target, especially for the draw trigger. Meanwhile, Talismans or a useless Engineered Explosives or Chalice of the Void, on 0, are easy artifacts and, in the latter case, "free" to pitch for the Draw option on Post.
I agree that the differentiation of the "2 lists" is sometimes overblown. Ultimately, the goal and strategy of all UTron lists is very similar, if not entirely identical. The devil's in the details though...
With the "Traditional" list, you have your tutors to get to your silver bullet cards and rely more heavily on winning games by stalling out until you can get to a silver bullet. Alternatively, you can win a ground and pound match with your tutors and Wurmcoils.
With the "Newer" list, you're down the tutors and have eliminated most of those silver bullet cards. You can still play the game stall tactic and get to an Ugin or Slaver, but you're also looking at ground advantage or control through multiple Ballistas and Wurmcoils. This is in stark contrast to landing a big silver bullet and hoping the opponent either has no answer or can't answer quickly enough and you can build a defense via counterspells to protect it.
So, I agree that the lists are largely similar in card selection and strategy, but there are some fundamental differences between them. That plays into the flex spot selections, which you fill with Talismans, for acceleration. I personally don't like Talisman. While I appreciate the acceleration aspect of the card, I'd rather be doing other things with my mana on those turns because it suits my playstyle better.
As for Silent Arbiter, it was a card I always wanted to make work in the deck, but could never quite get there. Then I saw a list someone posted on here with multiple copies in the Sideboard and it clicked, for me.
I can't speak to your questions about tutoring Arbiter and how strong the card is in the "Traditional" list as a one of main board. I can, however, say that I think it resolves a lot of our issues as a multi-copy card (3ish) in the sideboard.
My primary reasons:
1. Aggro. A common concern among pilots throughout this thread is the inability to keep up with the threats resolved by aggro decks. Additional copies of Spatial Contortion and Dismember have been used. Spatial misses some cards. Dismember hurts. Another idea was adding in Walking Ballistas. The "New" lists I have seen have done this, playing 3-4 Ballistas and 2-3 Spatials. Arbiter plays into this strategy nicely by adding a decent blocker to the field, with a great static effect that resolves the issue we have with aggro decks going so wide so quickly. It then takes the place of Dismember, so we're not hurting ourselves to remove creatures from the board that Spatial can't deal with, while accomplishing the goal of ensuring the opponent can't attack us repeatedly with unanswerable battlefield threats.
2. Dredge. Yes, dredge is also a fast, creature intensive deck. However, it utilizes the graveyard for its path to fast, ongoing attacks. This means the manner of stopping it is different than traditional Aggro and involves multiple copies of GY hate, rather than kill spells. I've personally never been a fan of packing a ton of GY hate in the sideboard because the decks that utilize the GY, in my local meta at least, aren't ones that I'm overly worried about, so I've gone months without any GY hate in the side without issue. Then, dredge came back into the meta, requiring that I pack GY hate and occupy valuable side board slots with cards that I only found useful against that 1 specific deck. Arbiter resolves that issue because it slows Dredge's creature attack on the battlefield plane, as opposed to the GY area. Now I can go back to not having GY specific hate just for Dredge and can utilize a card, Arbiter, that also stops other deck archetypes that I have problems with.
This thread is disappointing.. =( all im gonna say
Agree, but what is there to discuss? No individual seems to have put up any kind of results at larger tournaments recently. There doesn't appear to be anything new that has entered the card pool. Every idea relating to the existing card pool has been discussed, argued, and is now almost instantly quashed by the more seasoned players of the deck. Additionally, there's been a schism in the overall deck construction, with 1 side being "Toolbox" (e.g., 1 of silver bullets like Titan, Angel, etc.) and non-toolbox (e.g., multiple Ballistas and Wurmcoils).
What is there to discuss? It seems like the only thing to argue about is which build is "correct", but, again, nobody's putting up big tournament results, so then it's a matter of preference. The only thing to really discuss is, can the deck even compete in this meta?
It seems that the fundamental idea of UTron and its many one ofs is that it is a jack of all trades deck that can answer anything. In modern, that can be a good thing, as there is a very wide meta. However, as many of us have experienced, I think, that also means we're just too slow in certain matchups and couldn't get to those many silver-bullet one ofs in time to make them a worthwhile inclusion in the deck.
Looking at MTGGoldfish figures, Dredge, Humans, and Bant Spirits occupy over 18% of the meta and are the top 3 decks for overall representation. Grixis Death's Shadow, Hardened Scales Modular, and Infect represent another 8% of the meta. This means, you have a significant chance of seeing a fast, aggro-esque deck whenever you sit down at the table. These decks are the ones UTron typically struggles with because they move so quickly and utilize pieces that are tough to counter quickly enough to make a difference, thus relegating us to rely on our one of silver-bullets like Platinum Angel.
Therefore, some folks have split away from the toolbox style and moved towards a different version running a higher volume of what are perceived as the cards that provide the highest advantage against our weakest matchups, the decks I've listed that also happen to represent the highest share of the prevailing meta at this time. Hence, 3-4 Walking Ballista, multiple Wurmcoil Engine, and more board cleanup in the form of Repeal and Spatial Contortion, instead of Dismember which expedite us getting killed by a turn or 2, against decks that don't need any help with that.
The fun thing about UTron is that it can be tailored to your meta because it has about 15-20 flex slots, between the main and side, that you can tweak as you need.
I took a break from U Tron after Spirits becoming a thing, and it seems like I was correct: it’s kinda of an abysmal mu for this archetype.
...
What do you think the optimal win condition is against Spirits? I notice you don't run Mindlsaver in your posted 75. Do you think that defeating Spirits on the creature plane is the appropriate path for our deck? Or, does it make more sense to utilize a Slaver Lock and Ugin, while controlling the board state with a heavier counters and removal package sided in?
It seems quite locking, Givin us the time to set up our finishers. When it cracks hopefully we have plenty of mana to do whatever we want. What you think?
Too many risks that are not outweighed by the upside. On T3, you're looking at 3 lands, if not 4 on the other side depending on who was on the play, by the time this card comes into play. Even if the opponent only plays a land every 3rd turn after that, you're still not doing enough to interfere with their game plan using this card.
Remember, Modern is a T4/5 format and you just tapped out on T3 to play this. Leaving them open to play whatever they want on T3/4 (depending on who's on the play). Then, if you're playing against another blue deck, this has limited impact.
This card, imo, is neither fast enough nor unique enough to warrant any kind of inclusion or consideration. By unique, I mean it doesn't add an element of disruption that we can already more effectively/efficiently utilize through other cards or a method of disruption that is more efficient than what we already use. Spreading Seas, GQ, Field, Tec Edge, etc. provide better methods for disrupting the opponents mana. Additionally, our counters provide a more efficient and one-sided means for disrupting their spell casting ability too.
If you watch Pierakor v. Shoktroopa, there are significant differences to their respective play styles. This is something both have acknowledged in their own various videos and/or posts.
Nobody's attacking the overall data, as I believe we've all mentioned, it's extremely thorough and excellent to have. However, as with any data, it needs to be properly scrutinized in order to be properly applied.
For example, your Delta on Summary Dismissal is 4.84%. Meanwhile, the Deltas on both Karn, Scion of Urza and Gifts Ungiven are 32.92%, with positive Weighted %. If we use just that information, we should be jamming multiple copies of Karn and Gifts. Yet, your own deck list in your signature contains 0 copies of either. Similarly, Spatial Contortion shows a -0.03% Delta and 0 Weighted %, yet you run 3 between main and side. The data also indicate that Island is negative Delta and Weighted %, while many of the blue spells on the list are positives...
Data is great, but it doesn't provide a 100% clear picture of everything that's going on with a deck and/or the meta it's competing with.
The point with Summary Dismissal is, there are matches it can be excellent in and matches it can be totally useless in, just like many other cards. However, the data reflect this, imo, given that the Total Games with 0 copies is over 900, while the wins with 1 and total games with 1 are both under 40. It's used in niche situations against specific matchups. If you know which matchups those are and your particular play style and deck list have a high win % against them already, while your matchups against other archetypes is weak, you're going to want a different card.
If you take into considerations matches of 2-3 people, you’re running on conjectures too. Because that is data... based on a particular decklist and/or playstyle. We need better coverage, otherwise such a project can be certainly useful, but just until a certain extent.
I think for "unique" cards, you're correct. By this, I'm talking about cards like Torrential Gearhulk, Sundering Titan, Platinum Angel, Trinket Mage, etc. Cards that folks swap in/out based on personal preference and are the more toolbox-y cards, as opposed to the standard cards seen in every deck, with multiple copies (e.g. Remand, Condescend, Repeal, etc.).
This data, I believe, is more useful for those multi-copy cards. The one-of cards, not so much.
Reason being, as Bloody notes, play style and decklist more drastically affect the utility of those cards than any other, as well as matchups. Against a mono color deck, for example, Sundering Titan is less good and likely to get pitched to Thirst, not played at all, or played with little impact. Platinum Angel, likewise, against a removal heavy deck is far less good and likely to have less of an impact. For those toolbox, one-of cards, this data is less useful, because variables like: play style, meta,etc. play a greater impact on these cards than others. You're running only 1 copy, playing it less, and playing it primarily for niche situations, which don't trend towards quality statistics, without a massive effort to identify and account for far too many variables.
YES! Remand and other counters are awful against Vial / Cavern decks, but the deck runs 7+ counters, typically, and is a primary tool, regardless of decklist nuance. We can spin our wheels on arguing about specific decks and cards that are terrible against them, but that's what the sideboard is for. Every main deck has weaknesses and the sideboard is meant to augment those.
Regardless, because of all the variables (opponent decks, play style, human error, etc.), this data will never flawlessly depict what cards are "the best" and what the optimal decklist is going to be. However, I think the data is generally useful for showing us which commonly main-decked cards are better performers than others. Which we can then extrapolate to how many copies should we play, if any, and what gaps still exist with those winners played (i.e. How do you close the gap between the 80% win rate of card XYZ and 100%?)
Again, this is not about any blue deck needing help (although let's be honest, Simic does). This is not about making them better. It's about WotC not printing anything playable in that design space. Think of all the playable removal spells they've printed recently. Push, Cast Down, Trophy, Abrade, Collective Brutality, Blessed Alliance, K Command, Spatial Contortion. I can't even count all the playable creatures they've printed recently. We get a playable Planeswalker like every other set. But only three counters that see play in the past 10 years. I know I keep bringing up the same example, but is Countersquall a game-breaking upgrade over Negate for UBx decks? No, it's really not. It has a small bonus in exchange for being harder to cast. Why can't we get similar things in other color combinations? Again, it's not about making blue control of any color combination better, it's just about having different options. Do I want to go base UW for the negate variant that gains me 2 life, or UR for the negate variant that shocks a creature, or UB for the negate variant that shocks my opponent, and so on. What about Essence Scatter? Essence Scatter is completely unplayable in Modern, but maybe playing around with color requirements in the casting costs for small bonuses could produce something with some application in Modern. It just feels like they're not even trying to make interesting counters that are on a fine power level anymore. They only play around in the 3 cmc counter area, and even though this new one is probably the best Cancel variant they've ever printed, it will see 0 play because a 3 cmc counter is too expensive in Modern unless it's doing something way more powerful than WotC would probably ever print into Standard.
All of that was just, I wish I had more variation because it's fun and interesting. Do the things your advocating for provide improvements to those decks? Sure, marginal ones. It doesn't get to the crux of the issue, which is: Are the things you're asking for going to make whatever Ux variant you want to play a truly competitive deck?
Maybe you're fine with certain Ux variants not being at the top tables, but something that's viable at the LGS, which is fine. I think, however, based on the tone of many people on here, that most people want more than just UW to be a viable competitor at competition level magic. Thus, my point in citing to UW Control's results is that those results demonstrate that counter magic, as the epitome of counter magic deck building, is currently healthy and performing very well at the competitive level. I understand people don't all want to play UW and want UB, UR, etc. BUT, once again, is another variation on the counterspells already available going to improve those Ux decks and make them competitive? And, once again, looking at the results from UW, packing the same counterspells that are all, every single one, available to every other Ux build, the answer has to be "No".
I don't disagree that having different counterspells that incorporate elements of other parts of the color pie (Countersquall damaging opponent, your example of UR damaging a creature, etc.) would be fun and something that Wizards can do. However, those things aren't going to change the state of Modern, imo, and all of a sudden propel other Ux decks to the forefront of the Meta. They are fun, unique cards that make your Ux variant more interesting for you, which is great, for you. They are also marginal upgrades that will, admittedly, likely help those decks perform marginally better.
In the current state of modern thread, however, that special, gold star feeling of having a new toy to play with that's a very marginal improvement doesn't change the state of modern. It doesn't change the meta or the way other decks interact or the way other decks are built, because it's not the tool, weapon, finisher, whatever that those Ux decks need to actually be competitive and impact Modern. So, let's get real and differentiate the wishful thinking about new counterspell magic from the actual needs of Modern to make specific archetypes viable competitors.
Well sure but for a thought experiment is the only thing holding BGx Down not having two cmc unconditional removal? Or is it Faithless Looting Backed Recursion Aggro Decks, Tribal Vial Decks, Ancient Stirrings Backed Colorless Decks and Superior Mardu Pyromancer Midrange Decks keeping it down. Yes this new removal helps aginast UW Control and Tron but is it really going to help against the rest of the format?
I don't necessarily disagree with you. BGx certainly needs something more than another variation on board removal to become a true tournament competitor. However, the original arguments or line of thinking that, because BGx got another removal variant, Ux variants should get another counterspell variant that's better than everything they currently have, is a preposterous idea. I'm not saying @autumntwilight was necessarily making that argument, but just placing my counterpoints in context.
Regardless of all that, I think a primary element that people continual forget, or willfully ignore, is that Modern has a somewhat cyclical meta. One season, a deck pops up and dominates, it's then beaten back by new decks or cards, and then some other decks come and pray on those decks, then another dominant deck pops up because it prays on those decks, so on and so forth. The ultimate result is, you're pet deck that you've loved for however many months or years isn't necessarily going to be great, good, or even playable in subsequent months or years because the meta continually shifts based on new cards entering the pool and the discovery of new/different interactions. Thus, you're not always going to have the exact card you want to answer those new interactions or threats, but have to wait on Wizards to develop and print something or ban, so your deck archetype can once again rise to the top of the heap.
I'm assuming the Nimble Obstructionist was added in place of Remand because it's 1 cmc more for a hard counter + card draw. It's also flexible as a blocker or a clock (with flying and flash, no less), if the matchup doesn't call for a significant number of counters. A decent number of matchups call for a chalice on 1 and/or 2. If you Chalice on 2, Remand is out, but Obstructionist is still viable. Also, in that IQ, there were 3 burn decks in the top 8, making Remand feel real awful against all those 1 and 2 CMC spells.
I don't know about Kefnet the Mindful... Assuming he's in the opening hand, T1 - land, 6 cards in hand, 7 if on draw, 5 or 6 if you play a map. T2 - draw, land, remain at 6/7 or 5/6, crack map then go to 6/7. T3 - draw, land, Kefnet, drop to 6/7. So, maybe on T3, but unlikely, he's a 5/5. More likely on T4 he's a 5/5 because you'll have likely naturally drawn your 7th card or, at worst, you can activate Kefnet and draw the 7th.
In a fast aggro or combo deck matchup, I don't see Kefnet as an overly useful inclusion. However, against control or midrange, I think it's a useful addition. The longer the game is likely to go, the more powerful he is, imo.
Take a look at a UB Mill decklist or, depending on how friendly the guy(s) is/are at your store, take a look at their decks and talk to them or figure out what cards you need to worry about.
Usually, the big mill spells are: Archive Trap, Mind Funeral, and Glimpse the Unthinkable. Counter them.
As I said in a previous post, if you're going to Expedition Map, transmute Tolaria West, tutor with a Mage, you better have counter magic in hand with sufficient mana ready to go.
The mill creatures: Hedron Crab and Manic Scribe, just kill or bounce as able.
I think the big issue you and others may have with mill is the assumed speed of the deck. It can feel like you're drowning when you get milled 20 cards in one turn. Just remember, it's not the fastest deck in the format. It can't overwhelm you with creatures like an aggro deck, so the battlefield plane shouldn't be too worrisome for you, so when it's the choice between bouncing/killing a creature and having mana for countering a mill spell, counter. The actual process of milling is very unlikely to occur by T4, so you have time to stabilize and get something going in most games. Don't lose your head is what I'm saying and make hasty decision because you incorrectly assume you're hosed.
Are we talking true mill or lantern style mill? I don't have much experience with UB Mill, having only played the matchup once or twice. From my recollection, it was a free win. HOWEVER, there can be significant variance in the UB Mill deck construction, as, from my experience at least, it is a "pet" deck that guys tailor to their personal style. Don't counter the small mill cards and don't search your library, unless you have counter mana up for the Archive Trap.
Lantern mill I have played several times and find that to be a semi-favorable matchup as well. Commit // Memory is a great card for either matchup, "true/traditional" mill and lantern. For lantern, either establish an early creature board or get Chalice out on 1. Alternatively, commit to the bounce / draw game to dig for an Ugin or Slaver, especially if Ensnaring Bridge is established.
What did you swap out for the Wails?
I like your analysis and the idea. I had tried the card in the past, main board, and side. I was running a different list at that time, but your analysis and laying out the cards it hits, I could see swapping it in for the Spatials I have in the main. I feel as though I'm typically targeting the creatures you listed with a Spatial, anyway, so may as well use card that has additional utility.
Obviously, the big downside is there are a number of creatures that Wail won't hit and, some of those listed, as you also note, can get out of range through triggers, like Prowess.
I like the idea though and will test it out to see what my personal thoughts are.
Yes, there were two top 8 finishes at SCG IQs back in September ( https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1353909#paper ; https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1497741#paper ). Smaller events than GPs, but still not something to discount.
Both utilize "Traditional" style lists, with little Karn and Talismans.
Now, we just need more of those types of finishes so we know there is some consistency in the power of the deck in this meta, rather than "luck", "dodging", or any other excuse we can come up with.
Multiple options, depending on board state and deck building preferences. Just another option to allow us to engage in, as you say, "shenanigans".
I believe the creature sacrifice option is looking more at the expendable tutors that are potentially useless on board, after their triggers have resolved (ie., Trinket Mage and Treasure Mage). Solemn Simulacrum would also be a viable target, especially for the draw trigger. Meanwhile, Talismans or a useless Engineered Explosives or Chalice of the Void, on 0, are easy artifacts and, in the latter case, "free" to pitch for the Draw option on Post.
I agree that the differentiation of the "2 lists" is sometimes overblown. Ultimately, the goal and strategy of all UTron lists is very similar, if not entirely identical. The devil's in the details though...
With the "Traditional" list, you have your tutors to get to your silver bullet cards and rely more heavily on winning games by stalling out until you can get to a silver bullet. Alternatively, you can win a ground and pound match with your tutors and Wurmcoils.
With the "Newer" list, you're down the tutors and have eliminated most of those silver bullet cards. You can still play the game stall tactic and get to an Ugin or Slaver, but you're also looking at ground advantage or control through multiple Ballistas and Wurmcoils. This is in stark contrast to landing a big silver bullet and hoping the opponent either has no answer or can't answer quickly enough and you can build a defense via counterspells to protect it.
So, I agree that the lists are largely similar in card selection and strategy, but there are some fundamental differences between them. That plays into the flex spot selections, which you fill with Talismans, for acceleration. I personally don't like Talisman. While I appreciate the acceleration aspect of the card, I'd rather be doing other things with my mana on those turns because it suits my playstyle better.
As for Silent Arbiter, it was a card I always wanted to make work in the deck, but could never quite get there. Then I saw a list someone posted on here with multiple copies in the Sideboard and it clicked, for me.
I can't speak to your questions about tutoring Arbiter and how strong the card is in the "Traditional" list as a one of main board. I can, however, say that I think it resolves a lot of our issues as a multi-copy card (3ish) in the sideboard.
My primary reasons:
1. Aggro. A common concern among pilots throughout this thread is the inability to keep up with the threats resolved by aggro decks. Additional copies of Spatial Contortion and Dismember have been used. Spatial misses some cards. Dismember hurts. Another idea was adding in Walking Ballistas. The "New" lists I have seen have done this, playing 3-4 Ballistas and 2-3 Spatials. Arbiter plays into this strategy nicely by adding a decent blocker to the field, with a great static effect that resolves the issue we have with aggro decks going so wide so quickly. It then takes the place of Dismember, so we're not hurting ourselves to remove creatures from the board that Spatial can't deal with, while accomplishing the goal of ensuring the opponent can't attack us repeatedly with unanswerable battlefield threats.
2. Dredge. Yes, dredge is also a fast, creature intensive deck. However, it utilizes the graveyard for its path to fast, ongoing attacks. This means the manner of stopping it is different than traditional Aggro and involves multiple copies of GY hate, rather than kill spells. I've personally never been a fan of packing a ton of GY hate in the sideboard because the decks that utilize the GY, in my local meta at least, aren't ones that I'm overly worried about, so I've gone months without any GY hate in the side without issue. Then, dredge came back into the meta, requiring that I pack GY hate and occupy valuable side board slots with cards that I only found useful against that 1 specific deck. Arbiter resolves that issue because it slows Dredge's creature attack on the battlefield plane, as opposed to the GY area. Now I can go back to not having GY specific hate just for Dredge and can utilize a card, Arbiter, that also stops other deck archetypes that I have problems with.
Agree, but what is there to discuss? No individual seems to have put up any kind of results at larger tournaments recently. There doesn't appear to be anything new that has entered the card pool. Every idea relating to the existing card pool has been discussed, argued, and is now almost instantly quashed by the more seasoned players of the deck. Additionally, there's been a schism in the overall deck construction, with 1 side being "Toolbox" (e.g., 1 of silver bullets like Titan, Angel, etc.) and non-toolbox (e.g., multiple Ballistas and Wurmcoils).
What is there to discuss? It seems like the only thing to argue about is which build is "correct", but, again, nobody's putting up big tournament results, so then it's a matter of preference. The only thing to really discuss is, can the deck even compete in this meta?
It seems that the fundamental idea of UTron and its many one ofs is that it is a jack of all trades deck that can answer anything. In modern, that can be a good thing, as there is a very wide meta. However, as many of us have experienced, I think, that also means we're just too slow in certain matchups and couldn't get to those many silver-bullet one ofs in time to make them a worthwhile inclusion in the deck.
Looking at MTGGoldfish figures, Dredge, Humans, and Bant Spirits occupy over 18% of the meta and are the top 3 decks for overall representation. Grixis Death's Shadow, Hardened Scales Modular, and Infect represent another 8% of the meta. This means, you have a significant chance of seeing a fast, aggro-esque deck whenever you sit down at the table. These decks are the ones UTron typically struggles with because they move so quickly and utilize pieces that are tough to counter quickly enough to make a difference, thus relegating us to rely on our one of silver-bullets like Platinum Angel.
Therefore, some folks have split away from the toolbox style and moved towards a different version running a higher volume of what are perceived as the cards that provide the highest advantage against our weakest matchups, the decks I've listed that also happen to represent the highest share of the prevailing meta at this time. Hence, 3-4 Walking Ballista, multiple Wurmcoil Engine, and more board cleanup in the form of Repeal and Spatial Contortion, instead of Dismember which expedite us getting killed by a turn or 2, against decks that don't need any help with that.
The fun thing about UTron is that it can be tailored to your meta because it has about 15-20 flex slots, between the main and side, that you can tweak as you need.
What do you think the optimal win condition is against Spirits? I notice you don't run Mindlsaver in your posted 75. Do you think that defeating Spirits on the creature plane is the appropriate path for our deck? Or, does it make more sense to utilize a Slaver Lock and Ugin, while controlling the board state with a heavier counters and removal package sided in?
Too many risks that are not outweighed by the upside. On T3, you're looking at 3 lands, if not 4 on the other side depending on who was on the play, by the time this card comes into play. Even if the opponent only plays a land every 3rd turn after that, you're still not doing enough to interfere with their game plan using this card.
Remember, Modern is a T4/5 format and you just tapped out on T3 to play this. Leaving them open to play whatever they want on T3/4 (depending on who's on the play). Then, if you're playing against another blue deck, this has limited impact.
This card, imo, is neither fast enough nor unique enough to warrant any kind of inclusion or consideration. By unique, I mean it doesn't add an element of disruption that we can already more effectively/efficiently utilize through other cards or a method of disruption that is more efficient than what we already use. Spreading Seas, GQ, Field, Tec Edge, etc. provide better methods for disrupting the opponents mana. Additionally, our counters provide a more efficient and one-sided means for disrupting their spell casting ability too.
If you watch Pierakor v. Shoktroopa, there are significant differences to their respective play styles. This is something both have acknowledged in their own various videos and/or posts.
Nobody's attacking the overall data, as I believe we've all mentioned, it's extremely thorough and excellent to have. However, as with any data, it needs to be properly scrutinized in order to be properly applied.
For example, your Delta on Summary Dismissal is 4.84%. Meanwhile, the Deltas on both Karn, Scion of Urza and Gifts Ungiven are 32.92%, with positive Weighted %. If we use just that information, we should be jamming multiple copies of Karn and Gifts. Yet, your own deck list in your signature contains 0 copies of either. Similarly, Spatial Contortion shows a -0.03% Delta and 0 Weighted %, yet you run 3 between main and side. The data also indicate that Island is negative Delta and Weighted %, while many of the blue spells on the list are positives...
Data is great, but it doesn't provide a 100% clear picture of everything that's going on with a deck and/or the meta it's competing with.
The point with Summary Dismissal is, there are matches it can be excellent in and matches it can be totally useless in, just like many other cards. However, the data reflect this, imo, given that the Total Games with 0 copies is over 900, while the wins with 1 and total games with 1 are both under 40. It's used in niche situations against specific matchups. If you know which matchups those are and your particular play style and deck list have a high win % against them already, while your matchups against other archetypes is weak, you're going to want a different card.
I think for "unique" cards, you're correct. By this, I'm talking about cards like Torrential Gearhulk, Sundering Titan, Platinum Angel, Trinket Mage, etc. Cards that folks swap in/out based on personal preference and are the more toolbox-y cards, as opposed to the standard cards seen in every deck, with multiple copies (e.g. Remand, Condescend, Repeal, etc.).
This data, I believe, is more useful for those multi-copy cards. The one-of cards, not so much.
Reason being, as Bloody notes, play style and decklist more drastically affect the utility of those cards than any other, as well as matchups. Against a mono color deck, for example, Sundering Titan is less good and likely to get pitched to Thirst, not played at all, or played with little impact. Platinum Angel, likewise, against a removal heavy deck is far less good and likely to have less of an impact. For those toolbox, one-of cards, this data is less useful, because variables like: play style, meta,etc. play a greater impact on these cards than others. You're running only 1 copy, playing it less, and playing it primarily for niche situations, which don't trend towards quality statistics, without a massive effort to identify and account for far too many variables.
YES! Remand and other counters are awful against Vial / Cavern decks, but the deck runs 7+ counters, typically, and is a primary tool, regardless of decklist nuance. We can spin our wheels on arguing about specific decks and cards that are terrible against them, but that's what the sideboard is for. Every main deck has weaknesses and the sideboard is meant to augment those.
Regardless, because of all the variables (opponent decks, play style, human error, etc.), this data will never flawlessly depict what cards are "the best" and what the optimal decklist is going to be. However, I think the data is generally useful for showing us which commonly main-decked cards are better performers than others. Which we can then extrapolate to how many copies should we play, if any, and what gaps still exist with those winners played (i.e. How do you close the gap between the 80% win rate of card XYZ and 100%?)
All of that was just, I wish I had more variation because it's fun and interesting. Do the things your advocating for provide improvements to those decks? Sure, marginal ones. It doesn't get to the crux of the issue, which is: Are the things you're asking for going to make whatever Ux variant you want to play a truly competitive deck?
Maybe you're fine with certain Ux variants not being at the top tables, but something that's viable at the LGS, which is fine. I think, however, based on the tone of many people on here, that most people want more than just UW to be a viable competitor at competition level magic. Thus, my point in citing to UW Control's results is that those results demonstrate that counter magic, as the epitome of counter magic deck building, is currently healthy and performing very well at the competitive level. I understand people don't all want to play UW and want UB, UR, etc. BUT, once again, is another variation on the counterspells already available going to improve those Ux decks and make them competitive? And, once again, looking at the results from UW, packing the same counterspells that are all, every single one, available to every other Ux build, the answer has to be "No".
I don't disagree that having different counterspells that incorporate elements of other parts of the color pie (Countersquall damaging opponent, your example of UR damaging a creature, etc.) would be fun and something that Wizards can do. However, those things aren't going to change the state of Modern, imo, and all of a sudden propel other Ux decks to the forefront of the Meta. They are fun, unique cards that make your Ux variant more interesting for you, which is great, for you. They are also marginal upgrades that will, admittedly, likely help those decks perform marginally better.
In the current state of modern thread, however, that special, gold star feeling of having a new toy to play with that's a very marginal improvement doesn't change the state of modern. It doesn't change the meta or the way other decks interact or the way other decks are built, because it's not the tool, weapon, finisher, whatever that those Ux decks need to actually be competitive and impact Modern. So, let's get real and differentiate the wishful thinking about new counterspell magic from the actual needs of Modern to make specific archetypes viable competitors.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. BGx certainly needs something more than another variation on board removal to become a true tournament competitor. However, the original arguments or line of thinking that, because BGx got another removal variant, Ux variants should get another counterspell variant that's better than everything they currently have, is a preposterous idea. I'm not saying @autumntwilight was necessarily making that argument, but just placing my counterpoints in context.
Regardless of all that, I think a primary element that people continual forget, or willfully ignore, is that Modern has a somewhat cyclical meta. One season, a deck pops up and dominates, it's then beaten back by new decks or cards, and then some other decks come and pray on those decks, then another dominant deck pops up because it prays on those decks, so on and so forth. The ultimate result is, you're pet deck that you've loved for however many months or years isn't necessarily going to be great, good, or even playable in subsequent months or years because the meta continually shifts based on new cards entering the pool and the discovery of new/different interactions. Thus, you're not always going to have the exact card you want to answer those new interactions or threats, but have to wait on Wizards to develop and print something or ban, so your deck archetype can once again rise to the top of the heap.