I have to call it an anomaly then, which I usually don't do with your data; too much experience first hand, too many conversations with GBx players and Tron players themselves in person, conversations with people on MTGO, in every article ever written about the two archetypes, pro players, on stream, in SCG Opens/GP's, the message boards on here and reddit. Maybe in some strange 2005 period it somehow aligned the stars to reach 50/50, or maybe too many inexperienced Tron players tried to meta.
I had some grinder acquaintances in Texas that played GBx and Tron, and also said it was atrocious.
I'm definitely willing to admit Abzan is in a better spot than I thought in this meta though, I saw the deck trending down, especially on mtgo, but the paper results totally contradicted MTGO, which made me happy.
Re: trying out BGx
I don't have the resources to just try the deck and report back. I did, however, do something very similar with UW Control right before it got big on MTGO and did find the matchups weren't nearly as bad as people claim. I'm confident that's going to be true with BGx as well; Modern players are notorious for over/underselling their matchup percentages.
Re: Jund vs. Tron
Again, I don't know what the % is today, but I know with statistical certainty it was roughly 50/50 for about 5 months of 2015 during a time we had mined MTGO data for that matchup. I also knew many players said it was "unwinnable" in that same time period, despite the numbers clearly showing it was actually 50/50. If Reid said it was worse in that time period, Reid was wrong. I don't know what it looks like today but I expect it's similar. Overall, people are bad at guessing their matchups; there's way too much bias and opportunity to willfully or unknowingly lie to yourself and others.
Side note: Abzan is definitely worse against Tron than Jund. I think it was around 35/65.
Modern players really do have a tendency towards hyperbole. A 45/55 matchup is unwinnable and a deck with a 49% win rate across the board is unplayable. It makes me really wish WotC would release data. Even if they just released it like a year after the fact so that it doesn't actually help anyone with solving a meta.
2. That matchup lottery is fair. You have the odds of being matched against deck X no matter what you decide to play, no matter how many pro points you have. The numbers really don't change until halfway through a GP when a portion of the field fails to make day 2. Personally this is why I am opposed to GP byes - let everyone risk running into Enduring Ideal round 1 not just the newer players.
3. There is no 100/0 matchup. None. It doesn't exist. If you play Abzan you are a dog to E-Tron, yes. That doesn't mean you are guaranteed to lose. I think some people need to acknowledge their own play mistakes, too. If you play against every deck the same way...yeah if you don't know how to adjust in some matchups you'll lose way more. Some of these complainers fail to acknowledge that they might just not understand the matchup.
Lottery huh. That's kind of admitting that there are luck of the draw matchups and thus maybe some huge variance. Not that this doesn't happen in other formats. I agree that there isn't a 100/0 matchup but if something is like 70/30 it may not matter how much time you've put into a deck. Not that I am complaining about it right now cause I've accepted that flaw of modern because we are heading in a positive direction.
BlueTronFTW I think that you're being a tad condescending because no amount of knowing the matchup will save you from t3 karn in jund/junk. You can understand all day that is something really bad for you in the matchup. To put it bluntly labeling people complainers then saying that their loss is because they don't understand is just blatantly attacking their cognitive ability.
2. That matchup lottery is fair. You have the odds of being matched against deck X no matter what you decide to play, no matter how many pro points you have. The numbers really don't change until halfway through a GP when a portion of the field fails to make day 2. Personally this is why I am opposed to GP byes - let everyone risk running into Enduring Ideal round 1 not just the newer players.
3. There is no 100/0 matchup. None. It doesn't exist. If you play Abzan you are a dog to E-Tron, yes. That doesn't mean you are guaranteed to lose. I think some people need to acknowledge their own play mistakes, too. If you play against every deck the same way...yeah if you don't know how to adjust in some matchups you'll lose way more. Some of these complainers fail to acknowledge that they might just not understand the matchup.
Lottery huh. That's kind of admitting that there are luck of the draw matchups and thus maybe some huge variance. Not that this doesn't happen in other formats. I agree that there isn't a 100/0 matchup but if something is like 70/30 it may not matter how much time you've put into a deck. Not that I am complaining about it right now cause I've accepted that flaw of modern because we are heading in a positive direction.
BlueTronFTW I think that you're being a tad condescending because no amount of knowing the matchup will save you from t3 karn in jund/junk. You can understand all day that is something really bad for you in the matchup. To put it bluntly labeling people complainers then saying that their loss is because they don't understand is just blatantly attacking their cognitive ability.
It happens
On Monday, I heard a GB Tron player giving a Jeskai midrange player unwanted advice on how to beat his deck, even though I saw all the right sideboard cards from the side on the Jeskai players side. It doesn't matter how well you know the matchup, they aren't going to beat a turn 3 Karn. Period.
Turn 3 Karn doesn't happen 100% of the time, though. I said matchups don't have 100/0 percentages. But yeah, one reason decks are favored generally is that one "best draw" just trumps the other's "best draw." This is a card game. There's variance. Either accept it, and realize that variance will help you about as often as it hurts you, or play chess. I play Storm, I know how it feels to get hosed.
Re: Jund vs. Tron
Again, I don't know what the % is today, but I know with statistical certainty it was roughly 50/50 for about 5 months of 2015 during a time we had mined MTGO data for that matchup. I also knew many players said it was "unwinnable" in that same time period, despite the numbers clearly showing it was actually 50/50. If Reid said it was worse in that time period, Reid was wrong. I don't know what it looks like today but I expect it's similar. Overall, people are bad at guessing their matchups; there's way too much bias and opportunity to willfully or unknowingly lie to yourself and others.
Side note: Abzan is definitely worse against Tron than Jund. I think it was around 35/65.
I've been saying similar things RE: UW control for a long time. I think we are seeing the Dunning-Krueger effect at work here. People can't beat a matchup, and therefore conclude that it is unwinnable. Have a 25% record against tron? The matchup must be 25%.
For years while piloting UW control, I would hear about how "unwinnable" the tron/valakut/ad naus/storm matchups were. Then I would play them and discover that there was a great deal of play to the matchups, and they are actually fairly close with tight play.
It's not easy to see when a matchup is 55/45 vs 60/40 vs 65/35. I think we can safely conclude that those arguing against the numbers are simply applying their own experience to others and assuming it is universal. If the numbers show something different than one expects, it's time to re-evaluate the underlying assumptions imo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Turn 3 Karn doesn't happen 100% of the time, though. I said matchups don't have 100/0 percentages. But yeah, one reason decks are favored generally is that one "best draw" just trumps the other's "best draw." This is a card game. There's variance. Either accept it, and realize that variance will help you about as often as it hurts you, or play chess. I play Storm, I know how it feels to get hosed.
Of course it doesn't. I was pointing out that no amount of knowledge can combat things completely out of your control. That IS variance and people aren't terrible at the game because they haven't found the solution to unwinnable positions. You were saying that understanding the matchup was the problem. It simply isn't the only thing going on.
Re: Jund vs. Tron
Again, I don't know what the % is today, but I know with statistical certainty it was roughly 50/50 for about 5 months of 2015 during a time we had mined MTGO data for that matchup. I also knew many players said it was "unwinnable" in that same time period, despite the numbers clearly showing it was actually 50/50. If Reid said it was worse in that time period, Reid was wrong. I don't know what it looks like today but I expect it's similar. Overall, people are bad at guessing their matchups; there's way too much bias and opportunity to willfully or unknowingly lie to yourself and others.
Side note: Abzan is definitely worse against Tron than Jund. I think it was around 35/65.
I've been saying similar things RE: UW control for a long time. I think we are seeing the Dunning-Krueger effect at work here. People can't beat a matchup, and therefore conclude that it is unwinnable. Have a 25% record against tron? The matchup must be 25%.
For years while piloting UW control, I would hear about how "unwinnable" the tron/valakut/ad naus/storm matchups were. Then I would play them and discover that there was a great deal of play to the matchups, and they are actually fairly close with tight play.
It's not easy to see when a matchup is 55/45 vs 60/40 vs 65/35. I think we can safely conclude that those arguing against the numbers are simply applying their own experience to others and assuming it is universal. If the numbers show something different than one expects, it's time to re-evaluate the underlying assumptions imo.
It's more that in several years, not one single author or pro has ever claimed it is even or close to even, and is universally panned as atrocious.
This isn't me screaming that UW Control is unplayable only to find out it's good on mtgo and it having minor results in paper tournaments
It's more that in several years, not one single author or pro has ever claimed it is even or close to even, and is universally panned as atrocious.
This is a common mistake. Authorities can and will be wrong - even for prolonged periods. See many historical scientific discoveries that overturned centuries of 'common sense' and 'authority opinion'.
When someone does an evaluation and produces numbers that describe the relationship, one of two things should happen for any rational actor:
1)Refute the evaluation, or
2)Accept the paradigm described by the evalution.
One of those two things needs to happen, or you are not being rational. Other than statements from presumed authorities, what evidence do you have that refutes the data gathered by Ktkenshinx?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
None. Lol. I'm usually very squarely with Sheridans data.
I did ask around on the Abzan forums on Facebook, they did agree that it's not quite as bad as people made it out to be, but was still less than 50 percent. Pat Tillerson said he was less than 50% with his time on Jund against the matchup
So, maybe I am being irrational. I still don't think it's 50/50, but I guess I'm coming more around to it.
I'm curious what everyone thinks about the Vengevine + Hollow One package been people been trying out the past few weekends. Does everyone think it's just a flash in the pan or is there something there?
The lists we've seen so far (Julian Grace-Martin's RG list, and Todd Anderson's Jund Death's Shadow list) both seem like they definitely need refinement, but could this potentially be something?
I may be off base with this, but I remember initially the Death's Shadow lists seemed wonky, but you could definitely see there was power there. Then once everyone settled on the refined Grixis list it because one of the pillars of the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
It's more that in several years, not one single author or pro has ever claimed it is even or close to even, and is universally panned as atrocious.
This is a common mistake. Authorities can and will be wrong - even for prolonged periods. See many historical scientific discoveries that overturned centuries of 'common sense' and 'authority opinion'.
When someone does an evaluation and produces numbers that describe the relationship, one of two things should happen for any rational actor:
1)Refute the evaluation, or
2)Accept the paradigm described by the evalution.
One of those two things needs to happen, or you are not being rational. Other than statements from presumed authorities, what evidence do you have that refutes the data gathered by Ktkenshinx?
1 Appealing to the self-proclaimed 'Mad Staticitian' is, itself, an appeal to authority. Kinda rings hallow against your little screed against such a "mistake".
2 Human beings are not rational actors so bringing it up in a game of hidden information is nonsense for robots.
3 Even if they were you've presented a false choice because you can do more than Refute or Accept new information.
1 Appealing to the self-proclaimed 'Mad Staticitian' is, itself, an appeal to authority. Kinda rings hallow against your little screed against such a "mistake".
2 Human beings are not rational actors so bringing it up in a game of hidden information is nonsense for robots.
3 Even if they were you've presented a false choice because you can do more than Refute or Accept new information.
1)I referenced the evaluation and data, and credited the source. I did not appeal to any individual as an authority. You are mistaken.
2)I'm sorry that you do not value being a rational actor. I do not view that as a criticism of myself, but rather a rather odd admission on your part. You do you, neighbor.
3)Sure, I'm not perfect either. What is the 3rd option for a rational actor? Is there a 4th option? I would like this concept to be fleshed out some more, I'm interested in this criticism.
3)Sure, I'm not perfect either. What is the 3rd option for a rational actor? Is there a 4th option? I would like this concept to be fleshed out some more, I'm interested in this criticism.
Option 3 would be considering the data. Basically set it up as a "will look at that later".
If you get more data that proves the initial set, you can then choose to accept it.
Alternatively if the more data you get disproves it, you can refute.
Basically the data grey area.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
'Considering the data' is what happens while you choose to accept or refute it. I'm not clear how that is a third option. Holding that 'the data is insufficient to reach that particular conclusion' is refuting it btw. Your refutation could even be erroneous. But either way, you accept or refute.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
The problem with Tron vs GBx is the feelings associated with it. The source of that distortion is simply the amount of effort placed into those wins. The entire pressure of the game is dependent on the GBx player. The amount of effort the Tron player has to place in the game is minuscule. That's why the matchup feels unfair, it doesn't necessarily deal with matchup percentage. Although if someone expressed to me that the matchup was 50/50, I would definitely argue at minimum its edging towards 40/60 based on my own testing group and experience with recorded matches.
'Considering the data' is what happens while you choose to accept or refute it. I'm not clear how that is a third option. Holding that 'the data is insufficient to reach that particular conclusion' is refuting it btw. Your refutation could even be erroneous. But either way, you accept or refute.
What about if the data is pushing idea A and B.
What is it when you accept A, but refute B. In this case you are both Accepting and Refuting, so while it is both it is also neither.
Isn't this getting a little off topic though?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
It would be, if not for people in this thread ignoring the data that is counter to their view that 'the BGx vs Tron matchup is almost unwinnable' (or similar statements).
For the scenario described, you either disagree or you agree with the assertions in the evaluation. It's not that complicated. Yes, we can get into the minutiae of evaluations having multiple conclusions that can be addressed separately, but that isn't what I was getting at. I was criticizing the dismissal of evidence on the basis that it disagrees with personal experience/anecdotes. That is not a rational position to take. If you disagree with an evaluation, that is fine. But you need supporting evidence, and anecdotes are insufficient,(edit) in order for your disagreement to be rational.
I was criticizing the dismissal of evidence on the basis that it disagrees with personal experience/anecdotes. That is not a rational position to take. If you disagree with an evaluation, that is fine. But you need supporting evidence, and anecdotes are insufficient.
On that point I agree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
1 Appealing to the self-proclaimed 'Mad Staticitian' is, itself, an appeal to authority. Kinda rings hallow against your little screed against such a "mistake".
2 Human beings are not rational actors so bringing it up in a game of hidden information is nonsense for robots.
3 Even if they were you've presented a false choice because you can do more than Refute or Accept new information.
1)I referenced the evaluation and data, and credited the source. I did not appeal to any individual as an authority. You are mistaken.
2)I'm sorry that you do not value being a rational actor. I do not view that as a criticism of myself, but rather a rather odd admission on your part. You do you, neighbor.
3)Sure, I'm not perfect either. What is the 3rd option for a rational actor? Is there a 4th option? I would like this concept to be fleshed out some more, I'm interested in this criticism.
You're at a tournament playing around in the heat of the players when all of the sudden you look down, and you draw a Meandering Towershell, you activate your Illusionary Mask for five. You reach down, you cast the towershell face-down. The towershell lays face-down it's a 2/2, it's become the target of a sunlance, and it can turn face-up as a replacement effect, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not turning it face-up. Why is that?
I'm curious what everyone thinks about the Vengevine + Hollow One package been people been trying out the past few weekends. Does everyone think it's just a flash in the pan or is there something there?
The lists we've seen so far (Julian Grace-Martin's RG list, and Todd Anderson's Jund Death's Shadow list) both seem like they definitely need refinement, but could this potentially be something?
I may be off base with this, but I remember initially the Death's Shadow lists seemed wonky, but you could definitely see there was power there. Then once everyone settled on the refined Grixis list it because one of the pillars of the format.
Watching it on stream it definitely seemed powerful. And the RG version having faithless looting, cathartic reunion, insolent neonate, and street wraith seems like it would add a lot to the consistency of the deck. I'm personally unwilling to try to buy into it right now just because money and being satisfied with the decks I play now. But, I don't think it's a terrible strategy to test with. It is definitely powerful, and endless one and hooting mandrills being cheap but powerful creatures gives it some more strength even in hands where you don't dump vengevine in yard.
Watching it on stream it definitely seemed powerful. And the RG version having faithless looting, cathartic reunion, insolent neonate, and street wraith seems like it would add a lot to the consistency of the deck. I'm personally unwilling to try to buy into it right now just because money and being satisfied with the decks I play now. But, I don't think it's a terrible strategy to test with. It is definitely powerful, and endless one and hooting mandrills being cheap but powerful creatures gives it some more strength even in hands where you don't dump vengevine in yard.
Agreed. One of my favorite things about Modern is when new cards get released than can enable a new deck to take a foothold in the meta. Though the list definitely needs to be refined. As is it's way too inconsistent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I'm curious what everyone thinks about the Vengevine + Hollow One package been people been trying out the past few weekends. Does everyone think it's just a flash in the pan or is there something there?
The lists we've seen so far (Julian Grace-Martin's RG list, and Todd Anderson's Jund Death's Shadow list) both seem like they definitely need refinement, but could this potentially be something?
I may be off base with this, but I remember initially the Death's Shadow lists seemed wonky, but you could definitely see there was power there. Then once everyone settled on the refined Grixis list it because one of the pillars of the format.
I like the idea of Jund colors, but not Todd's package.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
I had some grinder acquaintances in Texas that played GBx and Tron, and also said it was atrocious.
I'm definitely willing to admit Abzan is in a better spot than I thought in this meta though, I saw the deck trending down, especially on mtgo, but the paper results totally contradicted MTGO, which made me happy.
Modern players really do have a tendency towards hyperbole. A 45/55 matchup is unwinnable and a deck with a 49% win rate across the board is unplayable. It makes me really wish WotC would release data. Even if they just released it like a year after the fact so that it doesn't actually help anyone with solving a meta.
Lottery huh. That's kind of admitting that there are luck of the draw matchups and thus maybe some huge variance. Not that this doesn't happen in other formats. I agree that there isn't a 100/0 matchup but if something is like 70/30 it may not matter how much time you've put into a deck. Not that I am complaining about it right now cause I've accepted that flaw of modern because we are heading in a positive direction.
BlueTronFTW I think that you're being a tad condescending because no amount of knowing the matchup will save you from t3 karn in jund/junk. You can understand all day that is something really bad for you in the matchup. To put it bluntly labeling people complainers then saying that their loss is because they don't understand is just blatantly attacking their cognitive ability.
It happens
On Monday, I heard a GB Tron player giving a Jeskai midrange player unwanted advice on how to beat his deck, even though I saw all the right sideboard cards from the side on the Jeskai players side. It doesn't matter how well you know the matchup, they aren't going to beat a turn 3 Karn. Period.
For years while piloting UW control, I would hear about how "unwinnable" the tron/valakut/ad naus/storm matchups were. Then I would play them and discover that there was a great deal of play to the matchups, and they are actually fairly close with tight play.
It's not easy to see when a matchup is 55/45 vs 60/40 vs 65/35. I think we can safely conclude that those arguing against the numbers are simply applying their own experience to others and assuming it is universal. If the numbers show something different than one expects, it's time to re-evaluate the underlying assumptions imo.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Of course it doesn't. I was pointing out that no amount of knowledge can combat things completely out of your control. That IS variance and people aren't terrible at the game because they haven't found the solution to unwinnable positions. You were saying that understanding the matchup was the problem. It simply isn't the only thing going on.
It's more that in several years, not one single author or pro has ever claimed it is even or close to even, and is universally panned as atrocious.
This isn't me screaming that UW Control is unplayable only to find out it's good on mtgo and it having minor results in paper tournaments
When someone does an evaluation and produces numbers that describe the relationship, one of two things should happen for any rational actor:
1)Refute the evaluation, or
2)Accept the paradigm described by the evalution.
One of those two things needs to happen, or you are not being rational. Other than statements from presumed authorities, what evidence do you have that refutes the data gathered by Ktkenshinx?
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I did ask around on the Abzan forums on Facebook, they did agree that it's not quite as bad as people made it out to be, but was still less than 50 percent. Pat Tillerson said he was less than 50% with his time on Jund against the matchup
So, maybe I am being irrational. I still don't think it's 50/50, but I guess I'm coming more around to it.
The lists we've seen so far (Julian Grace-Martin's RG list, and Todd Anderson's Jund Death's Shadow list) both seem like they definitely need refinement, but could this potentially be something?
I may be off base with this, but I remember initially the Death's Shadow lists seemed wonky, but you could definitely see there was power there. Then once everyone settled on the refined Grixis list it because one of the pillars of the format.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
1 Appealing to the self-proclaimed 'Mad Staticitian' is, itself, an appeal to authority. Kinda rings hallow against your little screed against such a "mistake".
2 Human beings are not rational actors so bringing it up in a game of hidden information is nonsense for robots.
3 Even if they were you've presented a false choice because you can do more than Refute or Accept new information.
2)I'm sorry that you do not value being a rational actor. I do not view that as a criticism of myself, but rather a rather odd admission on your part. You do you, neighbor.
3)Sure, I'm not perfect either. What is the 3rd option for a rational actor? Is there a 4th option? I would like this concept to be fleshed out some more, I'm interested in this criticism.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Option 3 would be considering the data. Basically set it up as a "will look at that later".
If you get more data that proves the initial set, you can then choose to accept it.
Alternatively if the more data you get disproves it, you can refute.
Basically the data grey area.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
What about if the data is pushing idea A and B.
What is it when you accept A, but refute B. In this case you are both Accepting and Refuting, so while it is both it is also neither.
Isn't this getting a little off topic though?
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
For the scenario described, you either disagree or you agree with the assertions in the evaluation. It's not that complicated. Yes, we can get into the minutiae of evaluations having multiple conclusions that can be addressed separately, but that isn't what I was getting at. I was criticizing the dismissal of evidence on the basis that it disagrees with personal experience/anecdotes. That is not a rational position to take. If you disagree with an evaluation, that is fine. But you need supporting evidence, and anecdotes are insufficient,(edit) in order for your disagreement to be rational.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
On that point I agree.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
You're at a tournament playing around in the heat of the players when all of the sudden you look down, and you draw a Meandering Towershell, you activate your Illusionary Mask for five. You reach down, you cast the towershell face-down. The towershell lays face-down it's a 2/2, it's become the target of a sunlance, and it can turn face-up as a replacement effect, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not turning it face-up. Why is that?
Watching it on stream it definitely seemed powerful. And the RG version having faithless looting, cathartic reunion, insolent neonate, and street wraith seems like it would add a lot to the consistency of the deck. I'm personally unwilling to try to buy into it right now just because money and being satisfied with the decks I play now. But, I don't think it's a terrible strategy to test with. It is definitely powerful, and endless one and hooting mandrills being cheap but powerful creatures gives it some more strength even in hands where you don't dump vengevine in yard.
Marath, Will of the Wild Tokens!! / Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund Dragons! / Muzzio, Visionary Architect / Brago, King Eternal / Daretti, Scrap Savant / Narset, Enlightened Master / Alesha, Who Smiles at Death / Bruna, Light of Alabaster / Marchesa, the Black Rose / Iroas, God of Victory / Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury / Omnath, Locus of rage / Titania, Protector of Argoth / Kozilek, the Great Distortion
Modern
Elves / Titanshift / Merfolk
Agreed. One of my favorite things about Modern is when new cards get released than can enable a new deck to take a foothold in the meta. Though the list definitely needs to be refined. As is it's way too inconsistent.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
I like the idea of Jund colors, but not Todd's package.
Marath, Will of the Wild Tokens!! / Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund Dragons! / Muzzio, Visionary Architect / Brago, King Eternal / Daretti, Scrap Savant / Narset, Enlightened Master / Alesha, Who Smiles at Death / Bruna, Light of Alabaster / Marchesa, the Black Rose / Iroas, God of Victory / Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury / Omnath, Locus of rage / Titania, Protector of Argoth / Kozilek, the Great Distortion
Modern
Elves / Titanshift / Merfolk