MTG Salvation

Yeah but when we discuss potential printing of cards, we always need to talk about them within the context of a potential Standard format because, at least up to this point, it's the only way Modern can get new cards. An example of this is a few pages back when we were discussing Force of Will

Quote from AUTUMNTWILIGHT »

Your missing the point by default a post in the Modern Section should be assumed to be talking about Modern unless its specifically not. If someone else makes a post that is offtopic and about Standard and I respond to that post that does not prove all my posts should be assumed to be about Standard. Especially posts where I am not responding to you KTK. As none of posts you are referencing were responses to anything you posted. You are using posts that were not addressed and had nothing to do with you in a dirty and underhanded attempt to sully my reputation and I don't appreciate it.


Finally, the post that started this debate between us directly quotes a guy talking about Modern as noted by Modern Being in the Quote. I mean fine I don't always quote who I am talking to but this time I did quite clearly.

Quote from AUTUMNTWILIGHT »

Quote from cfusionpm »

Modern is a format so wide that literally 50+ decks have the potential to be competitively viable, but let's ban out a dozen decks and alienate thousands of players so we can have a "brewer's paradise"? Thanks, but no thanks.

Saying Modern isn't a brewer's paradise (or that it hasn't been for nearly the entirety of its existence) is an insult to the format.

Yes but what percentage of the meta does each archtype occupy. I argue the meta is far too tilted towards Aggro/Tempo. WOTC does its best to cripple and keep Combo, Control and Big Mana down...Midrange was collateral damage but Aggro when is the last time an aggro hoser got printed?

So I don't see how you can look at this and I think I am not talking about Modern. I mean come on there is no Big Mana or Combo in Standard. KTK you got served sit down and enjoy that L.

I am not trying to sully anything. I am simply showing that you discussed Standard in the very recent past in this thread, and then made a comment about card printings that did not specify a format. I do not understand why you are so entrenched in your position that you cannot acknowledge a simple addition of "in Modern" would have cleared this whole thing up. I have even acknowledged that your underlying point isn't a bad one. Wizards does not print a lot of powerful sweepers, although they are reasons for that. Unfortunately, the manner in which you approached this argument has been completely counter-productive. You have accused me of being "disingenuous," of doing something "dirty and underhanded," and told me "you got served sit down and enjoy that." This is clearly not a productive position or conversation and is completely disproportionate to how this started. I am done engaging in this argument as there is nothing more to say about this matter. In the future, if you want to make a sweeping statement about Wizards printing or not printing certain cards, include your parameters in the statement (e.g. "Modern relevant" or "for Modern"). Don't assume people will infer them when the statement encompasses other formats and parameters you don't intend to include.

You said you were done last time and yet here you are still posting. I think its quite clear in my post that you responded to that I was talking Modern. As I quoted a guy clearly talking Modern who used the word not once but twice. I also referenced deck archetypes that don't exist in Standard at all. Furthermore, again we are in the Modern Section so with these factors I think it should be assumed that I am talking Modern with no other qualifiers. So no I don't buy your argument KTK hence why I call it "disingenuous" and stand by that.

Quote from Galerion »

Quote from SCP7 »

If you want daily discussion on decks, you should join dedicated Discord servers. I feel that there is a lot less activity in the 'Salvation deck forums recently.

It's still OK in the Modern section though. Have you tried posting in the Standard forums? It's like a wasteland over there.

You haven't been to the Legacy forum recently.

Quote from FoodChainGoblins »

Quote from Galerion »

Quote from SCP7 »

If you want daily discussion on decks, you should join dedicated Discord servers. I feel that there is a lot less activity in the 'Salvation deck forums recently.

It's still OK in the Modern section though. Have you tried posting in the Standard forums? It's like a wasteland over there.

You haven't been to the Legacy forum recently.

The Legacy threads have been dead for a long time. Even Reddit is not that active but there are some very good Discord servers like the one for Miracles.

I've been hearing about Discord from a friend. Time to look into it I guess...

Its like Skype but more of a text based social hangout and less of a business tool. Also a useful voice chat during videogame tools.

Saying Settle sees little to no play (or less than verdict) in modern is absurd and suggests a lack of knowledge for the archetype(s) that play it.

Each and every deck that can play both typically plays +1 Settle over Verdict, usually a 2-1 split in favor of Settle. It's the 2nd best 4cmc sweeper after verdict (and arguably the best in Mdern). Hell, I even put 2 in a Boros midrange jank brew that I played a few times over Wrath of God.

It's just THAT good.

Really and what site are you using to make your case? SCG? Goldfish? Wizards? Or are you just making your case with personal anecdotes cause I don't really rate that all that highly.

Personally I haven't seen Settle the Wreckage OR Supreme Verdict see much play anymore (in Modern). They are just too slow and overcosted for Modern right now, while being easy to rebuild or play around. Terminus miracled really is the only thing that is strong enough to contend with today's Aggro. "Put 2 Phoenixes and a Thing in the Ice back in the deck?" Yes, I'll take that.

Yes I have also been converted onto the Izzet Arclight Track. Probably helps the deck is cheap well for me since I got those Arclights when they were cheap and already had Tarns...Not that I thought Arclight would be great I just like Phoenixes.

Personal experience with playing Miracles and UWx Midrange for a long time. Also, MTGGoldfish, SCG and the various FB groups for either UWx Control or UWx Midrange.

The fact that NOW it isn't being played as much is based solely on the rise in GDS, drop in Bogles, Dredge now having Chill and in general non-blue go wide strategies. It's at least on par with Verdict as a sweeper and oftentimes it's far better because of recursive threats.

Settle perfectly compliments the play-style of UW control. As FoodChain said, yes they're slow now and that's why there's UW control isn't as strong as it was, but the typical wrath suite of it in the main is 4x Terminus, 1x Verdict, 1x Settle and usually another sweeper of your choice in the SB.

I've been playing UR Phoenix since the release of the bird and the only sweepers I've ever feared from UW Control were Terminus (Duh) and Settle. Verdict is a speedbumb, the other two are backbreaking.

Saw today a surprising price drop in Settle the Wreckage. It used to be a 8-9 dollar card, now it's just a 4 dollar card on some online stores.

Feels like this should be in prices discussion, but saw some people were talking about Settle a few posts back.
This is a good time for those who want to get a copy.

As "good" as Settle may or may not be, basically no meaningful deck is playing it, and the few that might, play 0-1 copies in the 75.

So something I was thinking about, is the puzzle of 'What to Play', for myself really, but I wanted to get it in front of more eyes.

If you did not want to lose to UW, GDS, and Tron (the 3 main builds of each) what would you play?

Quote from cfusionpm »

As "good" as Settle may or may not be, basically no meaningful deck is playing it, and the few that might, play 0-1 copies in the 75.

Just one is enough.

Quote from MrTzoulis »

Saying Settle sees little to no play (or less than verdict) in modern is absurd and suggests a lack of knowledge for the archetype(s) that play it.

Each and every deck that can play both typically plays +1 Settle over Verdict, usually a 2-1 split in favor of Settle. It's the 2nd best 4cmc sweeper after verdict (and arguably the best in Mdern). Hell, I even put 2 in a Boros midrange jank brew that I played a few times over Wrath of God.

It's just THAT good.

Being an instant makes Settle good, because it can surprise some people. Although right now, I have 2 verdict and only one settle in the main of my UW, the GDS and Merfolk players over here has plenty of counters for protecting their creatures.

Quote from idSurge »

So something I was thinking about, is the puzzle of 'What to Play', for myself really, but I wanted to get it in front of more eyes.

If you did not want to lose to UW, GDS, and Tron (the 3 main builds of each) what would you play?

Looking over my 2018 MWP spreadsheet, UW Spirits and Dredge emerge as frontrunners in those matchups. See the calculated MWPs below. Note that these have relatively wide margins of error because N is not always huge, but it's the best data-driven analysis I can give you:

Dredge
vs. GDS: 71%
vs. Gx Tron: 47%
vs. UW Control: 73%

UW Spirits
vs. GDS: 66%
vs. Gx Tron: 57%
vs. UW Control: 67%

Spirits it is. Cheers.

I'd be interested to know the N for that UW Spirits data. IME Spirits is one of Tron's best matchups, and this has been echoed by Kat Light and other Spirits players. I'm guessing it's a small sample because UW was only played for a bit and has basically disappeared at this point. Though there is very little practical difference from the Tron side between UW or Bant, FWIW.

Quote from sicsmoo »

I'd be interested to know the N for that UW Spirits data. IME Spirits is one of Tron's best matchups, and this has been echoed by Kat Light and other Spirits players. I'm guessing it's a small sample because UW was only played for a bit and has basically disappeared at this point. Though there is very little practical difference from the Tron side between UW or Bant, FWIW.

I think N is around 20. The consensus I saw on different guides and forums appeared mixed, with some describing it as bad G1 and better G2/G3, others saying it was the same as Bant Spirits (bad all around), and others still saying Bant Spirits was more favorable or even. Mengucci said Bant was even overall, and PVDDR said it was unfavorable G1 and even G2/G3. Given that no one really knows matchups, I'm comfortable putting all those data points together to a roughly even rating.

Burn seems like a pretty good choice vs uw/tron/gds too, especially if you go hard on stuff like firecraft.

Quote from sicsmoo »

I'd be interested to know the N for that UW Spirits data. IME Spirits is one of Tron's best matchups, and this has been echoed by Kat Light and other Spirits players. I'm guessing it's a small sample because UW was only played for a bit and has basically disappeared at this point. Though there is very little practical difference from the Tron side between UW or Bant, FWIW.

I was thinking of shoring up with Field and/or Spreading Seas. Either way, I assumed the N was small as Bant did take over quite a bit.

First match was very fun (against Terminus, of course lol)

Quote from Cody_X »

Burn seems like a pretty good choice vs uw/tron/gds too, especially if you go hard on stuff like firecraft.

Burn is positive in the dataset against Gx Tron and GDS. It's around 44% vs. UW Control with about 75 matches recorded. Most GDS pros seem to think Burn is actually about even with GDS too, so the true MWP might be lower. Complicating matters further, Nassif thinks UW Control is actually unfavored vs. Burn, so that's another discrepancy with the data. Most of the better players I could find on Reddit/Twitter put it more in the "even" category.

As for Bant Spirits vs. Tron, I've looked at a bunch of pro articles, Reddit comment threads, and forum discussions. The consensus seems to be it's about even overall and worse in G1 than in G2/G3 where Spirits can win back percentage points: see Mengucci, Stevens, Strasky, and PVDDR for pros who echo that sentiment. Baumeister rated it as favorable, but he's less experienced with the deck than people like Strasky, so I don't credit his opinion too heavily.

Overall, matchup estimations are pretty messy. I rarely find clear answers to these questions, and I'm only confident in the MWP numbers that are >100 matches. In the dataset, that really limits it to stuff like Humans vs. Gx Tron, Humans vs. Burn, and UW Control vs. Humans. Karsten wrote a great article on using smaller Ns to estimate matchups (https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/magic-math-how-many-games-do-you-need-for-statistical-significance-in-playtesting/), demonstrating how we don't need 10,000 games to actually have a good sense of the matchup odds. By those metrics, we'd probably find a lot of matches closer to even than we think. Some would still remain polarized, such as the notoriously bad Jeskai vs. Gx Tron, Gx Tron vs. Infect, and others.

Yeah, obviously there are always lots of variables and as a dedicated grinder I'm always going to have above average views of each matchup. But I do feel strongly that Spirits is easy once you understand how to play against it. Occasionally you get cheesed out by Stony Silence but that's Modern. After adding my December results where I saw the matchup a lot, my current record is 37-16 for 69.8%.

^Interesing data, guys.

On a related note: I once read (can’t remember where) some statistics from a player with an enormous amount of matches on the same deck reporting a ~5% (from memory) winrate decline when comparing Friendly League results with those of Competitive Leagues. In other words, a pilot whose winrate is 60% over the course of many Friendlies could reasonably expect to clock in around 55% in Comps.

Does anyone here have supporting or countervailing data/experiences?