Its funny that you posted that list because I just played a 2 man on mtgo against a player running what looked like that exact list(obviously idk if it was the exact 75 since i didn't see every card) but I won and it was literally to his bad CoCo's letting me get back in the match. Won G1 to him CoCo'ing twice into nothing but mana dorks, won G2 because he straight up whiffed off his CoCo and I dealt with the 2 creatures he played pior a bird and Ramunap. That list actually does run a bit of a "Combo" with Ramunap, Azusa and GQ to try and CoCo into double strip mine every turn.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies. Sometime you play against them and feel like you never had a chance and sometimes it feels like you just crushing them with the exact same list, its very swingy at least.
I would consider it a successful deck at that time yes.
So why did only Hoogland have any real success with it? Basically what I'm getting at is there are a handful of modern players that can win with sub optimal decks because they have a great handle on the format.
Its funny that you posted that list because I just played a 2 man on mtgo against a player running what looked like that exact list(obviously idk if it was the exact 75 since i didn't see every card) but I won and it was literally to his bad CoCo's letting me get back in the match. Won G1 to him CoCo'ing twice into nothing but mana dorks, won G2 because he straight up whiffed off his CoCo and I dealt with the 2 creatures he played pior a bird and Ramunap. That list actually does run a bit of a "Combo" with Ramunap, Azusa and GQ to try and CoCo into double strip mine every turn.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies. Sometime you play against them and feel like you never had a chance and sometimes it feels like you just crushing them with the exact same list, its very swingy at least.
Exactly this. Coco is a powerful but high variance card and in order to justify it your good hits need to win the game
I would consider it a successful deck at that time yes.
So why did only Hoogland have any real success with it? Basically what I'm getting at is there are a handful of modern players that can win with sub optimal decks because they have a great handle on the format.
That doesn't mean it wasn't successful lol. The point is a new card came out a coco deck (with synergies, not a combo) was made.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies.
Just FYI, Delver is the #1 most-played deck in Legacy.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
Its funny that you posted that list because I just played a 2 man on mtgo against a player running what looked like that exact list(obviously idk if it was the exact 75 since i didn't see every card) but I won and it was literally to his bad CoCo's letting me get back in the match. Won G1 to him CoCo'ing twice into nothing but mana dorks, won G2 because he straight up whiffed off his CoCo and I dealt with the 2 creatures he played pior a bird and Ramunap. That list actually does run a bit of a "Combo" with Ramunap, Azusa and GQ to try and CoCo into double strip mine every turn.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies. Sometime you play against them and feel like you never had a chance and sometimes it feels like you just crushing them with the exact same list, its very swingy at least.
Exactly this. Coco is a powerful but high variance card and in order to justify it your good hits need to win the game
So is swiftspear a combo creature in burn because it requires no creature spells? There is a difference in synergy and combo.
The point is the poster said he could see a new style coco deck appear. They clearly don't have to run crazy combo creatures.
Bant spirits won in calebs hands as well and yeah that was a coco deck not running a combo.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies.
Just FYI, Delver is the #1 most-played deck in Legacy.
I don't get to point of this as delver in legacy is way, way, way more reliable to flip, one word Brainstorm. But for real that is a terrible point to bring up I play Grixis Delver in legacy and the deck is super consistent, Modern just doesn't have any deck that can compare in terms of consistency not to mention that the deck while names "delver" is really whatever threat you stick DRS,YP, Angler it doesn't really matter as long as you can protect it and disrupt your opponent, far more similar to GDS.
CoCo decks really do need to cast CoCo, The match up is pretty easy (at least against GDS which is the deck I'm on" if they don't find and resolve a CoCo, because literally every thing the deck dies to your removal (nothing dodges push which is a very strong quality for a threat to have currently), and KotR and Tracker are the only creatures that can really just run away with the game on their own, Voice is annoying but not devastating same with Finks buys them time to draw something more powerful.
I'm not saying that new Coco brews wont pop up that are competitive, I just think that Todd Stevens doing so well with the deck is due to his play skill more than the deck being bonkers, because regardless of how good you are at playing if your CoCo's only hit mana dorks and such or whiff completely that can easily cost you a game when your opponent is playing a much more consistent deck like GDS or E-Tron as that random bad outcome will be punished by other good players.
Just to be clear I actually think that the list he ran looks way better than the Counters Company build because the that deck has the same random bad luck aspect but is even more dependent on having a very specific board state to make it worth it assembling the infinite mana loop and not hitting your Walking Ballista or drawing a E witness if you do, just way more can go wrong and the list posted is at least better at just playing dudes and functioning with random draws.
Its funny that you posted that list because I just played a 2 man on mtgo against a player running what looked like that exact list(obviously idk if it was the exact 75 since i didn't see every card) but I won and it was literally to his bad CoCo's letting me get back in the match. Won G1 to him CoCo'ing twice into nothing but mana dorks, won G2 because he straight up whiffed off his CoCo and I dealt with the 2 creatures he played pior a bird and Ramunap. That list actually does run a bit of a "Combo" with Ramunap, Azusa and GQ to try and CoCo into double strip mine every turn.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies. Sometime you play against them and feel like you never had a chance and sometimes it feels like you just crushing them with the exact same list, its very swingy at least.
Exactly this. Coco is a powerful but high variance card and in order to justify it your good hits need to win the game
So is swiftspear a combo creature in burn because it requires no creature spells? There is a difference in synergy and combo.
The point is the poster said he could see a new style coco deck appear. They clearly don't have to run crazy combo creatures.
Bant spirits won in calebs hands as well and yeah that was a coco deck not running a combo.
That is/was my point.
I'm not sure I understand your swiftspear point or how it is relevant. Coco is a powerful but high variance card. Your good hits need to win the game, as most 4 mana spells in modern do. This is reflected by the more successful coco decks we have now. You keep referencing fringe decks that have only had good finishes in the hands of specific players. This is more of a testament to those players skill than it is how good or sucsessful those decks
Its funny that you posted that list because I just played a 2 man on mtgo against a player running what looked like that exact list(obviously idk if it was the exact 75 since i didn't see every card) but I won and it was literally to his bad CoCo's letting me get back in the match. Won G1 to him CoCo'ing twice into nothing but mana dorks, won G2 because he straight up whiffed off his CoCo and I dealt with the 2 creatures he played pior a bird and Ramunap. That list actually does run a bit of a "Combo" with Ramunap, Azusa and GQ to try and CoCo into double strip mine every turn.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies. Sometime you play against them and feel like you never had a chance and sometimes it feels like you just crushing them with the exact same list, its very swingy at least.
Exactly this. Coco is a powerful but high variance card and in order to justify it your good hits need to win the game
So is swiftspear a combo creature in burn because it requires no creature spells? There is a difference in synergy and combo.
The point is the poster said he could see a new style coco deck appear. They clearly don't have to run crazy combo creatures.
Bant spirits won in calebs hands as well and yeah that was a coco deck not running a combo.
That is/was my point.
I'm not sure I understand your swiftspear point or how it is relevant. Coco is a powerful but high variance card. Your good hits need to win the game, as most 4 mana spells in modern do. This is reflected by the more successful coco decks we have now. You keep referencing fringe decks that have only had good finishes in the hands of specific players. This is more of a testament to those players skill than it is how good or sucsessful those decks
That was in reference to todds deck also being combo creatures with ramunap/gq/Azusa. I gave 2 examples of coco decks that aren't combo that actually won events. In sorry that's not good enough for you to think a pro would maybe take it to a pt but both of those players seemed to think it good enough to take to an event they wanted to win in the last year. They were successful and they are exactly as claimed. Original poster said they could see it happening and I simply am backing it up that it could without crap combo do nothing creatures.
Its funny that you posted that list because I just played a 2 man on mtgo against a player running what looked like that exact list(obviously idk if it was the exact 75 since i didn't see every card) but I won and it was literally to his bad CoCo's letting me get back in the match. Won G1 to him CoCo'ing twice into nothing but mana dorks, won G2 because he straight up whiffed off his CoCo and I dealt with the 2 creatures he played pior a bird and Ramunap. That list actually does run a bit of a "Combo" with Ramunap, Azusa and GQ to try and CoCo into double strip mine every turn.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies. Sometime you play against them and feel like you never had a chance and sometimes it feels like you just crushing them with the exact same list, its very swingy at least.
Exactly this. Coco is a powerful but high variance card and in order to justify it your good hits need to win the game
So is swiftspear a combo creature in burn because it requires no creature spells? There is a difference in synergy and combo.
The point is the poster said he could see a new style coco deck appear. They clearly don't have to run crazy combo creatures.
Bant spirits won in calebs hands as well and yeah that was a coco deck not running a combo.
That is/was my point.
I'm not sure I understand your swiftspear point or how it is relevant. Coco is a powerful but high variance card. Your good hits need to win the game, as most 4 mana spells in modern do. This is reflected by the more successful coco decks we have now. You keep referencing fringe decks that have only had good finishes in the hands of specific players. This is more of a testament to those players skill than it is how good or sucsessful those decks
That was in reference to todds deck also being combo creatures with ramunap/gq/Azusa. I gave 2 examples of coco decks that aren't combo that actually won events. In sorry that's not good enough for you to think a pro would maybe take it to a pt but both of those players seemed to think it good enough to take to an event they wanted to win in the last year. They were successful and they are exactly as claimed. Original poster said they could see it happening and I simply am backing it up that it could without crap combo do nothing creatures.
So any deck that spikes a tournaments is immediatly a good and successful deck? Bad decks can win tournaments in the hands of good players. I mean sked won a gp and I don't think many would call that a good or sucsessful deck.I don't know what to tell you other than look at the coco decks that are seeing play. You will see a trend that they have a combo that wins the game.
Exactly this. Coco is a powerful but high variance card and in order to justify it your good hits need to win the game
So is swiftspear a combo creature in burn because it requires no creature spells? There is a difference in synergy and combo.
The point is the poster said he could see a new style coco deck appear. They clearly don't have to run crazy combo creatures.
Bant spirits won in calebs hands as well and yeah that was a coco deck not running a combo.
That is/was my point.
I'm not sure I understand your swiftspear point or how it is relevant. Coco is a powerful but high variance card. Your good hits need to win the game, as most 4 mana spells in modern do. This is reflected by the more successful coco decks we have now. You keep referencing fringe decks that have only had good finishes in the hands of specific players. This is more of a testament to those players skill than it is how good or sucsessful those decks
That was in reference to todds deck also being combo creatures with ramunap/gq/Azusa. I gave 2 examples of coco decks that aren't combo that actually won events. In sorry that's not good enough for you to think a pro would maybe take it to a pt but both of those players seemed to think it good enough to take to an event they wanted to win in the last year. They were successful and they are exactly as claimed. Original poster said they could see it happening and I simply am backing it up that it could without crap combo do nothing creatures.
So any deck that spikes a tournaments is immediatly a good and successful deck? Bad decks can win tournaments im the hands of good players. I mean sked won a gp and I don't think many would call that a good or sucsessful deck.I don't know what to tell you other than look at the coco decks that are seeing play. You will see a trend that they have a combo that wins the game.
You are welcome to go back and find anywhere that I said it was good, but yes if a deck wins a tournament that is the definition of success! It was successful idk why that is hard to believe. I've had plenty of success with bad decks myself infact. Good/successful do not mean the same thing and I'm sorry if you think they do. I guess the humans deck that has been running around would be another example of a noncombo coco deck too but hey who's counting.
Plenty of decks have also won pt's and turned out to not be the best decks btw.
So is swiftspear a combo creature in burn because it requires no creature spells? There is a difference in synergy and combo.
The point is the poster said he could see a new style coco deck appear. They clearly don't have to run crazy combo creatures.
Bant spirits won in calebs hands as well and yeah that was a coco deck not running a combo.
That is/was my point.
I'm not sure I understand your swiftspear point or how it is relevant. Coco is a powerful but high variance card. Your good hits need to win the game, as most 4 mana spells in modern do. This is reflected by the more successful coco decks we have now. You keep referencing fringe decks that have only had good finishes in the hands of specific players. This is more of a testament to those players skill than it is how good or sucsessful those decks
That was in reference to todds deck also being combo creatures with ramunap/gq/Azusa. I gave 2 examples of coco decks that aren't combo that actually won events. In sorry that's not good enough for you to think a pro would maybe take it to a pt but both of those players seemed to think it good enough to take to an event they wanted to win in the last year. They were successful and they are exactly as claimed. Original poster said they could see it happening and I simply am backing it up that it could without crap combo do nothing creatures.
So any deck that spikes a tournaments is immediatly a good and successful deck? Bad decks can win tournaments im the hands of good players. I mean sked won a gp and I don't think many would call that a good or sucsessful deck.I don't know what to tell you other than look at the coco decks that are seeing play. You will see a trend that they have a combo that wins the game.
You are welcome to go back and find anywhere that I said it was good, but yes if a deck wins a tournament that is the definition of success! It was successful idk why that is hard to believe. I've had plenty of success with bad decks myself infact. Good/successful do not mean the same thing and I'm sorry if you think they do. I guess the humans deck that has been running around would be another example of a noncombo coco deck to but hey who's counting.
Plenty of decks have also won pt's and turned out to not be the best decks btw.
God, we spend more time splitting hairs over definitions than we do anything else when we all know what we are getting at. I dont consider a 1 off tournament win to make a deck succsesful. Successful in that tournament yes, but certainly not overall. Again the decks you mention are fringe and their lack of results would reflect that.
I know we have a ways to go but barring any major change to the format what is everyone's pro tour predictions. I beleive that it will be dominated by affinity, grixis shadow and eldrazi tron
I think it will be something we don't know about yet. Possibly having to do with Collected Company.
I have a hard time seeing a coco deck doing well on a pro tour level. Coco while powerful is not exactly consistent and you have to play a bunch of mediocre creatures.
I have now given 3 examples of decks that don't play those creatures. I don't think it's splitting hairs by any means to disagree with your statement.
Again the decks you have mentioned are fringe and have very few positive results or their results are tied one specific player. To me the decks you have mentioned do not disprove what I am saying.
Again the decks you have mentioned are fringe and have very few positive results or their results are tied one specific player. To me the decks you have mentioned do not disprove what I am saying.
3 different decks playing coco that aren't combo doesn't disprove that you have to play combo creatures for coco to be good? Heck I'm sure even slivers has put up some sort of results. This is modern bud many decks have few positive results on large scales. You see those results when decks are heavily played (was zac the only one that could play lantern or Sam/Justin the only ones that could play amulet). The humans deck is still currently t2 according to this very forum. If pt players where to think about coco decks like you do it's very possible that they dismiss it and it does well.
For yet another time, we get the confirmation that banning a card always leads to more bans. 6(!!!!) Ramunap Red Decks in Top8!!! (one of them with light splash black(to play Collective Brutality and Ammit Eternal).
I am only certain that the February Modern PT Top8 won't have this extremely bad top 8 standings.
That's a pretty lopsided Pro Tour. I don't think they'll ban something as a result though. Since when has red direct damage ever been oppressive?
I could see both Esper Control and BW tokens making top 8 at the pro tour. Both are very well positioned right now and I really don't understand why these decks don't see more play. Maybe blue control players don't want to play black and Junk players are too stubborn to switch to BW tokens?
Both decks own Grixis DS and don't really have any terrible matchups.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
BW tokens, as I understand, is pretty bad against ramp decks because it doesn't present a clock until usually turn 4 or so right as the ramp player is about to do something bonkers. In fact, that's probably why it doesn't dominate any tournament...ever. Tokens can disrupt, and lingering souls is certainly good, but most decks have some sort of answer that they will draw before you can win.
Guys, what are your predictions for the next announcement? No changes/something gets banned/ something gets unbanned - BBE, JTMS, SFM? I tend to expect an unban but I want to hear your thoughts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GBR May the Jund'ish side of the Force be with you! GBR
Guys, what are your predictions for the next announcement? No changes/something gets banned/ something gets unbanned - BBE, JTMS, SFM? I tend to expect an unban but I want to hear your thoughts.
No changes. Can't even imagine what they'd pick right now even if they wanted to ban something. I'm going to give an unban of some type a 20% chance of happening. Aaron said there'd be no shakeup bans, but he didn't specifically rule our a shakeup unban. It won't be Jace, the Mind Sculptor or Stoneforge Mystic. Get that right out of your heads, people. There's no way they'd do that before a pro tour because it's a guarantee those two cards are the ones the pros would focus all their efforts on breaking. And NO, trying to beat them wouldn't be a good strategy for the PT either. It's better to try to break broken cards than to beat broken cards. So it won't be them. I think Bloodbraid Elf is a possibility since Jund is at a low ebb or Punishing Fire could come off to screw up Death's Shadow decks. But again, 20% chance of that happening prior to Pro Tour. More than likely, it'll be nothing until February.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that is the general problem with "fair" CoCo decks sometimes you just CoCo into garbage or completely Whiff and lose. I just don't think that a deck that can simply lose to its namesake card failing to deliver is ever going to strictly dominate other more consistent strategies. Sometime you play against them and feel like you never had a chance and sometimes it feels like you just crushing them with the exact same list, its very swingy at least.
So why did only Hoogland have any real success with it? Basically what I'm getting at is there are a handful of modern players that can win with sub optimal decks because they have a great handle on the format.
Exactly this. Coco is a powerful but high variance card and in order to justify it your good hits need to win the game
That doesn't mean it wasn't successful lol. The point is a new card came out a coco deck (with synergies, not a combo) was made.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
So is swiftspear a combo creature in burn because it requires no creature spells? There is a difference in synergy and combo.
The point is the poster said he could see a new style coco deck appear. They clearly don't have to run crazy combo creatures.
Bant spirits won in calebs hands as well and yeah that was a coco deck not running a combo.
That is/was my point.
My Pro Tour Prediction of a Top 8 will have AT LEAST.
1 GDS
1+ ETron
1 UW Control
1 URW Saheeli
1+ Affinity
Not because I think Saheeli is good, but because players right now do not have any respect for Control/Combo lines of play.
Spirits
I don't get to point of this as delver in legacy is way, way, way more reliable to flip, one word Brainstorm. But for real that is a terrible point to bring up I play Grixis Delver in legacy and the deck is super consistent, Modern just doesn't have any deck that can compare in terms of consistency not to mention that the deck while names "delver" is really whatever threat you stick DRS,YP, Angler it doesn't really matter as long as you can protect it and disrupt your opponent, far more similar to GDS.
CoCo decks really do need to cast CoCo, The match up is pretty easy (at least against GDS which is the deck I'm on" if they don't find and resolve a CoCo, because literally every thing the deck dies to your removal (nothing dodges push which is a very strong quality for a threat to have currently), and KotR and Tracker are the only creatures that can really just run away with the game on their own, Voice is annoying but not devastating same with Finks buys them time to draw something more powerful.
I'm not saying that new Coco brews wont pop up that are competitive, I just think that Todd Stevens doing so well with the deck is due to his play skill more than the deck being bonkers, because regardless of how good you are at playing if your CoCo's only hit mana dorks and such or whiff completely that can easily cost you a game when your opponent is playing a much more consistent deck like GDS or E-Tron as that random bad outcome will be punished by other good players.
Just to be clear I actually think that the list he ran looks way better than the Counters Company build because the that deck has the same random bad luck aspect but is even more dependent on having a very specific board state to make it worth it assembling the infinite mana loop and not hitting your Walking Ballista or drawing a E witness if you do, just way more can go wrong and the list posted is at least better at just playing dudes and functioning with random draws.
I'm not sure I understand your swiftspear point or how it is relevant. Coco is a powerful but high variance card. Your good hits need to win the game, as most 4 mana spells in modern do. This is reflected by the more successful coco decks we have now. You keep referencing fringe decks that have only had good finishes in the hands of specific players. This is more of a testament to those players skill than it is how good or sucsessful those decks
That was in reference to todds deck also being combo creatures with ramunap/gq/Azusa. I gave 2 examples of coco decks that aren't combo that actually won events. In sorry that's not good enough for you to think a pro would maybe take it to a pt but both of those players seemed to think it good enough to take to an event they wanted to win in the last year. They were successful and they are exactly as claimed. Original poster said they could see it happening and I simply am backing it up that it could without crap combo do nothing creatures.
So any deck that spikes a tournaments is immediatly a good and successful deck? Bad decks can win tournaments in the hands of good players. I mean sked won a gp and I don't think many would call that a good or sucsessful deck.I don't know what to tell you other than look at the coco decks that are seeing play. You will see a trend that they have a combo that wins the game.
Stubborn Denial, Spell Pierce, Thoughtseize, Inquisition of Kozilek...those are all pretty good against combo-control decks.
You are welcome to go back and find anywhere that I said it was good, but yes if a deck wins a tournament that is the definition of success! It was successful idk why that is hard to believe. I've had plenty of success with bad decks myself infact. Good/successful do not mean the same thing and I'm sorry if you think they do. I guess the humans deck that has been running around would be another example of a noncombo coco deck too but hey who's counting.
Plenty of decks have also won pt's and turned out to not be the best decks btw.
I would think so too, but some guy is saying Saheeli is better than UR Twin....so clearly we are missing something.
Spirits
God, we spend more time splitting hairs over definitions than we do anything else when we all know what we are getting at. I dont consider a 1 off tournament win to make a deck succsesful. Successful in that tournament yes, but certainly not overall. Again the decks you mention are fringe and their lack of results would reflect that.
I have now given 3 examples of decks that don't play those creatures. I don't think it's splitting hairs by any means to disagree with your statement.
3 different decks playing coco that aren't combo doesn't disprove that you have to play combo creatures for coco to be good? Heck I'm sure even slivers has put up some sort of results. This is modern bud many decks have few positive results on large scales. You see those results when decks are heavily played (was zac the only one that could play lantern or Sam/Justin the only ones that could play amulet). The humans deck is still currently t2 according to this very forum. If pt players where to think about coco decks like you do it's very possible that they dismiss it and it does well.
That's a pretty lopsided Pro Tour. I don't think they'll ban something as a result though. Since when has red direct damage ever been oppressive?
Link to PT top 8 decks (Standard): http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/pthou/top-8-decklists-2017-07-29
Both decks own Grixis DS and don't really have any terrible matchups.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
No changes. Can't even imagine what they'd pick right now even if they wanted to ban something. I'm going to give an unban of some type a 20% chance of happening. Aaron said there'd be no shakeup bans, but he didn't specifically rule our a shakeup unban. It won't be Jace, the Mind Sculptor or Stoneforge Mystic. Get that right out of your heads, people. There's no way they'd do that before a pro tour because it's a guarantee those two cards are the ones the pros would focus all their efforts on breaking. And NO, trying to beat them wouldn't be a good strategy for the PT either. It's better to try to break broken cards than to beat broken cards. So it won't be them. I think Bloodbraid Elf is a possibility since Jund is at a low ebb or Punishing Fire could come off to screw up Death's Shadow decks. But again, 20% chance of that happening prior to Pro Tour. More than likely, it'll be nothing until February.