Cross-posted from the Banned List discussion thread:
TL;DR - We need to systematically test more and theorycraft less or else the discussion dies, so I'm going to try to get something organized. We'll start brewing with Golgari grave-troll because that seems to be the consensus 'safest' card for now.
We have allowed Ban List Testing Threads in the Past. Please remember that Decks and Test Results go here. Discussion goes in the Ban List Discussion Thread. Don't abuse the privilege. t_C
When you think about it, the Banned List is really just a policy, with WotC acting as the government that implements and legitimizes the policy, and us as players acting as the public living under the policy and proposing changes.
From an academic perspective, the policy analysis process goes like this (Public Policy, Simon):
Verify, define and detail the problem
Establish evaluation criteria
Identify alternative policies
Evaluate alternative policies
Display and distinguish among alternative policies
Monitor the implemented policy
We don't really ever get past step 3. We get tied up in proposing too much and evaluating too little, so we accomplish nothing. Kind of like our current Congress.
How it applies to Modern
1. Problem:
WotC defined the problem as a need for a non-rotating format that isn't bound by the Reserved List and the barriers to entry that justified the 'Eternal' class in the old DCI ratings format. Modern was created to solve that problem.
2. Evaluation Criteria:
WotC establishes evaluation criteria through their banning announcements. The first 2-3 announcements provided the bulk of the criteria, but every announcement demonstrates continuation of policy, new implementation of policy, or a deviation from previous policy.
Examples of the policies can usually be broken down into 'rules' if WotC is specific enough in their announcements. I posit that the following 'rules' can be accepted based on their announcements:
Modern 'rules':
a. The Turn 4 Rule
b. The Format Warp Rule
c. The Metagame Dominance Rule
d. The Alternative Suppression Rule
e. The Negative Externality Rule
Sometimes people can disagree on which policies are valid. For example, I posit that the Cross-format Relevance Rule is dead because WotC unbanned Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle. This represents a deviation from the established criteria to me.
3. Identify alternatives:
We as players should assess the state of the game, voice our concers, and propose new bannings or unbannings based on how the format is meeting our needs. Sometimes this is adding or abolishing a criterion altogether and sometimes it is applying an existing criterion to a particular card for banning or unbanning. The key here is finding evidence to support claims. Testable analysis is the golden standard, but some claims don't lend themselves to measurement very well.
For example, we have the schism between those who feel cross-format relevance is dead, and those who believe it is still a core tenet. Cards like Ancestral Vision, Jace the Mind Sculptor, Stoneforge Mystic, Bitterblossom, and Sword of the Meek are disputed cards that fall under this category. Statistical analysis largely fails here...a card is either relevant in other formats or it isn't, and the rule itself is either valid or it isn't.
As another example, I find that the Turn 4 Rule is still being violated and want answers on how frequently it can be violated before it must be addressed. I see a few decks like Infect as potentially problematic in that it seems to regularly goldfish at a pace that breaks the Turn 4 Rule. Some people disagree. Fortunately, we can use statistics to figure this out by testing the decks, calculating stuff, and comparing it to the lowest acceptable value we've seen so far...in this case, Epic Experiment Storm with Seething Song.
4. Evaluate Alternative Policies
Now this is where we start to run into trouble. Its very hard to make an assertion one way or the other if there is insufficient data to support or dismiss it. Science tells us that we should be doing hypothesis testing...if we take this action, then this response should occur.
We had a few good discussions about dredge going early this banning round, and there's some stuff that occasionally pops up with BB, SFM, and most recently Ponder and Preordain, but they tend to die out quickly because those who don't support the change will complain and refuse to participate rather than contributing by disproving.
Once we get an alternative proposal with momentum we can get some matchup data on how it performs against a gauntlet of decks taht represent the current top tier and after that try an experimental tournament on Cockatrice to make some overarching observations about the proposed changes. Was the card played by the decks we thought would play it? Were any decks better/faster than we thought they would be? What were win percentages like among archetypes and how did they differ from what the gauntlet predicted? Did any decks splash for it unexpectedly? etc
5. Display results
After we get a couple alternatives with fleshed out data, we can start to make meaningful comments on direction by comparing them. Which of these proposals was the best? Which of these can we try combining? Which of these can we rule out?
6. Monitor
If WotC was inspired to change the list based on this process, the next step would be seeing if it confirmed or disputed the results the initial testing led to. Then the whole process starts again with the next Banned List update.
Testing Procedure
1. Decide on an alternative banned list to test
2. Brew decks to take max advantage of the change and select a list or two that represents the consensus
3. Grind it through a gauntlet that represents the metagame and report & analyze the results
4. Hold an open tournament with an alternative banned list and report & analyze the results (may need multiple tournaments)
5. Collect as much data as possible and survey participants about impressions of the alternative format and generate a report
6. Return to the other banned list discussion thread to report results and decide on a new alternative banned list to test
So....
1. Pick an alternative banned list
As discussion of certain cards heats up, there is a tendency for members of the discussion forum to align into camps and dogmatically argue in favor of only one perspective. As the discussion reaches an impasse, testing becomes the best means of resolving a dispute over the effect a card would have on the environment. Members who wish to systemically test the card should propose that the card in question be tested in the manner herein proposed. It is important for the sake of analysis that the number of variables be minimized in order to make the most relevant observations, so minimizing the number of changes to the banned list per testing session is desirable. Conclusions about cumulative effects of multiple banned list changes is much harder to control for by comparison.
Proposed format:
The proposed format rules for the current testing session will be put here.
5/29 - What cards will you be interested in tested next?
The gauntlet will be re-worked after PT: Valencia.
2.Generate deck lists
I suggest we focus on the superlative examples of an archetype - e.g. fastest aggro variant, the fastest combo variant, the most resilient variant, etc - The way Modern seems to be working, the 'right list' is probably going to be on the furthest point forward on one of those axis. Then start weighing the pros and cons and doing preliminary testing in an attempt to reach an informed consensus on which direction is best. First post a list, then move to a goldfish to see how its working, then try playing against yourself on cockatrice with a 'top deck' or two from a recent pro event. We should take a week or so to find a consensus before moving on.
3. The Gauntlet test
When we get a few lists that consensus finds to be a solid option, we can organize a gauntlet test - the 2-3 guys who were most involved with the experimental deck and know it best should pilot it so we can minimize any play-skill discrepancies. Gauntlet decks will be chosen from current metagame data and hopefully we'll have a testing group participant who is familiar with it. Play a couple matches with the deck gauntlet deck as-is against the experimental deck, then modify the gauntlet deck to face a theoretically open field that uses the alternative banned list. Then grind 15-20 full 3-game matches, with sideboarding and record the G1, G2/3, and overall match records as well as matchup impressions (e.g. when kill turn occurred, through hate, most relevant cards etc). The goal will be to generate a matchup table like the ones WotC publishes to describe metagame performance. This will probably take a couple weeks at least if done right. (If we're having trouble with finding qualified testers, maybe we can even set something up with the retainers of the various primer threads to get the most knowledgeable/enthusiastic players in the mix.)
Results of the Gauntlet test will go here.
4. An Open Tournament
After all the gauntlet has been run and we have good data, we can organize an alternative banned list tournament. Players should look at the data we have from the gauntlet and make an informed decision to play whatever deck they want. (I've never set up a tournament, so maybe one of the guys who hosts the regular Cockatrice tournaments would be willing to help?) And we'll record the metagame shares of each deck as well as the G1, G2/3, and match records to see how it stacks up against actual decks in a simulated tournament environment.
5. Draw conclusions
Try to use the data and match observations to come to a valid conclusion. Primary goals should be to identify how widely the card was played, how diversity was effected, and whether or not any other 'Modern Rules' were violated...all with the goal of suggesting whether or not this was a good change or a bad change.
6. Publish and Repeat
Collect the overall thoughts, hear opinions on whether the change was good/bad/indifferent and (maybe if they'd care) forward the results to WotC. Then we'd descend back upon the other Banned List discussion to debate the merits of the next experimental list to go through the testing procedure.
So, lets begin! I challenge you to brew, test, and analyze hypothetical changes to the banned list.
EDIT: Please keep it to only decklists, decklist discussion, procedural discussion, and testing results here...the other banned list discussion thread is for all other discussion outside the scope of testing. Cheers!
I was testing a few lists with Thopter Foundry and Sword of the Meek and I was having fun with the deck when I was only going 55-45 in most matchups pre banning. Specifically Jund was a decent matchup for the deck unless they slaughter games all 3 of your win cons.
Bitterblossom was actually a deck I was not going to play because I figured it would have been a trap (this was prebanning as well) when I tested my games. I think the deck simply is a bad version of UWR delver without ancestral visions.
Anyway, that's all I had to say, I had about 30-40 matches with both decks when I was theorizing the new B&R announcement. I don't believe my lists were terrible by any stretch but I do believe both of those cards could come off and make the format very interesting.
2.Generate deck lists
I suggest we focus on the fastest aggro variant, the fastest combo variant, the most resilient combo variant, and perhaps even a control variant. The way Modern seems to be working, the 'right list' is probably going to be one of those. Then start weighing the pros and cons and doing preliminary testing in an attempt to reach an informed consensus. First post a list, then move to a goldfish to see how its working, then try playing against yourself on cockatrice with a 'top deck' or two from a recent pro event. We should take a week or so to find a consensus before moving on.
Control Dredge sounds hilarious, so I had to give it a brew. I doubt its good, just figured I would post it to get the ball rolling. Feel free to tear it apart. Just brainstorming.
I support WotC's goal of shaping Modern in favor of diversity.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
I can't help you brew this decklist because I'm not familiar with dredge in general, but I love what you're doing. If you'd like you can contact me when you run the gauntlet. I'm not a bad living end player, and I imagine that matchup would be hilarious and worth testing.
I can't help you brew this decklist because I'm not familiar with dredge in general, but I love what you're doing. If you'd like you can contact me when you run the gauntlet. I'm not a bad living end player, and I imagine that matchup would be hilarious and worth testing.
Same here. Never really used the card, but would be glad to help be the gauntlet once some lists have been created.
I support this. I am capable of playing melira pod, infect, and hatebears. So, I'll be on one of those decks for these tournaments
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: Modern is Bad
Legacy:WDeath and TaxesW W45-L16-D11 8 Top 8s 15th Scg Oakland
Current Kiln Fiend Count: 153 Please message me if you want to trade me or give me some.
Commission Rezombied to alter some cards, he's awesome!
I'm not sure if its optimal, but it seems to goldfish to 20 damage on T4 pretty consistently. It has a bad time dealing with Deathrite Shaman, so mainboarding 4 Bolts is a must. I ended up cutting the Zombie Infestations, but I'm really second guessing that choice. I'm no dredge expert, but I hope it amounts to a decent attempt.
I think the entire sideboard should just be dedicated to anti-hate cards for G2 and 3 to 'next level' the opponents hate. Abrupt Decay seems to be the most versatile choice, but I could definitely foresee cases in which Leyline of Sanctity to protect against player-targeting hate, spot removal and sweepers to kill hatebears and help the aggro matchup, or Golgari Charm to destroy enchantment-based hate like Leyline of the Void could be better but narrower options.
Please try it out and critique it.
EDIT: The other major direction I think might be worthwhile exploring for an aggro/vengevine based build is blue instead of red for Skaab Ruinator.
Lightning Axe is a little better than Lightning Bolt in here imo. It'll get a 4/5 'Goyf out of the way as well as nail the DRS's, AND you get to pitch a card. Can't aim it at the face, but that's what 8-16 hasty power hitting the board in one turn is for.
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
The sideboard is configured to nuke graveyard hate, slow combo, not die to burn spells, and nuke Deathrite Shaman.
Despite my efforts, I still feel like this deck is too slow in testing. Too often, I can only whip out Vengevines on Turn 5. I'm fairly close to swapping a Dregscape Zombie with a Skaab Ruinator, as either Unearthing it and casting two Gravecrawlers in a single turn (requires BBB) or Unearthing it, casting a Gravecrawler that turn, and casting two Gravecrawlers the next turn (takes two turns) to raise Vengevines is awkward.
Dangerous Wager has been quite good, though, and it helps free me from some (but not all) of my dependency on black.
(I've tried this deck against Twin Pod pre-board so far. I thought Twin Pod would fold to it quite often, as it plays almost no removal. I was wrong. Twin Pod kept comboing off one turn faster than I could kill it, and Izzet Staticaster is an absolute pain to deal with.)
Thug seems inferior on many levels. I think I would try to jump start myself with Glimpse or Grisly Salvage
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Thug seems inferior on many levels. I think I would try to jump start myself with Glimpse or Grisly Salvage
I agree. If you're trying to fuel a zombie army with Bridge from Below, the best shell is probably the one t_c posted here from Blippy's metagame thread. I've been playing around trying to make it faster or more consistent and the only 'good change' I've been able to make is swapping the Stinkys and a Ruinator out for 3 GGTs, as well as cutting one Izzet Charm for another Glimpse the Unthinkable. All in all, the deck gets to dig 1 card deeper with each dredge, but the Glimpse is actually doing the most work and GGT's contribution is negligible...except as a Plan-B if the Bridge plan gets thwarted.
If you're playing an aggro version without Bridge from Below that is using Vengevines as the speed kill, I think Grisly Salvage is a vastly superior call over Glimpse because it lets you find a zombie or land to enable the Gravecrawler or Bloodghast shenanigans, but I ended up siding out half of them for anti-hate in my tests of that style deck.
So far I like the all-in aggro version with Bridge from Below and Vengevines best, and the controlling variant that just uses GGT to fill the graveyard as a pseudo-hand seems like has a lot of potential, but it could still use improvements...it is a control deck after all, and those always need to be tweaked for the expected meta.
This is an excellent thread, and it is a shame that it has died out over the past months. With the banlist discussion completely stalled in the main thread, it is time to get some real data and evidence to work with beyond hypothetical speculation and rhetorical argument. Reading through Mike's first post, I agree with basically all of the methods and foundations of this thread.
The main point of disagreement I have regards tournaments with the theoretical lists. It is going to be too difficult to have a large tournament with a representative sample of players. It is probably better to focus our efforts on small, contained experiments within playtesting groups. Although this won't give us the same kind of "real-life" qualities of tournaments, it would definitely give us more data, and more detailed data.
To that end, I intend on testing a UB/UBw Faeries deck with my playtesting group. We will be conducting 40 game 1s and 40 game 2s, each split 50/50 on the play and draw. Decks will be piloted by players with a high level of experience in tournament gameplay, and a high degree of knowledge and skill regarding Modern and the decks in question.
Our gauntlet will consist of the 5 so-called "decks to beat" of Modern. Representative lists are linked in each deckname:
Other decks could have been selected for the tests, but these are the most consistent winners and presences at the top tables. I am more than willing to modify lists based on metagame updates that are likely to occur in the near future. For example, Melira Pod will need 1 slot opened up for Scavenging Ooze, and we do not need to use the White Jund version that I linked to. Another question regards sideboards. If Faeries became a deck, then some decks would modify their boards to handle Faeries for games 2 and 3. This suggests that we would want more Abrupt Decay in the board, or similar cards. But overall, these decks give a good cross-section of combo, control, and aggro archetypes.
One last question remains: The UBx Faerie list itself. I would like to agree as much as possible on a list before we start testing. Here is a starting point, a list that Mike submitted in the banning discussion thread. I am open to any tweaks:
1. Do we want to modify the maindeck/sideboard of the gauntlet decks? If so, how?
2. Do we want to modify the maindeck/sideboard of the UB Faeries deck above? How?
As soon as we can answer these questions, even if it's just 2-3 people answering them, the sooner we can start rigorous testing.
Should Tron and Gruul Zoo be considered for the gauntlet? What about Living End?
EDIT:
As for the Faeries list, I'd suggest perhaps adding a fourth Vendilion Clique (in light of the legend rule change) and taking out one Scion of Oona (in the discussions I've seen about how many Scions it is correct to play, the consensus usually seems to be "not four.")
It for sure seems like the deck should be running some amount of Spell Snares.
Also, is 26 lands really necessary? That seems like a lot (I'm not disagreeing, but I'm curious why the land count is so high).
For the sideboard, I'd suggest finding a way to include Engineered Explosives and something for graveyard hate. Relic, maybe?
I'm not an expert in faeries, and surely it's way worse with abrupt decay around, but don't you NEED vedalken shackles with the low removal count you'll be running? otherwise a loxodon smiter or a turn 2 birthing pod can really ruin your day (I guess shackles ain't great against pod, but can at least keep them of podding a finks or something)... With deathrite shaman around as a dangerous turn 1 drop which you won't be able to counter, I'd even up the removal suite, maybe run disfigure and more snapcasters and lower mistbinds (although the effect is huge, having 8 spells costing 4 might make you a tad slow against affinity and aggro in general)
also, as faeries have flash, I don't think secluded glen is quite optimal. I'd up the fetches to 6-8 (probably 8), all blue, leave only 1 swamp and 2-3 watery graves. In case you run shackles, you'll probably want to drop darkslick shores too
Gruul zoo, yes. Probably tron too. it has a large online following, though very little paper.
As well as, if Gruul zoo had Nacatl or Stoneforge unbanned it would be come insanely competeive. I'll up a few lists with those along with green sun zenith for you alll if you care to test them out (I love those cards)
For your tests:
If you unban Nacatl, Zoo unlocks white again as a primary color. With white they get boros charm, thalia, pridemage, lion and helix. With this, the deck would revert back into its older form, using fast beaters at can also double into doing a more long game plan. It would be a turn slower, but it would still be very fast. Id suggest a more legacy approch:
If your aiming to still be speedy (which really depends on the format at that part...) It would probably look like this. Youd still be riding value off your white splash, but less so.
If ya'll want, I can put together GSZ and Stoneforge unbans as well to show what they would look like. I have a lot of experience in all things Zoo and Maverick so I probably could point out a few things Id do at least.
u/b fae doesn't need shackles. between tar pit, darkslick, secluded glen, and tech edge, you'd only be going with 4-6 islands. the creature removal suite is good to the point where you don't actually need shackles any more.
i also volunteer myself to run my version through a gauntlet, if i have the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
I was talking about the particular version ktkenshinx posted. with 3 conditional removals in the 60, you aren't likely to be able to react to a DRS/dark confidant/tarmogoyf in time. If you are not playing shackles, you'd have to go with more removal, and if you use it, adapt the manabase of course, no one here is talking about using shackles with darkslick, glen and tar pits..
1. Do we want to modify the maindeck/sideboard of the gauntlet decks? If so, how?
Well that is the biggest problem now isnt it? If we keep the testing to premade decks there will be no tech to counter the unbanned card(GGT). And if we allow free modification, for the 1v1 scenario, it will be impossible to be objective. Which is why a tournament setting was suggested in the first place, as other decks would need to limit their hate so as not to comprimise their other matchups.
From my previous experience, I'd rather pull Scion of Oona entirely, add 2 or more Tiagos, and add at least 1 more removal spell. The lack of Scions reflects Extended, and you keep decent Jund and UWR Midrange match-ups while really raising your Pod one (and Pod can virtually ignore Bitterblossom from my testing--UWR Midrange treats late Blossoms as free burn spells, while Jund often neutralizes it fairly quickly).
Because every single Modern deck will end up grinding against RG Tron a lot on MTGO, I'd rather add 2 Tectonic Edge (cutting Sunken Ruins). Heck, going down to 25 lands is safe.
I was talking about the particular version ktkenshinx posted. with 3 conditional removals in the 60, you aren't likely to be able to react to a DRS/dark confidant/tarmogoyf in time. If you are not playing shackles, you'd have to go with more removal, and if you use it, adapt the manabase of course, no one here is talking about using shackles with darkslick, glen and tar pits..
Yeah, that first version was a really basic copy from another thread. It definitely needs some updates to reflect metagame changes.
Here are the changes that I am making to the creature base.
Snapcaster is just too good to not run 3, even if he isn't technically a Faerie and doesn't add to the Spellstutter count. We run more than enough sorceries and instants to justify his inclusion. And what about poor Mistbind? It's a powerful effect to be sure, but it just isn't as strong as it once was because of one deck: Pod. That deck has more than enough mana dorks to get around the tapped out lands, and I would much rather use my mana to remove their threats than screw around with their lands. I am willing to debate this change, but that's where I currently stand on the card.
Here are the changes I made to the initial spell base.
3 Leak brings us to a more consistent turn 2 counter, but I'm still not 100% sold on the removal suite that we are packing. Adding Dismember gives us a nice catch-all, which I think is sufficient with all our countermagic as backup. We could also ditch the Inquisitions to add Snares, but in goldfishing, I found the lack of proactive 1 drops to be problematic.
Never was a big fan of Ruins in Faeries because it restricts your mana options too much. I think that our mana base has more than enough versatility with all its UB production.
So here's the next draft of the list. SB still unchanged.
Thoughts on this current version? Current considerations include:
1. Tectonic Edge?
Do we put it in or leave it out? 2 in the maindeck wouldn't be a bad idea, and we could probably just cut down on the Spell Snares to fit them in, plus 1 more land. That would bring our land count to 25, 2 of which would be Edge. Snares are a lot less valuable in paper, however, where Tron is relatively scarce (Especially as you advance through a tournament).
2. Scion of Oona?
We could either reduce Scion or flat out cut her from the deck. Scion is pretty terrible against the preeminent Modern deck, Pod, but I like her a lot against UWR.
3. More removal?
Modern is pretty jam-packed with creatures, and we might want to up our removal count to 4-5 to keep those guys in check. Of the decks to beat in Modern, all but three rely heavily on creatures (the exceptions being UWR, Scapeshift, and Tron, the latter of which relies on creatures that are much harder for us to kill).
EDIT: Got rid of the Snares. I think I would rather have the IoKs on turn 1 than the Snares in most matchups.
One last question remains: The UBx Faerie list itself. I would like to agree as much as possible on a list before we start testing. Here is a starting point, a list that Mike submitted in the banning discussion thread. I am open to any tweaks:
1. Do we want to modify the maindeck/sideboard of the gauntlet decks? If so, how?
2. Do we want to modify the maindeck/sideboard of the UB Faeries deck above? How?
1. The decklist
I've been playing it extensively with a friend the past couple days. Scion of Oona is crucial for protecting BB and clique from removal (esp. Abrupt Decay) with flashed in Shroud, then getting in a counter-beat before it inevitably bites a removal spell; other times its just a mediocre faerie. I'm going to cut it down by 1 and replace it with a Snapcaster Mage. I also think its correct to cut one or both of the Sunken Ruins for Tec Edges because Manlands and Tron are very hard to deal with and I'd rather be using the Spreading seas to disrupt early mana than save them for late game manlands - but that would open up the risk of color-light hands with only Tec Edge/Mutavault so I'm a bit hesitant to pull the trigger. I also don't like the Doom Blade because its dead against Confidant, DRS, or Geist etc but I don't know what to replace it with..Go for the Throat maybe? Another counterspell or a 5th kill spell would be nice too - perhaps a Disfigure - but I can't find the room for it. Also, Jund is a pretty rough matchup so Jace Beleren might be necessary in the sideboard to keep up with their value. I like Beerbleblox's suggestion about Ruins/Relic/RatchetBomb, but I'm not sure if its worth it without redundancy or a way to tutor for them. I'm still not happy with the sideboard and am open to more suggestions on the plans should be, so input is appreciated. This is a decklist I've been playing and tweaking through several iterations - especially in the last few days - and while I think its a good start, a Faeries devotee like GermanTurkey probably has more recent and more relevant experience that can be added to it.
The gauntlet should reflect what we think would actually be played if faeries were in the meta, but not necessarily tuned just to beat faeries. As far as testing goes, I support adding a Tron variant to the Gauntlet list alongside what KTkenshinx suggested. As far as tuning goes, for example with Jund, I swapped a terminate and the 4th Lily for a 3rd Abrupt Decay and a 2nd Maelstorm Pulse, swapped a Thrun for a Huntmaster from the SB to the MD fatty flex slot, and added a Boil to the sideboard. Seems like a good move in light of the Legendary rules change and general shift in the meta towards M-Pod and UWR (and possibly Faeries).
I trust that Lantern did his homework on Zoo because he seems very knowledgeable about the archetype. Not sure if we should go with the Kitty version or the regular gruul version. On one hand, the regular version is better for testing BB by itself (fewer variables) but I agree that its silly that Nacatl is banned and that the deck is just about equally fast and consistent either way. Opinions?
TL;DR - We need to systematically test more and theorycraft less or else the discussion dies, so I'm going to try to get something organized. We'll start brewing with Golgari grave-troll because that seems to be the consensus 'safest' card for now.
We have allowed Ban List Testing Threads in the Past. Please remember that Decks and Test Results go here. Discussion goes in the Ban List Discussion Thread. Don't abuse the privilege. t_C
Testing Procedure
1. Decide on an alternative banned list to test
2. Brew decks to take max advantage of the change and select a list or two that represents the consensus
3. Grind it through a gauntlet that represents the metagame and report & analyze the results
4. Hold an open tournament with an alternative banned list and report & analyze the results (may need multiple tournaments)
5. Collect as much data as possible and survey participants about impressions of the alternative format and generate a report
6. Return to the other banned list discussion thread to report results and decide on a new alternative banned list to test
So....
1. Pick an alternative banned list
As discussion of certain cards heats up, there is a tendency for members of the discussion forum to align into camps and dogmatically argue in favor of only one perspective. As the discussion reaches an impasse, testing becomes the best means of resolving a dispute over the effect a card would have on the environment. Members who wish to systemically test the card should propose that the card in question be tested in the manner herein proposed. It is important for the sake of analysis that the number of variables be minimized in order to make the most relevant observations, so minimizing the number of changes to the banned list per testing session is desirable. Conclusions about cumulative effects of multiple banned list changes is much harder to control for by comparison.
Proposed format:
2.Generate deck lists
I suggest we focus on the superlative examples of an archetype - e.g. fastest aggro variant, the fastest combo variant, the most resilient variant, etc - The way Modern seems to be working, the 'right list' is probably going to be on the furthest point forward on one of those axis. Then start weighing the pros and cons and doing preliminary testing in an attempt to reach an informed consensus on which direction is best. First post a list, then move to a goldfish to see how its working, then try playing against yourself on cockatrice with a 'top deck' or two from a recent pro event. We should take a week or so to find a consensus before moving on.
3. The Gauntlet test
When we get a few lists that consensus finds to be a solid option, we can organize a gauntlet test - the 2-3 guys who were most involved with the experimental deck and know it best should pilot it so we can minimize any play-skill discrepancies. Gauntlet decks will be chosen from current metagame data and hopefully we'll have a testing group participant who is familiar with it. Play a couple matches with the deck gauntlet deck as-is against the experimental deck, then modify the gauntlet deck to face a theoretically open field that uses the alternative banned list. Then grind 15-20 full 3-game matches, with sideboarding and record the G1, G2/3, and overall match records as well as matchup impressions (e.g. when kill turn occurred, through hate, most relevant cards etc). The goal will be to generate a matchup table like the ones WotC publishes to describe metagame performance. This will probably take a couple weeks at least if done right. (If we're having trouble with finding qualified testers, maybe we can even set something up with the retainers of the various primer threads to get the most knowledgeable/enthusiastic players in the mix.)
4. An Open Tournament
After all the gauntlet has been run and we have good data, we can organize an alternative banned list tournament. Players should look at the data we have from the gauntlet and make an informed decision to play whatever deck they want. (I've never set up a tournament, so maybe one of the guys who hosts the regular Cockatrice tournaments would be willing to help?) And we'll record the metagame shares of each deck as well as the G1, G2/3, and match records to see how it stacks up against actual decks in a simulated tournament environment.
5. Draw conclusions
Try to use the data and match observations to come to a valid conclusion. Primary goals should be to identify how widely the card was played, how diversity was effected, and whether or not any other 'Modern Rules' were violated...all with the goal of suggesting whether or not this was a good change or a bad change.
6. Publish and Repeat
Collect the overall thoughts, hear opinions on whether the change was good/bad/indifferent and (maybe if they'd care) forward the results to WotC. Then we'd descend back upon the other Banned List discussion to debate the merits of the next experimental list to go through the testing procedure.
So, lets begin! I challenge you to brew, test, and analyze hypothetical changes to the banned list.
EDIT: Please keep it to only decklists, decklist discussion, procedural discussion, and testing results here...the other banned list discussion thread is for all other discussion outside the scope of testing. Cheers!
Speculate less. Test more.
Bitterblossom was actually a deck I was not going to play because I figured it would have been a trap (this was prebanning as well) when I tested my games. I think the deck simply is a bad version of UWR delver without ancestral visions.
Anyway, that's all I had to say, I had about 30-40 matches with both decks when I was theorizing the new B&R announcement. I don't believe my lists were terrible by any stretch but I do believe both of those cards could come off and make the format very interesting.
Control Dredge sounds hilarious, so I had to give it a brew. I doubt its good, just figured I would post it to get the ball rolling. Feel free to tear it apart. Just brainstorming.
3 Snapcaster Mage
3 Haakon, Stromgald Scourge
3 Stinkweed Imp
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
1 Rafiq of the Many
3 Thought Scour
3 Raven's Crime
4 Think Twice
1 Forbidden Alchemy
3 Nameless Inversion
1 Crib Swap
2 Psychic Spiral
2 Life from the Loam
4 Verdant Catacombs
2 Marsh Flats
2 Breeding Pool
1 Overgrown Tomb
1 Godless Shrine
1 Temple Garden
1 Forest
2 Swamp
1 Island
1 Tectonic Edge
3 Creeping Tarpit
I ran a thought experiment on my blog
Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Same here. Never really used the card, but would be glad to help be the gauntlet once some lists have been created.
Legacy:WDeath and TaxesW W45-L16-D11 8 Top 8s 15th Scg Oakland
Current Kiln Fiend Count: 153 Please message me if you want to trade me or give me some.
Commission Rezombied to alter some cards, he's awesome!
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Gemstone Mine
2 Overgrown Tomb
2 Blood Crypt
1 Stomping Ground
1 Swamp
1 Mountain
1 Forest
1 Copperline Gorge
2 Blackcleave Cliffs
1 City of Brass
1 Dakmor Salvage
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
4 Gravecrawler
4 Lotleth Troll
4 Bloodghast
4 Vengevine
2 Stinkweed Imp
4 Slitherhead
Other Spells (13)
4 Grisly Salvage
1 Darkblast
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Faithless Looting
I'm not sure if its optimal, but it seems to goldfish to 20 damage on T4 pretty consistently. It has a bad time dealing with Deathrite Shaman, so mainboarding 4 Bolts is a must. I ended up cutting the Zombie Infestations, but I'm really second guessing that choice. I'm no dredge expert, but I hope it amounts to a decent attempt.
I think the entire sideboard should just be dedicated to anti-hate cards for G2 and 3 to 'next level' the opponents hate. Abrupt Decay seems to be the most versatile choice, but I could definitely foresee cases in which Leyline of Sanctity to protect against player-targeting hate, spot removal and sweepers to kill hatebears and help the aggro matchup, or Golgari Charm to destroy enchantment-based hate like Leyline of the Void could be better but narrower options.
Please try it out and critique it.
EDIT: The other major direction I think might be worthwhile exploring for an aggro/vengevine based build is blue instead of red for Skaab Ruinator.
Speculate less. Test more.
:symb::symr::symg: Living End
2 Gemstone Mine
1 Dakmor Salvage
3 Misty Rainforest
3 Verdant Catacombs
4 Scalding Tarn
1 Watery Grave
1 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
1 Blood Crypt
1 Breeding Pool
1 Steam Vents
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
4 Stinkweed Imp
3 Golgari Thug
4 Hedron Crab
4 Bloodghast
4 Gravecrawler
2 Dregscape Zombie
4 Vengevine
Spells
4 Faithless Looting
3 Dangerous Wager
3 Glimpse the Unthinkable
2 Life from the Loam
4 Nature's Claim
3 Thoughtseize
1 Raven's Crime
2 Lightning Bolt
1 Lightning Axe
4 Leyline of Sanctity
The sideboard is configured to nuke graveyard hate, slow combo, not die to burn spells, and nuke Deathrite Shaman.
Despite my efforts, I still feel like this deck is too slow in testing. Too often, I can only whip out Vengevines on Turn 5. I'm fairly close to swapping a Dregscape Zombie with a Skaab Ruinator, as either Unearthing it and casting two Gravecrawlers in a single turn (requires BBB) or Unearthing it, casting a Gravecrawler that turn, and casting two Gravecrawlers the next turn (takes two turns) to raise Vengevines is awkward.
Dangerous Wager has been quite good, though, and it helps free me from some (but not all) of my dependency on black.
(I've tried this deck against Twin Pod pre-board so far. I thought Twin Pod would fold to it quite often, as it plays almost no removal. I was wrong. Twin Pod kept comboing off one turn faster than I could kill it, and Izzet Staticaster is an absolute pain to deal with.)
Dredgers:
4 Golgari Grave-Troll
4 Stinkweed Imp
4 Golgari Thug
Recuring:
4 Narcomoeba
4 Bloodghast
Combo Pieces:
4 Bridge from Below
4 Viscera Seer
4 Call to the Nether World
Draw Power
4 Burning Inquiry
4 Faithless Looting
4 Street Wraith
4 Verdant Catacomb
2 Arid Mesa
4 Blood Crypt
1 Stomping Ground
1 Overgrown Tomb
2 Mountain
2 Dakmor Salvage
3 Ray of Revelation
3 Ancient Grudge
9 Other cards?
The idea is to use the recurring creatures to fuel Bridge from Below and out-aggro my opponent.
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
I agree. If you're trying to fuel a zombie army with Bridge from Below, the best shell is probably the one t_c posted here from Blippy's metagame thread. I've been playing around trying to make it faster or more consistent and the only 'good change' I've been able to make is swapping the Stinkys and a Ruinator out for 3 GGTs, as well as cutting one Izzet Charm for another Glimpse the Unthinkable. All in all, the deck gets to dig 1 card deeper with each dredge, but the Glimpse is actually doing the most work and GGT's contribution is negligible...except as a Plan-B if the Bridge plan gets thwarted.
If you're playing an aggro version without Bridge from Below that is using Vengevines as the speed kill, I think Grisly Salvage is a vastly superior call over Glimpse because it lets you find a zombie or land to enable the Gravecrawler or Bloodghast shenanigans, but I ended up siding out half of them for anti-hate in my tests of that style deck.
So far I like the all-in aggro version with Bridge from Below and Vengevines best, and the controlling variant that just uses GGT to fill the graveyard as a pseudo-hand seems like has a lot of potential, but it could still use improvements...it is a control deck after all, and those always need to be tweaked for the expected meta.
Speculate less. Test more.
The main point of disagreement I have regards tournaments with the theoretical lists. It is going to be too difficult to have a large tournament with a representative sample of players. It is probably better to focus our efforts on small, contained experiments within playtesting groups. Although this won't give us the same kind of "real-life" qualities of tournaments, it would definitely give us more data, and more detailed data.
To that end, I intend on testing a UB/UBw Faeries deck with my playtesting group. We will be conducting 40 game 1s and 40 game 2s, each split 50/50 on the play and draw. Decks will be piloted by players with a high level of experience in tournament gameplay, and a high degree of knowledge and skill regarding Modern and the decks in question.
Our gauntlet will consist of the 5 so-called "decks to beat" of Modern. Representative lists are linked in each deckname:
Melira Pod
UWR Control
Jund
Affinity
Scapeshift
Other decks could have been selected for the tests, but these are the most consistent winners and presences at the top tables. I am more than willing to modify lists based on metagame updates that are likely to occur in the near future. For example, Melira Pod will need 1 slot opened up for Scavenging Ooze, and we do not need to use the White Jund version that I linked to. Another question regards sideboards. If Faeries became a deck, then some decks would modify their boards to handle Faeries for games 2 and 3. This suggests that we would want more Abrupt Decay in the board, or similar cards. But overall, these decks give a good cross-section of combo, control, and aggro archetypes.
One last question remains: The UBx Faerie list itself. I would like to agree as much as possible on a list before we start testing. Here is a starting point, a list that Mike submitted in the banning discussion thread. I am open to any tweaks:
4 Spellstutter Sprite
3 Vendilion Clique
4 Mistbind Clique
4 Scion of Oona
1 Snapcaster Mage
Spells - 18
4 Bitterblossom
4 Cryptic Command
3 Thoughtseize
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
2 Mana Leak
1 Doom Blade
1 Smother
1 Ultimate Price
3 Mutavault
2 Sunken Ruins
4 Secluded Glen
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Marsh Flats
2 Watery Grave
4 Island
2 Swamp
3 Darkslick Shores
2 Creeping Tar Pit
2 Deathmark
2 Echoing Truth
2 Extirpate
2 Trickbind
1 Surgical Extraction
3 Spreading Seas
2 Steel Sabotage
1 Threads of Disloyalty
So the big questions are:
1. Do we want to modify the maindeck/sideboard of the gauntlet decks? If so, how?
2. Do we want to modify the maindeck/sideboard of the UB Faeries deck above? How?
As soon as we can answer these questions, even if it's just 2-3 people answering them, the sooner we can start rigorous testing.
EDIT:
As for the Faeries list, I'd suggest perhaps adding a fourth Vendilion Clique (in light of the legend rule change) and taking out one Scion of Oona (in the discussions I've seen about how many Scions it is correct to play, the consensus usually seems to be "not four.")
It for sure seems like the deck should be running some amount of Spell Snares.
Also, is 26 lands really necessary? That seems like a lot (I'm not disagreeing, but I'm curious why the land count is so high).
For the sideboard, I'd suggest finding a way to include Engineered Explosives and something for graveyard hate. Relic, maybe?
also, as faeries have flash, I don't think secluded glen is quite optimal. I'd up the fetches to 6-8 (probably 8), all blue, leave only 1 swamp and 2-3 watery graves. In case you run shackles, you'll probably want to drop darkslick shores too
Footsteps Hulk
Ascendency Combo
Restore Balance
Ad Nauseam
EDH:
Ghave Lands
Narset Combo
As well as, if Gruul zoo had Nacatl or Stoneforge unbanned it would be come insanely competeive. I'll up a few lists with those along with green sun zenith for you alll if you care to test them out (I love those cards)
For your tests:
If you unban Nacatl, Zoo unlocks white again as a primary color. With white they get boros charm, thalia, pridemage, lion and helix. With this, the deck would revert back into its older form, using fast beaters at can also double into doing a more long game plan. It would be a turn slower, but it would still be very fast. Id suggest a more legacy approch:
4 Kird Ape
3 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Tarmogoyf
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Experiment One
4 Lightning Helix
4 Boros Charm
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Path to Exile
1 Forest
1 Blood Crypt
1 Plains
1 Mountain
3 Sacred Foundry
2 Temple Garden
2 Stomping Grounds
1 Marsh Flat
2 Verdent catacombs
4 Scalding Tarn
1 Bojuka Bog
2 Gaddock Teeg
1 Knight of the Reliquary
2 Aven Mindcencor
1 Ancient Grudge
2 Qasali Pridemage
3 Thalia
1 Grafdiggers Cage
1 Sejiri Steppe
If your aiming to still be speedy (which really depends on the format at that part...) It would probably look like this. Youd still be riding value off your white splash, but less so.
1 Forest
3 Misty Rainforest
2 Mountain
3 Scalding Tarn
3 Stomping Ground
1 Temple Garden
2 Sacred Foundry
4 Burning-Tree Emissary
4 Experiment One
4 Flinthoof Boar
4 Ghor-Clan Rampager
4 Kird Ape
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Scavenging Ooze
4 Wild Nacatl
2 Vines of Vastwood
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Path to Exile
If ya'll want, I can put together GSZ and Stoneforge unbans as well to show what they would look like. I have a lot of experience in all things Zoo and Maverick so I probably could point out a few things Id do at least.
i also volunteer myself to run my version through a gauntlet, if i have the time.
Well that is the biggest problem now isnt it? If we keep the testing to premade decks there will be no tech to counter the unbanned card(GGT). And if we allow free modification, for the 1v1 scenario, it will be impossible to be objective. Which is why a tournament setting was suggested in the first place, as other decks would need to limit their hate so as not to comprimise their other matchups.
Because every single Modern deck will end up grinding against RG Tron a lot on MTGO, I'd rather add 2 Tectonic Edge (cutting Sunken Ruins). Heck, going down to 25 lands is safe.
Yeah, that first version was a really basic copy from another thread. It definitely needs some updates to reflect metagame changes.
Here are the changes that I am making to the creature base.
-1 Scion of Oona
-1 Mistbind Clique
+2 Snapcaster Mage
Snapcaster is just too good to not run 3, even if he isn't technically a Faerie and doesn't add to the Spellstutter count. We run more than enough sorceries and instants to justify his inclusion. And what about poor Mistbind? It's a powerful effect to be sure, but it just isn't as strong as it once was because of one deck: Pod. That deck has more than enough mana dorks to get around the tapped out lands, and I would much rather use my mana to remove their threats than screw around with their lands. I am willing to debate this change, but that's where I currently stand on the card.
Here are the changes I made to the initial spell base.
+1 Mana Leak
+1 Dismember
3 Leak brings us to a more consistent turn 2 counter, but I'm still not 100% sold on the removal suite that we are packing. Adding Dismember gives us a nice catch-all, which I think is sufficient with all our countermagic as backup. We could also ditch the Inquisitions to add Snares, but in goldfishing, I found the lack of proactive 1 drops to be problematic.
And finally we have the lands:
-2 Sunken Ruins
-1 Darkslick Shores
Never was a big fan of Ruins in Faeries because it restricts your mana options too much. I think that our mana base has more than enough versatility with all its UB production.
So here's the next draft of the list. SB still unchanged.
4 Spellstutter Sprite
3 Vendilion Clique
3 Scion of Oona
3 Snapcaster Mage
3 Mistbind Clique
Spells - 21
4 Bitterblossom
4 Cryptic Command
3 Thoughtseize
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Mana Leak
1 Doom Blade
1 Smother
1 Ultimate Price
1 Dismember
3 Mutavault
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Marsh Flats
3 Watery Grave
4 Island
2 Swamp
2 Darkslick Shores
2 Creeping Tar Pit
4 Secluded Glen
2 Deathmark
2 Echoing Truth
2 Extirpate
2 Trickbind
1 Surgical Extraction
3 Spreading Seas
2 Steel Sabotage
1 Threads of Disloyalty
Thoughts on this current version? Current considerations include:
1. Tectonic Edge?
Do we put it in or leave it out? 2 in the maindeck wouldn't be a bad idea, and we could probably just cut down on the Spell Snares to fit them in, plus 1 more land. That would bring our land count to 25, 2 of which would be Edge. Snares are a lot less valuable in paper, however, where Tron is relatively scarce (Especially as you advance through a tournament).
2. Scion of Oona?
We could either reduce Scion or flat out cut her from the deck. Scion is pretty terrible against the preeminent Modern deck, Pod, but I like her a lot against UWR.
3. More removal?
Modern is pretty jam-packed with creatures, and we might want to up our removal count to 4-5 to keep those guys in check. Of the decks to beat in Modern, all but three rely heavily on creatures (the exceptions being UWR, Scapeshift, and Tron, the latter of which relies on creatures that are much harder for us to kill).
EDIT: Got rid of the Snares. I think I would rather have the IoKs on turn 1 than the Snares in most matchups.
4 Secluded Glen
4 River of Tears
5 Island
1 Pendelhaven
2 Watery Grave
3 Misty Rainforest
1 Scalding Tarn
4 Spellstutter Sprite
3 Vendilion Clique
3 Mistbind Clique
4 Bitterblossom
4 Smother
3 Thoughtseize
2 Mana Leak
2 Umezawa's Jitte
2 Jace Beleren
3 Cryptic Command
2 Spell Snare
4 Leyline of the Void
4 Deathmark
2 Flashfreeze
2 Slay
1 Extirpate
1 Thoughtseize
1 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
Proposed maindeck changes:
-4 Ancestral Vision
-2 Jace Beleren
-2 Umezawa's Jitte
-4 Smother
+4 Snapcaster Mage
+3 Scion of Oona
+1 Cryptic Command
+4 Doom Blade/Go for the Throat
Useful SB cards:
|
|
Big Johnny.
1. The decklist
I've been playing it extensively with a friend the past couple days. Scion of Oona is crucial for protecting BB and clique from removal (esp. Abrupt Decay) with flashed in Shroud, then getting in a counter-beat before it inevitably bites a removal spell; other times its just a mediocre faerie. I'm going to cut it down by 1 and replace it with a Snapcaster Mage. I also think its correct to cut one or both of the Sunken Ruins for Tec Edges because Manlands and Tron are very hard to deal with and I'd rather be using the Spreading seas to disrupt early mana than save them for late game manlands - but that would open up the risk of color-light hands with only Tec Edge/Mutavault so I'm a bit hesitant to pull the trigger. I also don't like the Doom Blade because its dead against Confidant, DRS, or Geist etc but I don't know what to replace it with..Go for the Throat maybe? Another counterspell or a 5th kill spell would be nice too - perhaps a Disfigure - but I can't find the room for it. Also, Jund is a pretty rough matchup so Jace Beleren might be necessary in the sideboard to keep up with their value. I like Beerbleblox's suggestion about Ruins/Relic/RatchetBomb, but I'm not sure if its worth it without redundancy or a way to tutor for them. I'm still not happy with the sideboard and am open to more suggestions on the plans should be, so input is appreciated. This is a decklist I've been playing and tweaking through several iterations - especially in the last few days - and while I think its a good start, a Faeries devotee like GermanTurkey probably has more recent and more relevant experience that can be added to it.
4 Spellstutter Sprite
4 Vendilion Clique
3 Mistbind Clique
3 Scion of Oona
2 Snapcaster Mage
Spells - 20
4 Bitterblossom
3 Thoughtseize
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Smother
1 Go for the Throat
2 Mana Leak
1 Ultimate Price
1 Dismember
4 Cryptic Command
3 Mutavault
4 Secluded Glen
2 Misty Rainforest
2 Marsh Flats
2 Watery Grave
4 Island
2 Swamp
2 Darkslick Shores
1 Smother
2 Creeping Tar Pit
1 Tectonic Edge
2 Deathmark
2 Extirpate
3 Spreading Seas
2 Steel Sabotage
1 Threads of Disloyalty
2 Jace Beleren
1 Academ Ruins
1 Relic of Progenitus
1 Ratchet Bomb
I'm pretty happy with it. Looks good?
2. The Gauntlet
The gauntlet should reflect what we think would actually be played if faeries were in the meta, but not necessarily tuned just to beat faeries. As far as testing goes, I support adding a Tron variant to the Gauntlet list alongside what KTkenshinx suggested. As far as tuning goes, for example with Jund, I swapped a terminate and the 4th Lily for a 3rd Abrupt Decay and a 2nd Maelstorm Pulse, swapped a Thrun for a Huntmaster from the SB to the MD fatty flex slot, and added a Boil to the sideboard. Seems like a good move in light of the Legendary rules change and general shift in the meta towards M-Pod and UWR (and possibly Faeries).
I trust that Lantern did his homework on Zoo because he seems very knowledgeable about the archetype. Not sure if we should go with the Kitty version or the regular gruul version. On one hand, the regular version is better for testing BB by itself (fewer variables) but I agree that its silly that Nacatl is banned and that the deck is just about equally fast and consistent either way. Opinions?
Just for reference:
4 Dark Confidant
4 Deathrite Shaman
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Kitchen Finks
1 Thrun, the Last Troll
1 Thundermaw Hellkite
Spells - 18
3 Thoughtseize
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Maelstrom Pulse
2 Abrupt Decay
1 Terminate
3 Liliana of the Veil
4 Raging Ravine
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
4 Verdant Catacombs
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
1 Forest
1 Mountain
1 Marsh Flats
1 Misty Rainforest
1 Lavaclaw Reaches
1 Blood Crypt
1 Kessig Wolf Run
1 Olivia Voldaren
2 Sowing Salt
2 Slaughter Games
1 Shatterstorm
2 Rakdos Charm
2 Obstinate Baloth
1 Bonfire of the Damned
1 Boil
1 Ancient Grudge
1 Huntmaster of the Fells
1 Extirpate
Speculate less. Test more.