My only issue with Affinity being at 10% is there are like 7 different builds of the deck now. 2 are aggro, 2 are tempo/controlish, 2 are mid rangy, and the last one is more like burn then affinity (could be classified as another aggro deck). Saying Affinity is 10% of the meta is a little miss leading.
Deck archetypes that share ~85%+ of their card base are often grouped together, whether we like it or not. Are these deck variants really so fundamentally different from each other? Or is it just a few sideboard flex slots that can take the Plan B to different places?
Maybe they are just not showing up in top 8's.
In the last month or since Kal/Revolt came out with the new tech Metallic Rebuke I have seen mono blue builds that are more controlish running rebuke, negates, spell pierce, and thoughtcasr. Saw this at a local PPTQ, just missed the top 8 of a 70 person event), blue white controlish versions, running mana tithe, rebuke, spell pierce, and dispatch (saw at the same PPTQ was in top 16 know he was in the money), 2 different blue black builds, both mid rangy, one running multiple Tezz's, the other running Disciple of the Vault. Both decks running counter magic main. Then there are the colorless aggro builds which are shown above. The red versions that play more like a burn deck, and the Rx decks that can convert from full aggro to control with side board.
The differences in the decks is pretty huge. Not only the cards played, but the style they are played.
I'm real curious where they are having modern PPTQs since the release of Aether Revolt, considering the last modern PPTQ season ended ~3-4 months before that set came out, and we won't have another modern season for a few more months. It's not even an option to run modern in this timeframe, which means either your claim is falsified to some extent OR there is a store that is breaking WPN policy and is in need of reporting.
Uhh what the hell do you mean "Low prevalence" according to MTGgoldfish it is 6% of the metagame. The third most event placing deck in the format. If that is low prevalence then we should probably just avoid discussing everything that isn't Jund or infect. Suicide Zoo isn't inconsistent unless you think you know more about magic than Sam Black who has stated Suicide Zoo is pretty consistent and felt strongly enough about it to play it in a GP and top 8. Not to mention this was just a month/two months ago.
The Sam Black/Mike Sigrist match in top 8 is a pretty good indicator of just how "consistent" this deck is. Sadly not many saw the match due to the lack of video coverage, but it was no contest simply due to the hands that Black ended up having. Mull to 5 and then keeping no creatures in game 1, and game 2 keeping 7 with 3 cyclers but no lands ended up with Sigrist running him over very quickly.
Yes, the deck can be very aggressive. No, the deck is not ban worthy.
Unless you have a real good reason to be attempting to do something during beginning of combat as opposed to main phase 1 or after declaring attackers, you are likely going to be considered as attempting to apply the tournament shortcut if you use phrases like "I would like to pass priority in main phase 1" (I had this conversation with Ricardo, the L5 from Italy). Chances are the judges will believe you are attempting to trick your opponent into acting at a time they were not intending, and generally the correct thing to do is ask that player when they were looking to perform their action.
It's certainly an opportunity to educate the player that it doesn't do anything and that it saves time to skip that step (due to having to be sufficiently shuffled afterwards anyway).
However, so long as they're not slowing down the game, why bother them? Many people do weird things because they feel like they're good luck, despite being 100% not relevant to the outcome of anything. I'm not about to hold that against somebody.
1). 3 minutes used to be allotted. That is no longer the case, as it leads to potential abuse. So long as you are doing things at a reasonable pace you are fine. If a judge feels like you are taking too long we would consider slow play or stalling, but there is no longer a hard number of "I have this much time for this".
2). The deck is either randomized at the time it is presented or it is not. What you do with it prior to presenting doesn't matter, so long as you spend the time to sufficiently randomize it before handing it over to your opponent to shuffle/cut. The following is included in the IPG under insufficient shuffling:
"A player should shuffle his or her deck using multiple methods. Patterned pile-shuffling alone is not sufficient. Any manipulation, weaving, or stacking prior to randomization is acceptable, as long as the deck is thoroughly shuffled afterwards."
@Maligance
Just read the report. Deck seems really sweet. Pretty sure I have everything for it minus the glittering wish. Definitely gonna have to give it a shot. I'll let you know how it goes when I get it built
I'll be slinging the deck around a bit on Friday at GP Detroit I think, though I'll be judging the other two days. Changes I'm looking at making at this point: drop Cinder Glade for another Mountain, swap Keranos for Sigarda, Host of Herons, swap Sphinx's Revelation for Counterflux (some play against Storm, the mirror, and Ad Nauseum would be nice).
I wrote an FNM report from a 29 player tournament last Friday, where I managed to go 5-0 with a version featuring Glittering Wish. Even had to play against UW Eldrazi, though I feel like I got pretty lucky there.
I kind of like Mimic Eldrazi and waste Oran, but was Oran-Rief, the Vastwood really over powered? I guess they were afraid of the new version being too good in Affinity or something? Don't really understand the watering down.
With all the colorless creatures (scions mostly). I can see where this would quickly get out of hand if it worked like the original Oran-Rief land.
Can this copy counter-based creatures like endless one and Hangarback?
Yes, but not with the effect you are looking for. Eldrazi Mimic would become a 0/0 and die to state-based actions. This is because the effect that is modifying his P/T is applied prior to the counters being included in the P/T of Hangarback Walker or Endless One. It goes as so:
Eldrazi Mimic's triggered ability triggers and goes on the stack, linked to Hangarback Walker
The triggered ability resolves, resulting in the following:
The layer for P/T changing effects is applied. Eldrazi Mimic looks at Hangarback Walker and sees a creature with 0/0 P/T and so becomes a creature with 0/0 P/T.
The layer for counters modifying P/T is applied. Hangarback Walker's P/T becomes 2/2 because of the two +1/+1 counters.
State-based actions are checked. Eldrazi Mimic is moved to the GY for having a 0 toughness.
For reference from the Comp Rules:
613.3a Layer 7a: Effects from characteristic-defining abilities that define power and/or toughness are applied. See rule 604.3.
613.3b Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied. Effects that refer to the base power and/or toughness of a creature apply in this layer.
613.3c Layer 7c: Effects that modify power and/or toughness (but don’t set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value) are applied.
613.3d Layer 7d: Power and/or toughness changes from counters are applied. See rule 121, “Counters.”
Alternatively, if the translation comes back to say that it refers to the base P/T of a creature, then Eldrazi Mimic would land in layer 7b.
A judge step in, please.
As judges we are generally advised to not explain how the rules might affect new cards. Rather we should be waiting for the release notes that should be out in ~2 weeks and should cover any weirdness such as this. Especially when we only have a rough translation of the card and not the english text.
I would point to some of the other posts that reference Gemini Engine and Serene Master as far as a more likely explanation of how this "should" work, however. WizardMN has a pretty spot on analysis of how layers work and why the above post seems incorrect.
Honestly, this Chicken Little "sky is falling" BS the pros are spewing reminds me of the American political scene. Everyone spewing ignorance and hatred at something they barely understand. Bloom is at 3% metashare, compared to 13% for Twin. The deck is highly inconsistent, and the most prolific pilot got banned for cheating. The deck does not actually win often before Turn 4, and the whole concept of "virtual" wins is extremely flawed.
But no, I'm convinced Summer Bloom will be banned, the deck will die almost instantly, and my want to play any format other than EDH will hit zero.
actually bloom is 5 percent of the meta and clearly tier 1 currently. It also doesn't play magic,can be wayyyy to fast and is difficult to hate, yet you blatantly disregard this.it's got alot of people wanting it gone for good "proven" reason. you invested in a broken deck don't complain when it goes.
Please. The arguments I've seen for its banning are nothing but an axe to grind layered in salt. Pros want the deck gone because they hate combo that they can't completely control. They want as little variance in tournaments as possible so they can keep earning their sponsorship.
Yeah, occasionally the deck goes Magical Christmasland on someone and Turn 2 Hive Mind's them. But everyone like you claiming that something like that is a common thing are completely mistaken about the deck.
I want Hive Mind banned. It does create some unfortunate situations. But Summer Bloom getting banned would be entirely ridiculous.
It isn't difficult to hate either. Hand control, counters, Blood Moon, Path, Terminate, double bolt, and in most cases Turn 3 removal works too because Turn 2 Titans aren't overly common. Hell, I've had to scoop to someone hitting my Amulet with Abrupt Decay on Turn 2.
The problem with the deck is that when you have a turn 2 titan and the opponents best play is terminate you have spent a titan (1 card) to get a Tolaria west (transmute for pact for another titan) and another land. Your opponent is down 2 cards with his 1 for 1 removal. It is worse with double bolt or Path now the opponent is down 3 cards. When tron is setting up tron you can still 1 for 1 all of his stuff and it is not insurmountable.
If you used Titan to grab Tolaria and a bounce land, you won't have enough to cast transmute until next turn, and you won't have enough to cast the second Titan unless you have a ton of bounce lands in hand, which seems unlikely because you dropped a Turn 2 Titan.
Turn 2 titan, I believe, requires Amulet of Vigor. Grab Simic Growth Chamber and Tolaria West, tap both for mana, then bounce the Tolaria West. Now you have UUG in order to transmute, and get your pact. If they kill your titan, you pact next turn to get another titan to play at that point (and can do the same thing again, or go for the Stronghold/Garrison approach).
You only can't do this with the lands you get from attacking, as you can only transmute as a sorcery.
I would also suggest using different deck boxes. If you play at a competitive event a box that holds two decks could lead to an issue if you were deck checked....
Xyx identifies the reason the rules are the way they are: we don't want anyone to feel like shuffling their opponent's deck is an accusation of wrongdoing.
There is no formal infraction for not doing so. As long as both players agree that the deck is random, we're fine. Feel free to remind someone that they can shuffle if they choose not to.
This sums up the discussion that was had very well.
Nobody is implying that the MTR is a set of guidelines. It covers all the basics of how a tournament should be run as well as how to handle a number of things (shuffling, bribery, gambling, unsporting conduct, communication). Many of these things ARE covered by either Tournament Error infractions or Unsporting Conduct infractions. There are some things that are now covered in the IPG however, this being one of them (the other big one is that you are required to present your sideboard, which nobody does as well).
As has been discussed, the rule states that you must shuffle your opponent's deck after they present. This is to get around, if the wording was "you may shuffle/cut your opponent's deck after they present", the fact that me choosing to do so could be a sign that I believe you are cheating. I am protected in this case because I can point to the rules as the reason I am shuffling your deck, when in fact it is much more likely because I'm not happy with the extent that you randomized your deck prior to presenting (yes, this is covered under TE-Insufficient Shuffling, but as a player I'm not that much of a stickler).
Every high level judge that I've seen discuss this topic (this goes up to L5s) have basically stated that there's no issue so long as the player given the option is content with the randomization of the presented deck. Some judges do require some manipulation, which a simple cut suffices, while others are fine with a tap on top to signify "this is acceptably random".
As has already been pointed out, this is not something that should be penalized, and depending on the wording of what a judge says it's unlikely to even end up as an Unsporting Conduct - Minor (for not following a direct instruction). If you do get penalized for this, I suggest you appeal.
There was a pretty extensive conversation about this 3 years ago on the judge forums. I will elaborate later when I'm on a computer rather than on my phone if requested.
The general idea is the rule is in place to make the option available clearly to both players. If the higher ups wanted it to be worthy of an infraction it would be.
I'm real curious where they are having modern PPTQs since the release of Aether Revolt, considering the last modern PPTQ season ended ~3-4 months before that set came out, and we won't have another modern season for a few more months. It's not even an option to run modern in this timeframe, which means either your claim is falsified to some extent OR there is a store that is breaking WPN policy and is in need of reporting.
The Sam Black/Mike Sigrist match in top 8 is a pretty good indicator of just how "consistent" this deck is. Sadly not many saw the match due to the lack of video coverage, but it was no contest simply due to the hands that Black ended up having. Mull to 5 and then keeping no creatures in game 1, and game 2 keeping 7 with 3 cyclers but no lands ended up with Sigrist running him over very quickly.
Yes, the deck can be very aggressive. No, the deck is not ban worthy.
Magic is a game of cards, not words.
However, so long as they're not slowing down the game, why bother them? Many people do weird things because they feel like they're good luck, despite being 100% not relevant to the outcome of anything. I'm not about to hold that against somebody.
1). 3 minutes used to be allotted. That is no longer the case, as it leads to potential abuse. So long as you are doing things at a reasonable pace you are fine. If a judge feels like you are taking too long we would consider slow play or stalling, but there is no longer a hard number of "I have this much time for this".
2). The deck is either randomized at the time it is presented or it is not. What you do with it prior to presenting doesn't matter, so long as you spend the time to sufficiently randomize it before handing it over to your opponent to shuffle/cut. The following is included in the IPG under insufficient shuffling:
"A player should shuffle his or her deck using multiple methods. Patterned pile-shuffling alone is not sufficient. Any manipulation, weaving, or stacking prior to randomization is acceptable, as long as the deck is thoroughly shuffled afterwards."
I'll be slinging the deck around a bit on Friday at GP Detroit I think, though I'll be judging the other two days. Changes I'm looking at making at this point: drop Cinder Glade for another Mountain, swap Keranos for Sigarda, Host of Herons, swap Sphinx's Revelation for Counterflux (some play against Storm, the mirror, and Ad Nauseum would be nice).
Hangarback Walker says hello....
As judges we are generally advised to not explain how the rules might affect new cards. Rather we should be waiting for the release notes that should be out in ~2 weeks and should cover any weirdness such as this. Especially when we only have a rough translation of the card and not the english text.
I would point to some of the other posts that reference Gemini Engine and Serene Master as far as a more likely explanation of how this "should" work, however. WizardMN has a pretty spot on analysis of how layers work and why the above post seems incorrect.
Turn 2 titan, I believe, requires Amulet of Vigor. Grab Simic Growth Chamber and Tolaria West, tap both for mana, then bounce the Tolaria West. Now you have UUG in order to transmute, and get your pact. If they kill your titan, you pact next turn to get another titan to play at that point (and can do the same thing again, or go for the Stronghold/Garrison approach).
You only can't do this with the lands you get from attacking, as you can only transmute as a sorcery.
This sums up the discussion that was had very well.
Nobody is implying that the MTR is a set of guidelines. It covers all the basics of how a tournament should be run as well as how to handle a number of things (shuffling, bribery, gambling, unsporting conduct, communication). Many of these things ARE covered by either Tournament Error infractions or Unsporting Conduct infractions. There are some things that are now covered in the IPG however, this being one of them (the other big one is that you are required to present your sideboard, which nobody does as well).
As has been discussed, the rule states that you must shuffle your opponent's deck after they present. This is to get around, if the wording was "you may shuffle/cut your opponent's deck after they present", the fact that me choosing to do so could be a sign that I believe you are cheating. I am protected in this case because I can point to the rules as the reason I am shuffling your deck, when in fact it is much more likely because I'm not happy with the extent that you randomized your deck prior to presenting (yes, this is covered under TE-Insufficient Shuffling, but as a player I'm not that much of a stickler).
Every high level judge that I've seen discuss this topic (this goes up to L5s) have basically stated that there's no issue so long as the player given the option is content with the randomization of the presented deck. Some judges do require some manipulation, which a simple cut suffices, while others are fine with a tap on top to signify "this is acceptably random".
As has already been pointed out, this is not something that should be penalized, and depending on the wording of what a judge says it's unlikely to even end up as an Unsporting Conduct - Minor (for not following a direct instruction). If you do get penalized for this, I suggest you appeal.
The thread I dug up referenced the same rule. It has not changed.
The general idea is the rule is in place to make the option available clearly to both players. If the higher ups wanted it to be worthy of an infraction it would be.