Lies. That event was extremely entertaining in all the wrong and unintended ways. Wish I could find a clip that included Twitch chat, the audio issues, the video issues, and didn't miss a second of the action.
So much this. The whole experience was great, even if for completely different reasons than WotC intended. I thoroughly enjoyed the sheer cringe and unintentional humour. I'll never forget the video cord getting disconnected in the middle of the whole thing, or the stuttering audio after the video came back.
It might be easy to miss just now much easier the Tron matchup has gotten for UW control over the last year. One change that has not been mentioned is that since linear aggro decks are not as concentrated in the meta, UW control has been allowed to run less cards like Wall of Omens, Kitchen Finks and restoration angel - cards that are bad in the Tron matchup yet were necessary to run MD. Since there is less linear aggro, different answers were able to see maindeck play such as Spreading Seas.
Spreading Seas might be good against Tron, but if you try to characterize them as primarily there for tron, I think you're oversimplifying. There are a ton of lands to target, and it is no small thing that it is cantripping removal against creature lands (which are immune to Supreme Verdict, obv).
Those are cards specifically geared towards beating Tron decks, it just happens that sometimes Sea's is okay against Shadow decks.
I think this isn't really an accurate depiction of the UW control deck's evolution. While UW control has always ran a set of GQ/Tec (or mix) for big mana decks like Tron, the spreading seas appearing in many maindecks can be traced to Bant Eldrazi. Bant Eldrazi was a really hard matchup prior to including Spreading Seas because of Cavern of Souls+ TKS takes your verdict. If you study the successful UW control decks and compare them to the meta, I think it should be fairly evident that Spreading Seas came about as an answer to Bant Eldrazi, and has been adopted (widely, but not universally) for it's wide application and minor deckbuilding cost. There are many decks that can be delayed much more effectively with Spreading Seas than a card like Remand. Even burn can be vulnerable to spreading seas.
Single most reasonable comment on what unbanning SFM would mean ......We don't know (gasps and screams fill the forum)
It's rather pedantic to note that the exact effect of SFM entering the format is unknown. Obviously, we can only playtest (as many have done) and theorize. I have never seen a report from an individual who, upon playtesting SFM, has concerns that the card itself is problematic insofar as the lines of play are concerned. Without exception, every single objection to SFM from individuals who test it have been reserved for how other decks would respond to SFM's presence - a topic with even more uncertainty than the direct effect SFM might have.
Contrast this with the admitted little-to-nothing WotC does for testing in modern, and you might see why individuals feel they have a better grasp on the issue than those purporting to manage the format.
If you hold everything up to the standard of "we must be 100% certain of the outcome before we unban" then nothing will ever fulfill that criteria. That is the same as saying nothing should ever be unbanned, a position with little support.
It has been discussed ad nauseam why SFM is theoretically safe, and all testing data I've ever seen has confirmed that. According to the testing data, SFM is broadly on the same level as cards seeing play in the tier 1 decks that might consider running SFM (meaning little or no net gain for tier 1 decks), with some more granular benefits and drawbacks when you go into the details. Where SFM really offers more to the metagame is when you consider the cards it would replace in tier 2-3+ strategies.
Interesting that modern doesn't get a mention at all. Kinda annoying, really.
I think it's pretty entitled to suddenly expect a mention every announcement now.
And I think it's condescending to start name-calling. MTGAARON tweeted that he would address Uxx decks directly "in 6 weeks" march 15, and I didn't find his "address directly" satisfying at all given how brief it was.
My point about knightfall is that all decks have a learning curve and no modern deck is "easy" to pilot. Even burn has to consider things like tempo and answers and can't just play out it's hand.
DS decks have a learning curve, sure. But it's not really any different from other modern decks in that regard. Twin had it's learning curve, as does Knightfall.
Against burn it might have been correct to jam the combo turn 4, but they played Rending Volley after the SB which would blow you out. Twin was a deck that used the threat of a turn 4 combo to force the game's tempo to slow down more than it actually tried to combo on that turn.
I hope they don't ban DS, but I don't really think it is a better viewing experience than Twin. I liked the twin deck and the tempo-based play patterns (playing against, watching it on stream). *shrug*
If you're saying that Bxx shadow is more skill intensive than URx Twin, I'm not sure I agree. Certainly I wouldn't agree that there is a wide gap there. I found URx twin to be a moderately skill-intensive deck to play against - and there were lots of opportunity for errors from URx twin pilots and opponents alike.
I'm not sure why people think that Bxx shadow are hard decks to pilot. I watch pros mess up playing Knightfall all the time, and that deck isn't particularly hard to pilot either.
I don't understand how people can be optimistic about unbans for modern at this point. The fact that standard is a dumpster fire (how is this different from usual?) does not get them a pass.
Given the history of bannings and refusals to unban, I doubt Death's Shadow makes it past the next update unless is sees a significant drop-off. It would be stupid and warrantless, but consistent with their previous actions and statements.
It seems that WotC figured that since they had frustrated their Standard players to max with repeated failings, why not also frustrate the modern players by omission. After multiple statements describing future consideration towards UW (articles, twitter), we don't even get a "we're still looking at data" as an olive branch.
If WotC had banned something here, that would have been a huge mistake and completely unwarranted. I don't think they should get credit for avoiding that obvious failure - but the fact that people want to give them credit for not making a stupid mistake is fairly indicative of player confidence.
Points for not failing more? I don't think so.
edit: Note that they use the truly awful league data for stuff. That alone is a true indictment of this analytical abilities. Non-tournament structure events are highly problematic without including various tiebreaking metrics (which are functions of opponent's scores). It is very problematic to weigh a 5-0 deck that got there by beating all 0-xs along the way the same as a 5-0 deck that got there by beating all x-0s.
JW, with Jeskai doing very well in the standings in events this weekend (especially at the Open but to a lesser extent at the Classic), where are the All Control Decks Matter people?
It's interesting to look at all the different decklists. One had kiki combo, another had 4 snap + 2 torrential gearhulk. Another had 4 geist of saint trafts while another similar list choose spell queller instead.
I think this supports the same position I've had for a long time (meta's hostility to control still waxes and wanes, of course): Control decks in modern are difficult to build and master, but a variety of builds have a skill ceiling that are high enough to permit skilled pilots to take them to the top of a large event. I don't find that underlying concept problematic since decks (obviously) have different skill ceilings and skill floors.
There is a large pool of cards that work for UW/Esper/Jeskai control decks, which gain and lose value with the shifting meta. No coincidence that Kiki showed up at place 9 in an event where Fatal Push was being chosen over Lightning Bolt in many decks.
Hey guys. I'm not a modern player but I follow entusiastically the format. I'd like to ask what do you think about unbanning cards that belong to non-played (or lightly played deck) in order to make a shake-up of the format.
I'm referring to powerful cards such as Stoneforge, Bloodbraid elf, Deathrite and punishing fire (maybe even Jitte). These are fair cards for midrange/tempo strategies, which aren't oppressive actually. Would they destroy the format?
Pretty sure the only content you'll find here outside of opinions on those exact topics is metagame analysis. If you want to see what people think about that, why not read back a few pages rather than ask people to produce more pages on those topics?
The only thing that I might be concerned is not given enough weight in the article, ashtonkutcher, is that SFM is seeing a resurgence in legacy with the banning of Top. That being the case, WotC's desire to have decks in modern be different from decks in legacy might overwhelm all the other considerations.
Bitterblossom and Valakut didn't have that issue since they see zero legacy play, so AV is the best comparison. I guess it just comes down to whether they view SFM without jitte as less or equal threat as AV without bloodbraid/shardless. You touch on this in the article, but I wonder if SFM's wider potential application makes it a different level of threat.
We'll see shortly. I hope you're right - I'd love to play the card (I've been testing builds with it). I just don't know how WotC will react to SFM's resurgence in Legacy.
Spreading Seas might be good against Tron, but if you try to characterize them as primarily there for tron, I think you're oversimplifying. There are a ton of lands to target, and it is no small thing that it is cantripping removal against creature lands (which are immune to Supreme Verdict, obv).
Contrast this with the admitted little-to-nothing WotC does for testing in modern, and you might see why individuals feel they have a better grasp on the issue than those purporting to manage the format.
If you hold everything up to the standard of "we must be 100% certain of the outcome before we unban" then nothing will ever fulfill that criteria. That is the same as saying nothing should ever be unbanned, a position with little support.
It has been discussed ad nauseam why SFM is theoretically safe, and all testing data I've ever seen has confirmed that. According to the testing data, SFM is broadly on the same level as cards seeing play in the tier 1 decks that might consider running SFM (meaning little or no net gain for tier 1 decks), with some more granular benefits and drawbacks when you go into the details. Where SFM really offers more to the metagame is when you consider the cards it would replace in tier 2-3+ strategies.
DS decks have a learning curve, sure. But it's not really any different from other modern decks in that regard. Twin had it's learning curve, as does Knightfall.
Against burn it might have been correct to jam the combo turn 4, but they played Rending Volley after the SB which would blow you out. Twin was a deck that used the threat of a turn 4 combo to force the game's tempo to slow down more than it actually tried to combo on that turn.
I hope they don't ban DS, but I don't really think it is a better viewing experience than Twin. I liked the twin deck and the tempo-based play patterns (playing against, watching it on stream). *shrug*
I'm not sure why people think that Bxx shadow are hard decks to pilot. I watch pros mess up playing Knightfall all the time, and that deck isn't particularly hard to pilot either.
Twin was banned on some borderline dominance numbers and desire to not see consecutive modern PTs won by the same deck.
Given the history of bannings and refusals to unban, I doubt Death's Shadow makes it past the next update unless is sees a significant drop-off. It would be stupid and warrantless, but consistent with their previous actions and statements.
If WotC had banned something here, that would have been a huge mistake and completely unwarranted. I don't think they should get credit for avoiding that obvious failure - but the fact that people want to give them credit for not making a stupid mistake is fairly indicative of player confidence.
Points for not failing more? I don't think so.
edit: Note that they use the truly awful league data for stuff. That alone is a true indictment of this analytical abilities. Non-tournament structure events are highly problematic without including various tiebreaking metrics (which are functions of opponent's scores). It is very problematic to weigh a 5-0 deck that got there by beating all 0-xs along the way the same as a 5-0 deck that got there by beating all x-0s.
<----- This guy is biased.
I think this supports the same position I've had for a long time (meta's hostility to control still waxes and wanes, of course): Control decks in modern are difficult to build and master, but a variety of builds have a skill ceiling that are high enough to permit skilled pilots to take them to the top of a large event. I don't find that underlying concept problematic since decks (obviously) have different skill ceilings and skill floors.
There is a large pool of cards that work for UW/Esper/Jeskai control decks, which gain and lose value with the shifting meta. No coincidence that Kiki showed up at place 9 in an event where Fatal Push was being chosen over Lightning Bolt in many decks.
Pretty sure the only content you'll find here outside of opinions on those exact topics is metagame analysis. If you want to see what people think about that, why not read back a few pages rather than ask people to produce more pages on those topics?
Bitterblossom and Valakut didn't have that issue since they see zero legacy play, so AV is the best comparison. I guess it just comes down to whether they view SFM without jitte as less or equal threat as AV without bloodbraid/shardless. You touch on this in the article, but I wonder if SFM's wider potential application makes it a different level of threat.
We'll see shortly. I hope you're right - I'd love to play the card (I've been testing builds with it). I just don't know how WotC will react to SFM's resurgence in Legacy.
That being said, I very much enjoyed the article!