You should probably go to kanister's channel on twitch, then see if he uploaded it or another video there. Probably he has or will do so.
Whoever knows more about the deck's power level, is free to speak.
I believe it is at least a super playable deck, which can reach tier 2 status.
ps: it is able to kill on turn 3, albeit not often enough.
- Registered User
Member for 3 years, 8 months, and 26 days
Last active Fri, Feb, 15 2019 16:53:14
- 1 Follower
- 4,723 Total Posts
- 1747 Thanks
Feb 15, 2019Kanister just built this (and 5-0'd also): https://twitter.com/kanister_mtg/status/1096387043104567296Posted in: Modern
It's a KCI-style deck, but with Grinding Station, Semblance Anvil as win cons, and Mox Opal, Ancient Stirrings as engines of the deck.
I saw some of his stream, and I think the deck is legit! Not that busted as KCI, but super playable. Goes on to show how strong are the last 2 cards in an artifact deck. Though, it does not abuse the rules as much as KCI die, so it is fine in that aspect also. All in all, it could be a huge success if we had a similar to KCI deck, without it being oppressive.
Also, Sai, Master Thopterist is an extremely powerful addition to those kind of decks. It's a 1/4 that can't be bolted and can generate too many 1/1 flier tokens that draw cards.
All of this, also means that if they banned Scrap Trawler, the deck would probably need extra bans. Banning KCi seems to be a fine decision from Wizards part. Hats off to them!
Feb 15, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from JonnotheMackem2 »Quote from gkourou »Marvel was too much for Standard, sure. But I didn't know it was "disrupting normal play". It was unfun for sure, and that's because it was banned probably.
It depends on what normal play means in the context of the format. Us modern players are used to a T4 win, but wizards and the standard community probably felt it was too quick and consistent for the format.
I agree. This, though, means that turn 4 kills in standard means disruption of normal play. I thought disruption of normal play was equivalent of timing/logistic issues. This could signify that the disruption of normal play is a broader ban criterion. In other words, it could be an umbrella that hides "unfun to play against", "timing" issues, "too many clicks" issues, "pubic outcry" issues, and/or other issues we still have not predicted, some of which are highly subjective criteria, as Wizards just said.
Feb 14, 2019So, nexus of fate banned in bo1 standard. What does have to add here, in the discussion, concerning Modern? Let's quote the second part of the text that is more relevant to Modern.Posted in: Modern
2. Is the card disrupting normal play?
This is, admittedly, a rather subjective criterion and is one of the reasons why we've thought long and hard about how we wanted to address Nexus of Fate. This isn't the first time we've taken into consideration the disruption of normal play when it came to determining whether a card warranted a ban: the Eggs deck is probably the most prolific example of this, but we've also seen it play a factor in the more recent bannings of Aetherworks Marvel and Krark-Clan Ironworks. As anyone who's been looped by a Nexus of Fate can attest, the card can easily and significantly disrupt normal play.
The tricky thing with this situation is what makes Nexus of Fate frustrating—a combination of its design and how technology handles the ability to repeat actions. You typically don't run into the same situations in tabletop because our rules do allow for certain shortcuts. When looping a sequence in tabletop, if both players mutually understand what's going on, it's okay to fast forward until the loop is broken—either because the game is won, or the player looping has reached their desired board state. Worst case scenario, players in competitive play can also call over a Judge to keep a stalled game moving. The same cannot be said for digital environments where you must explicitly identify each game choice every time you wish to make it. There's no calling over the games rules engine to explain the situation so you can skip ahead, or to issue a ruling on whether the actions taken could be considered stalling or slow play (at least not yet!). Part of the challenge with these kinds of loops is that even if we manage to win the digital arms race to force a game concede when game states remain unchanged, they could still be disruptive to what we consider normal play. Using Nexus of Fate as an example, win conditions sometimes take a half hour or more to finish, with the majority or all of that time being non-interactive. This said, there are also cases where Nexus sees play and resolves games in a non-disruptive fashion, which is why banning it has been debated for so long.
This means that the "logistic reason" criterion, we mostly talked about, is a subjective criterion. When a deck is "disrupting normal play", this deck is also unfun to play against. This means that Eggs and KCI (and marvel, for that case) were banned, because they were unfun as decks to play against. This means something. When a deck that is "disrupting normal play" is also a powerful deck, thus when the player base is expressing an outcry about it, it might be banned in the future again.
This, though, requires this "unfun" deck is also powerful. For example, Lantern Control, the 4C Whir deck, are not strong enough to meet both criteria(the disruption of normal play and the tier 1 status).
I remember that I have a debate with @KTK over this 1 or 2 years ago. I was saying that the "unfun to play against" is not a criterion. This quote could mean that it could be. Now, I am not certain, it's just a legitimate thing that's been going through my head for years, and it's a nice subject to break this "FREE TWIN OMG" vicious circle.
In the case someone says that the "disruption of normal play" is the criterion and the "unfun to play against" clause is just the symptom of the first, which was also @KTK's answer back then, (and I took it), I have to say that Aetherworks Marvel is also being quoted in their text. Marvel did not cause logistical reasons, did not take aeons to play against. It was just unfun to play against, because it was causing "turn 4 scoop it up" moments.
Feb 14, 2019I have to agree with @k0no. @cfpm, those negative comments, time and time again, do nothing to help. Twin did not get banned, because it was obnoxious to play against. It got banned, because it was winning too much. And this is enough to keep it froever banned. The comment those two people made during a discussion with professor were, just, that. Comments and discussion. Not the reasons it got banned.Posted in: Modern
Trying to convince people that Twin got banned, because some thought it was obnoxious to play against(which is not the truth) is wrong and it only promotes a specific agenda. Twin was winning too much, thus it got banned.
Modern is great, the KCI banning helped Modern diversity a lot, new printings in every set help Modern a lot also. There is that. No need to unban anything, besides SFM and I am certain nothing will get unbanned during 2019, except (maybe) for the mighty Kor.
Feb 14, 2019Posted in: Modern
Sounds like they don't want to have to worry about interacting with the opponent... which is Battlecruiser Magic.Quote from Ym1r »
No, they said they don't want to tap out on T3 just to LOSE on the next turn. There is a huge difference between meaningful repercussions and the game just ending
They specifically say they want to tap out and play their thing without the fear of meaningful repercussions. Also Nexus was a rare PD design mistake that has had numerous ban murmurs already.
I really don't want to get into this again. Or how it is considerably easier to interact with than nearly every other obnoxious thing in Modern, especially compared to the number of things that require narrow and specific hate cards (though there were, and are, numerous additional narrow and specific hate cards here too).
The long story short version is they want Timmy's to be able to play their big dumb spells and not be punished. That's why countermagic is garbage (3cmc or super narrow) and every creature has some ridiculous ETB (or better yet, death triggers or on cast triggers) to make sure you get something, even if it gets removed. Twin goes against this philosophy because you have to hold your proactive spells back in favor of interaction, which is the opposite of Battlecruiser Magic.
Is Tron baatlecruise magic? Is Ad Nauseam, Storm, GDS, Burn, UW control, Jeskai Control, Scapeshift, Amulet Titan, 4c Whir/Lantern, all tier 1 or tier 2 decks, battlecruise magic? No, they are not.
Modern is a format you should play if you don't like battlecruise magic. Heck, even on Standard UW Control with Teferi is a Tier 1 strategy and the current Tier 0 deck that is almost certain to be banned is UW Taking Turns. Nexus of fate was a mistake, sure, but that's what most combos are. Splinter Twin also was a mistake back in the days, one that they did not intended to print. Felidar Guardian also. Most combo decks are mistakes. That does not mean anything.
Some times, I wonder, what would people call Modern if we were to watch Bant Company vs Abzan Company vs Jund vs Abzan vs Eldrazi mirrors all day long...
Feb 13, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from Teysa_Karlov »Quote from idSurge »"Have you ever been fatesealed to death? Its a horrible experience."
Those where the words over and over and over, from pro's and commentators and writers. Its seriously not worth the debate. The ban list is not based on just power, or just tournament run time, but on past fears, that some people refuse to critically think about.
"I can't tap out on turn 3 because of Splinter Twin."
I thought we were talking about unfounded fears, not your favorite decks actual gameplan.
Would you like me to list all the unfounded fears? Because I'm sure most people here don't. Are you purposely provoking a response and trolling?
My comment actually directly references a recent WOTC interview from The Professor, in which WOTC people repeat this BS line again: https://youtu.be/TjCDBiybnro?t=2184
Thanks for this. Didn't know that. Further reassurance that Splinter Twin is never getting unbanned. That's nice to know.
Feb 13, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from Lord Seth »It's somewhat of a tangent, but it's amusing to look back at how people in the past would warn that a Jace unban couldn't happen because he'd be slammed into every Blue deck, and non-Blue fair decks couldn't compete... which this Top 8 seems to be a rebuttal against.
Most of the doomsaying about cards on the banned list is laughably wrong or misguided.
Don't be so hasty to only apply two extremes into those cards, @cfp. There are cards that would destroy modern for sure(Eye of ugin, treasure cruise, etc) and there are cards that would not break the meta, but that does not mean those cards should be unbanned(more specifically, we could see Wizards believing those cards will probably will not be unbanned, at least during the next months/years, like (Splinter Twin, Punishing Fire, Birthing Pod).
Most of those cards could never be legal, even if some of them would not break Modern, whilst some others would have no upside at all.
Stoneforge Mystic being legal is only a matter of time though. Worst case scenario, they will re-evaluate control/midrange @ 2019's eot and judge that no tier 1 deck could abuse the card.
Feb 11, 2019Sorry for the double post! I asked Corbin Hosler(me and a couple of friends) to publish all Day 2 decklists, and he did deliver!Posted in: Modern
Just freaking WOW! https://www.channelfireball.com/grand-prix-toronto-day-2-deck-lists/
PS: Twitter is a strong tool! Just 3 or 4 of us can ask for anything, and gentle people like Corbin do deliver! I kindly ask from you to regularly tweet Wizards to publish all Day 2 decklists from now on!
Here is the tweet as well: https://twitter.com/Chosler88/status/1094890812633161728
Feb 11, 2019Modern is a format in which you can currently metagame for, and get rewarded with it. I mean, 1 out of 4 players are playing either Burn or Izzet Phoenix. Just aim to with those 2, and you are on a good path already. Surgical Extraction is a great card for the metagame, Rending Volley/Flame Slash are great cards, most lifegain spells are.Posted in: Modern
Sure, you are going to play the deck you like, but that's not a bad thing, but a good thing instead!
Feb 10, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from Mtgthewary »Needs a lot more time and some surgicals more will solve this problem easy
It's as much of a problem, as GDS was. People like the deck, because it seems to do all the "fun stuff" as Eli Kassis said in the last GP.
It can be really OK, with more Jund/GDS and other interactive decks. Those decks can really prey on it. Also, the Whir deck just destroys it.
Chatting with MagicFest Toronto Winner Michael Rapp:
Feb 10, 2019Posted in: ModernQuote from idSurge »How many GPs is it now with a Phoenix in top 8?
I don't know that it matters though. The less of a spotlight due to coverage, I feel it will take a lot more to get public opinion moving against a deck.
2 Gp's. One triple top 8(plus a win), the second one double top 8(12% day 2 meta), no win. Also, 2 slightly different approaches of the same deck(the one with Pteramander, the other with Pyromancer Ascension, the one with Sleight of hand, the other one with Opt)
Modern challenge suggests that UR Phoenix is going down in popularity.
Feb 10, 2019GDS is probably also going to win the event. Up a game, but we will see.Posted in: Modern
I still think UR Phoenix has real weaknesses and bad matchups to be a ban target.
Edit: GDS wins GP Toronto!
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.