- Fiddlyr
- Registered User
-
Member for 8 years, 9 months, and 5 days
Last active Sat, Oct, 7 2017 12:43:27
- 0 Followers
- 482 Total Posts
- 161 Thanks
-
Oct 15, 2015Fiddlyr posted a message on The Magic Market Index for October 14, 2015these posts are greatPosted in: Articles
-
Oct 11, 2015Fiddlyr posted a message on The Magic Market Index for October 7, 2015Thanks for doing these.Posted in: Articles
-
Oct 7, 2015Fiddlyr posted a message on Archive Trap: The World of Zendikar Part IIGreat article. I have never paid the slightest attention to Magic lore, but this was a fun read.Posted in: Articles
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What he is saying is, part of the reason Mongrel was great back in the day is it had built in removal resistance to the commonly available removal of the time. The new card doesn't other than being resistant to Red removal dependent on the quantity and quality of your hand including Madness cards.
It should be pretty easy to see the hole in the logic chain that says a card can't be playable unless someone else is playing it. I'm sure the very intelligent people on the board can see it.
An argument that says, "I'm not going to invest time in a card no one else plays" is defensible and will be right the vast majority of the time, but is still going to make mistakes.
A lot of times, to get better results, you have to take some risks.
Link
Sin Prodder doesn't make you skip your draw step.
You'd really rather pay 2 life to deal 1 to a creature or player over being able to put a 2/3 with reach into play at instant speed? The only scenarios where that seems better are Blighted Agent and the 1 to the face, where there's a whole pile of scenarios the guy is better.
I'm sure I'll get in trouble for cherrypicking again, but here goes.
I'm not (and wasn't) trying to argue with your opinion about unbanning BBE, because you're entitled to it regardless of what my opinion is. So the rest of your post I won't argue with, though I completely disagree.
What I am willing to argue about is your use of the word "objective" above. The less comfortable people become in participating, the less objective "data" taken from the sample becomes.
I can completely disagree with you and be thankful you post. I hope you destroy my metagame post; tell me how wrong it is and most importantly why. I might learn something.
In my opinion the metagame will be:
1) Fast, linear decks, most of which kill with "small" creatures (Infect, Affinity, 8-whack, Zoo, Burn)
2) Decks that play AV
3) Creature combo decks
4) Decks that are worse than 1-3
Until proven otherwise, I will be playing #2 with a lot of creature and artifact removal. If someone can and would like to make a reasonable case for why the metagame will look different than the above, I would love to hear it, because it will save me a ton of losing between Friday and whenever I figure out what the real metagame is.
These are exactly the kind of "statistics" I was referring to above. Once we've self-selected the people that participate in the threads to those advocating for unbans, these numbers are even more meaningless than they were previously.
Unbanning BBE won't be the only alternative, powering up RG is one alternative, powering down U will also be one, again under the enormous presumption this scenario happens.
The point I was making but apparently didn't spell out carefully enough is Jund was generally accepted to be the best midrange deck pre-unbans. If Jund wasn't viable, then by extension none of the other non-Blue midrange decks would be viable either, including mardu/abzan/etc. Or does mardu have some special secret sauce that makes it better when the opponent resolves a draw 3? Other non-blue midrange decks becoming viable would be an outstanding development. If that happens, the unbans will be a big success.
What evidence or line of reasoning do we have that will happen? We don't have any evidence it won't, but it is reasonable to think blue midrange\control decks are a lot stronger.
This has been a tough day for me communicating apparently. Paraphrasing what Wizards said, they said the majority of pros didn't figure out Eldrazi was broken right away. Their evidence is the number of pros that played an Eldrazi deck in the field, under the presumption that if they figured out it was amazing, they'd have played it. The number in the Top 32, or the amount it was played AFTER the pro tour literally has nothing to do with what they said.
Wizards:
This thread is almost entirely composed of unban mania which has or would wreak havoc on Modern and will continue to hurt the format until it is cut back. Wizards specifically mentioned BBE not being in the format as a contributing factor to the AV unban and yet 1/3? of the posts so far range from speculation about to begging for the unbanning of BBE.
It is difficult to understand how begging for unbans at this stage of the new format's development is any more appropriate than identifying what seems to be the competitive archetypes and speculating about rebans based on the impact of the latest changes.
But, hey, you're the boss. Just please don't ever quote percentages or refer to apparent community consensus in any posts based on feedback from this community when this is actually the "beg for unbans" thread, not the "banlist discussion" thread.
Lastly, I'm not worried about the unbans. I like playing Blue and who doesn't like drawing three. I'll happily play whatever the format is at any given time unless it becomes completely combo driven.
Goyf, Abrupt Decay and spending your Delve ammo on Murderous Cut
vs
Terminate, Kolaghan's Command, Lightning Bolt and Delve ammo for threats basically right?
We'll see, I look forward to seeing all the new competitively viable decks that are not either:
1) Linear and very fast
2) Playing Ancestral Visions
or
3) Creature combos
In the meantime I'll be drawing 3 until its rebanned.
You need to read the article more carefully. What they said was, relatively few pro players chose to play Eldrazi at the pro tour, which is a reasonable indication they didn't identify the deck beforehand as too strong or they would have played it.