Twin unban talk returns! Maybe one day we'll see the vocal Twin defenders stop the crusade, but I have my doubts. The goal posts keep shifting whenever a previous goal post is attained, so I don't think anything short of the actual Twin unban itself is going to satisfy Twin proponents. First they wanted a viable blue deck in Modern's top-tier. GDS and Jeskai came around but the playstyle was allegedly wrong, the decks (to paraphrase) "weren't viable enough," they weren't "truly" top-tier, etc. Then they wanted a viable controlling deck in Modern's top-tier. UW Control is clearly that but now some Twin players are refocusing on wanting a viable UR deck (and GDS/Jeskai still don't cut it). Then it was wanting a viable police deck in Modern that slowed down the rest of the format. Humans meets that definition, but again, some Twin defenders are unhappy that it's not the specific blue tempo/combo deck that they want. This returns me to the theory, which Teysa K stated in the last few months, about how the Twin defenders won't ever be satisfied until they can blue UR tempo/combo police decks with 4 cmc enchantments and two-card combos. I.e. until the card is unbanned. I agree that anyone who is STILL arguing about Twin when it's 2.5-3 years later is probably never going to be satisfied until the card is unbanned. I just never see the Twin defenders trying new approaches to that unbanning argument. Instead, they default to the tired arguments they have continued to try for 2.5-3 years.
There are so many more interesting Modern topics. Why not discuss those instead of regressing to the mean of Twin defense talk, especially when it's the same 2-3 people always swinging the thread back in that direction? We can talk about win-rates, metagame shares, Play Design's impact on Guilds, other unbans like GSZ, Arena and MTGO considerations, etc. I think many people even prefer this new direction of discussing countermagic options, because it's at least something new and interesting that might overlap with current Play Design conversations and thinking.
As GK said earlier, there will be no strong 2 CMC counterspells while Teferi exists in Standard. The good news is that they might exist post-Teferi. See Opt being deliberately excluded from sets where Jeskai Ascendancy was Standard-legal, and see Opt returning after that card was gone. Given that R&D had a serious Counterspell conversation, I expect we'll see it in the next few years much like we saw Opt after a similar serious conversation.
- GotSK
- Registered User
-
Member for 8 years, 7 months, and 21 days
Last active Sat, May, 4 2019 21:16:20
- 0 Followers
- 61 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
Sep 14, 2018ktkenshinx posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)Posted in: Modern Archives
-
2
Darkx87 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from Wraithpk »
Again, this is not about any blue deck needing help (although let's be honest, Simic does). This is not about making them better. It's about WotC not printing anything playable in that design space. Think of all the playable removal spells they've printed recently. Push, Cast Down, Trophy, Abrade, Collective Brutality, Blessed Alliance, K Command, Spatial Contortion. I can't even count all the playable creatures they've printed recently. We get a playable Planeswalker like every other set. But only three counters that see play in the past 10 years. I know I keep bringing up the same example, but is Countersquall a game-breaking upgrade over Negate for UBx decks? No, it's really not. It has a small bonus in exchange for being harder to cast. Why can't we get similar things in other color combinations? Again, it's not about making blue control of any color combination better, it's just about having different options. Do I want to go base UW for the negate variant that gains me 2 life, or UR for the negate variant that shocks a creature, or UB for the negate variant that shocks my opponent, and so on. What about Essence Scatter? Essence Scatter is completely unplayable in Modern, but maybe playing around with color requirements in the casting costs for small bonuses could produce something with some application in Modern. It just feels like they're not even trying to make interesting counters that are on a fine power level anymore. They only play around in the 3 cmc counter area, and even though this new one is probably the best Cancel variant they've ever printed, it will see 0 play because a 3 cmc counter is too expensive in Modern unless it's doing something way more powerful than WotC would probably ever print into Standard.
All of that was just, I wish I had more variation because it's fun and interesting. Do the things your advocating for provide improvements to those decks? Sure, marginal ones. It doesn't get to the crux of the issue, which is: Are the things you're asking for going to make whatever Ux variant you want to play a truly competitive deck?
Maybe you're fine with certain Ux variants not being at the top tables, but something that's viable at the LGS, which is fine. I think, however, based on the tone of many people on here, that most people want more than just UW to be a viable competitor at competition level magic. Thus, my point in citing to UW Control's results is that those results demonstrate that counter magic, as the epitome of counter magic deck building, is currently healthy and performing very well at the competitive level. I understand people don't all want to play UW and want UB, UR, etc. BUT, once again, is another variation on the counterspells already available going to improve those Ux decks and make them competitive? And, once again, looking at the results from UW, packing the same counterspells that are all, every single one, available to every other Ux build, the answer has to be "No".
I don't disagree that having different counterspells that incorporate elements of other parts of the color pie (Countersquall damaging opponent, your example of UR damaging a creature, etc.) would be fun and something that Wizards can do. However, those things aren't going to change the state of Modern, imo, and all of a sudden propel other Ux decks to the forefront of the Meta. They are fun, unique cards that make your Ux variant more interesting for you, which is great, for you. They are also marginal upgrades that will, admittedly, likely help those decks perform marginally better.
In the current state of modern thread, however, that special, gold star feeling of having a new toy to play with that's a very marginal improvement doesn't change the state of modern. It doesn't change the meta or the way other decks interact or the way other decks are built, because it's not the tool, weapon, finisher, whatever that those Ux decks need to actually be competitive and impact Modern. So, let's get real and differentiate the wishful thinking about new counterspell magic from the actual needs of Modern to make specific archetypes viable competitors. -
2
Darkx87 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from AUTUMNTWILIGHT »Sure UW or UWx is doing fine these days...but is UW Control the only deck that is blue that is allowed to be good in Modern? UR is basically Storm combo which is just okay these days (and is unlikely to ever get better WOTC hates it), UG is infect occasionally sneaking through, and UB basically doesn't exist in Modern. So sure its good to be UW Control but try anything else in Blue and its not so grand.
Is that resolved by adding another Ux counterspell to the mix though? Likely not. UW control has started performing well because it has U counterspells and NOW additional tools and finishers in the U, W, and UW spectrum to win games.
All these Ux variants have access to the same counter magic as UW control, so why are they not performing at the same level as UW control? If the primary variable that's different is the non-counter magic tools and finishers, why would you then ask for a different/new counter magic spell to your Ux variant? -
3
BlueTronFTW posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)Yeah, because at this point this thread has turned into an "unban twin" argument without actually saying twin.Posted in: Modern Archives
The format has control, it has tempo, it has midrange, it had disruptive aggro. It has a big pile of stuff. But a few people here want ONE deck to exist at the top, and will hate on modern until that ONE deck is up top again. It's just annoying. When we got grixis shadow, it wasn't blue enough. Now miracles is a thing, but it isn't tempo enough. It's clear, particularly for cfusionpm, that the premise is just a thinly veiled claim that some won't be happy until twin or a close analogue exist. -
4
Darkx87 posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 20/08/2018)I too like interacting with the stack and disrupting opponents' strategies, etc., but I don't see how another countermagic card is going to help you achieve your goals.Posted in: Modern Archives
The low cost, hard counters available in the other eternal formats are a necessity to stop the much faster strategies available in those formats. Modern is a T4 format, right? So having a 0, 1, 2 CMC hard counter to everything isn't required to be competitive. The recent data pulled together by other members, within this thread, shows that the current UW build is near 50/50 across the entire, currently prevailing meta.
None, literally 0, of the counterspells in that deck require anything but U mana sources. Thus, they could all be played in a UR shell as well. You can argue about the requirements of colored sources being different in the decks and so forth. However, I think the ultimate conclusion is not that UR tempo needs better counters, as advocated for in this thread, but it just needs better utility and threat cards.
The cards that have set UW apart and made it competitive again, as others have noted, include Terminus, Jace, Teferi, and Search. Obviously, part of the UW package is also Snapcaster and Colonnade. Of those, UR can play Jace, Search, and Snapcaster, leaving only Terminus, Teferi, and Colonnade out of the common cards between the UW and UR decks.
Ultimately, the conclusion is either, UR tempo needs better utility / threat cards, like those found in the current UW build or folks need to stop trying to jam the cards they want to be good in UR tempo and actually use cards that are good. The argument that UR is garbage because of a lack counter magic is incorrect. -
2
tronix posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 02/07/2018)its true that the deck choice doesnt necessarily have any bearing on the skill of the pilot, but the reality of it is that some decks are just easier to play. different decks or archetypes will have qualities that draw on different skill sets, but even among those there will always be decks that rate lower. a deck looking to spike their opponent out of the game with powerful hate cards just isnt asking much of the player when it shows up in their hand, and much of the 'skill' comes into play when the deck fumbles or encounters resistance.Posted in: Modern Archives
what i think people have trouble coming to terms with is that the skill required (including the floor and ceiling) to play whatever deck doesnt determine how good that deck actually is at any given point. and it shouldnt if people want or expect any level of diversity at the competitive level of play.
there is also rampant overestimation/underestimation of how difficult certain decks are to pilot, usually when individuals assess the decks they play versus what decks other people play. for instance draw-go control players like to believe they are playing 4D underwater chess while overlooking that playing primarily at instant speed makes decisions easier, not harder.
i think if kt's data shows anything its that matchups in modern, across most of the board, are closer than people make them out to be given the available card pool and selection of 'good' cards. good players win quite a bit more than bad players. if you dont think this is the case then you are doing yourself an injustice by not properly looking for ways to better your play. -
1
xxhellfirexx3 posted a message on Current Modern Banlist Discussion (4/4/2016 - Eye of Ugin banned, Ancestral Vision/Sword of the Meek unbanned)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from SteelBloodNinja »Quote from ktkenshinx »Quote from SteelBloodNinja »
Most of your reply is spot on. But the above enlarged and boldened words are not quite what I think the original post from whoever was asking for. 50/50 OR BETTER with very few 30/70 match ups is very different than a 50/50 (or close to it) deck. If your 1 bad match up doesn't show, then it is literally as Stoddard described in that the deck's worst match up is the mirror. I agree with you on that. But a range of 45/55 to 55/45 isn't the same, which is what you were responding to. I mean, BBE/DRS jund still had to deal with tron back in those days which would have still been a bad match up albeit not as bad but that didn't stop it b/c it wasn't a 50/50 deck. Using that to say that 50/50 decks are bad for the format is like saying red hot peppers have been too hot in the past and orange is close to red and past experiences over a relatively short time span are indicative of future results therefore orange will also be too hot as a matter of theory.
You're mincing words rather than just asking for a clarification. I'm not defining a 50-50 deck as a deck that has literally nothing but 50-50 flat matchups. 50-50 decks have some 45-55 matchiups and PLENTY of 70-30 matchups. I'm sure you've seen a Tier 1 50-50 deck like BGx rip Tier 3 and even Tier 2 decks to pieces. There's never been a deck that was just 50-50 against its worst matchups and its best. Those decks are always 50-50 against most decks, with a few worse matchups and many better ones.
That said, I'm not sure what point you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say a "true" 50-50 deck is okay for Modern, i.e. one that is 50-50 against all of its best and all of its worst matchups? I don't think such a deck could possibly exist. Even if you got all the worst matchups to 50-50, you would be all but guaranteed to have the good matchups be significantly better. Or are you trying to argue something else?
I don't think a true 50/50 deck can exist either. When thinking of its match ups though I was only considering match ups against decks that are on the Pareto Frontier (I.e. I'm ignoring decks that are just a worse version of something else and stuff on lower teirs, of course most of those will be very favorable for most decks). Even still, I agree that this hasn't happened and likely never will, that wasn't what I meant.
What I took issue with is that if a 50/50 deck or something close to that did exist, you said it would be bad for the format and that it would likely or necessarily be the best deck and/or lead the format into a solved state. I don't think it would. If all its top teir match ups were in a 45 to 55 range with the median at 50, people would gravitate toward it for reasons u mentioned like price but it can't dominate a format at least in terms of winning / top 8ing / having highest conversions etc. If it ever did, the metagame would shift away from its 55 match ups more toward it's 45 match ups until it became balanced at 50 again.
well said.50/50 decks are good for modern because they can never be too oppressive even if everyone wants to play them. -
1
xxhellfirexx3 posted a message on Current Modern Banlist Discussion (4/4/2016 - Eye of Ugin banned, Ancestral Vision/Sword of the Meek unbanned)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from idSurge »Variance in the matchup's is important though. Not every deck could realistically be 50/50 or 55/45 or whatever arbitrary 'this is fair' percentage against the field, that is (now) the last territory of our BGx "Fair" Overlords since they banned Twin. If BGx had a 50/50 or better against the field while no other deck did, it would clearly be the best.
Since that level of balance (a field that is all 50/50s against everyone) is impossible to achieve, it only makes sense to allow for a Rock/Paper/Scissors model, within reason. 60/40's for example when Paper meets Rock, allowing for sideboarding and player skill to drag that into 55/45 or 'gasp' 50/50.
That would be my ideal anyway.
the problem I have with the 60/40s 70/30s is the sideboard lottery it entails though. I want to win with skill not luck.
is this not how most competitive games should be?
I understand that there is going to be luck in card games but to what extent is it no longer fun.
like me playing a 2 colour deck and losing to a turn 2 ssg blood moon and the opponent says: "oh well you shouldnt have been greedy with your mana base" (this has happened to me ) like wtf am I the only one that finds this kind of stuff VERY UNFUN.
or -
1
Grixis724 posted a message on Current Modern Banlist Discussion (4/4/2016 - Eye of Ugin banned, Ancestral Vision/Sword of the Meek unbanned)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from Lord Seth »
To be blunt, considering you spend the bulk of your post complaining about a deck that just received a ban, believing you to be a "cry baby" is not really unreasonable.Quote from Grixis724 »Call me a cry baby or whatever but i really want to put this out there.
In what way? If the problem is your deck, it's not "besides the point" to point that out. It seems even less besides the point to mention that perhaps by going into colors that solve the problems you have, you might solve the problems.First things first, please don't tell me to switch decks or colors, because that's a bit beside the point.
Okay, then let's ban Llanowar Elves and Birds of Paradise. You're clearly able to manipulate mechanics by getting extra mana that way. Let's also get rid of Farseek and similar cards.Been playing on and off for a few years, right now I'm 2 months into getting back in the game and I'm already sick of unfair decks/cards in modern again. I know there is hate available, but Tron is just such a stupid deck. The fact that they get 7 mana out of 3 lands is just retarded. I feel like land/mana is the foundation of the game play, and being able to manipulate mechanics that deeply is at the very least, unfair, and almost cheating, no?
Sure, Tron is a bit more effective at doing so than those cards (though it does bear the disadvantage of only being able to produce colorless mana off of its pieces). But it's still the same basic principle. If you're going to whine about being able to "manipulate" mana then you should want to get rid of all mana dorks and ramp spells and anything that prevents you from having access to more mana than is your turn number.
If your complaint is randomness, don't play card games. It's an inherent part of it. Your access to everything is random.This right here is my main point:
I get that linear strategies have a single weakness that just shuts them down but I find that concept to be dumb in card games. Unlike fighting or other sports, if something is one-dimensional in strategy, you can pick it apart fairly easily. In card games the access you have to those countermeasures are completely random, and not voluntarily available to you. So theoretically it can be done, but it puts so much more pressure on luck than skill.
Though it isn't "completely random." There are, after all, various consistency tools. They do have a frustrating tendency to get banned and all that, but there are still ones even in the format still.
Except land destruction cards can be used in multiple matchups. This claim that land destruction is somehow exempt is you straight up making claims up.Even if you want to increase your chances of making it happen, you don't have enough space in the sideboard to have multiple copies of hate for these decks to make sure you draw them AND have a reasonable SB for the rest of the meta. I have no other reasons outside of this match up to use land destruction. All of my other sideboard cards can be used in multiple match ups.
Admittedly, you conveniently avoid mentioning what land destruction cards you run. But based on your name I'm going to assume Grixis. The common card here is Fulminator Mage. But here's the thing: If the goal was to use it against Tron and only Tron, Fulminator Mage isn't that great. The big advantage of Fulminator Mage is that it's a creature, so it can do stuff even when you don't have a reason to destroy a land, but you basically always do against Tron (there is also Kolaghan's Command but Fulminator Mage was the preferred choice even before that card got printed). If the only reason is Tron, then switching to an easier-to-cast Stone Rain or a more-powerful-against-Tron Crumble to Dust would be superior. The fact Fulminator Mage gets used shows that, no, they are not only used for Tron, and they are used in multiple matchups.
But let's suppose that land destruction is only in a sideboard against Tron. In that case... there are anti-Tron cards that aren't land destruction. Use those instead.
Except you don't, at least not more for Tron than really anything else. You seem to making a more general complaint but then for some arbitrary reason focusing all of it on Tron. If the complaint is that the format needs more general answer cards, I agree. I've long supported a Counterspell reprint (ironically Counterspell would fall into your mention of older cards being more powerful than when designed...). But to single out Tron in this area is fairly absurd.There are ways to play around these decks, but in my opinion, the fact that very versatile decks (like the ones i use) are still required to go so far out of their way to deal with some straight up unfair strategy is actually just stupid.
Yes, it got a boost. You seem to be ignoring the fact that this came after a lot of years of no boosting while all the decks around it were getting boosts. Until Ugin got printed, the last set that really offered much of anything to the deck was New Phyrexia. That's about 4 years of the deck getting next to nothing while other decks got some good boosts. It was, quite honestly, about time the deck got something.One thing is that Tron actually gained a significant power boost in their mid game with Eldrazi from BFZ/OGW (TKS/RS/WB). The consequence used to be that you could go underneath them and disrupt them because they were slow, now that's no longer a thing. Because of that, the Eye ban doesn't actually even matter. They don't need inevitability when they're killing you on the way up.
Also, the Eye of Ugin ban does matter. The ability to grab what you need and grab them repeatedly was pretty powerful in the deck. The deck may be able to do a good job compensating for the loss, but to claim it "doesn't actually even matter" is very silly on your part. Might as well say the Deathrite Shaman ban didn't even matter for BGx decks. They were able to compensate for it, but it still was a real loss.
And cards like Blood Moon are good for the format. We need powerful answer cards, because all we're getting is powerful threats and little in the way of answers to handle them. The format would honestly benefit from going back further so we could get more.Certain cards in modern were designed a long time ago and are in the oldest sets allowed in modern (Urza lands, Blood Moon..), and that is why they are borderline overpowered now. It was a much different game back then, and the power level of these cards have become way stronger than they were intended to be.
So you say losing to a bad matchup is okay... then complain about what appears to be a case of losing to a bad matchup. That doesn't make much sense.If I lose to a better player or in a bad match up that is okay.
My problem is when I lose because my opponent gets 7 mana out of 3 lands..
Wow, way to cherry pick my statements and misconstrue them. You straight up ignored the details that matter and used the most ridiculous and irrelevant comparisons lol
i didn't tell you not to call me a crybaby
if i changed colors/decks i would encounter the same problem against some other unfair deck in the format that is equally as annoying. so yes it is beside the point. it would open up the same problem elsewhere. i am talking about unfair decks/cards in general vs fair strategies. tron just happens to be the example here
mana ramp in the form of mana dorks requires you to take up space outside of your land base to make it happen. dorks have to stay on the field and can be removed by way more things than actual lands can. mana dorks means less threats in your deck. tron has cards that search for lands but you are cycling through your deck and removing non threats, increasing the probability of drawing threats as the game moves on. i'm not losing to random ramp decks, because i can interact with their mana ramp. it's a lot different when it's built in to the lands themselves.
land removal is, in my opinion, not necessary in other match ups, at least not in my build. for what they usually cost it's not worth the space or the time in anything that doesn't rely on their lands as heavily as tron does. wasting turn 3 or any turn to destroy a land at the cost of my own tempo advantage isn't that great unless it's against something like tron where it's actually detrimental to their game plan. and if there is anti tron stuff in my colors that isn't land destruction, point it out to me. unless i draw crumble to dust, i'm just delaying the inevitable. and drawing crumble to dust consistently would require too much sb space for a card that is only for 1 match up out of the 20+ i'm likely to see in modern. so yeah it can be used in multiple match ups, but isn't really worth it.
you conveniently ignored the part where i mentioned going out of my way to make sure i draw said removal, such as crumble to dust, before it's too late would require me to run multiple copies and eat up too much space in my sideboard.
tron's "mana ramp" is BUILT INto their lands. other ramp decks have to commit their actual slots to mana dorks or whatever. tron does that with the artifacts, but they are thinning the deck and increasing your probability of drawing threats with those cards, mana dorks do not do that for you, and are much easier to interact with than lands. you ignored the details in my argument here.
my argument is not against general randomness that comes with card games. reliance on top decks comes up often in a lot of games, usually after you have been going at it. i am talking about when having a chance or no chance whatsoever is based on whether or not you draw your sideboard cards. there is a difference. again you misconstrued my argument by ignoring the details
it's not absurd to single out tron because it was the particular match up i am annoyed by. i might be making a more general argument about unfair decks in modern, but using tron as an example is fine.
i disagree that the ugin ban necessarily matters. it makes a difference but with the new eldrazi that came out, all tron had to do is fill in their mid game instead of having late game inevitability. so you have to start slogging through some pretty nasty and efficient eldrazi in the mid game leading up to the big guys, rather than slogging through big guys and more big guys in the mid to late game. i would be more willing to accept that it's really significant if they didn't have anything to make up for it. and yes i feel similarly about deathrite (in hindsight), although i wasn't playing modern at the time that that happened. losing an overpowered card and being able to just adapt and still perform is fine. my saying that "it doesn't matter" was a poor choice of words. i meant that it's not as detrimental to the deck as people are making it out to be.
outside of punishing decks that ABUSE mana what do we really need blood moon for?
people will argue that it punishes "greedy" land bases but that's silly. there are costs built into the lands themselves. if you're running 3,4, even 5 colors, you will be paying a lot of life to make it work and dealing with inconsistency. again, in some cases i would vouch for blood moon, but what it does to nerf crazy mana bases also applies to reasonable mana bases, and that's what i don't like. if it was somehow balanced to affect what is truly a greedy mana base then fine, but it's not that way. as for what we consider greedy is a separate debate. the way i see it, if i don't have basics before your turn 3 i possibly get locked out of playing entirely, and if not entirely, severely limited. you can't "play around it" when that happens and you literally can't actually play things. that's absolutely retarded. blood moon doesn't see a lot of play right now, but it's one of those cards that when it does, every deck in the format has to change the way the build and play the decks. you are probably going to say that that happens when any deck has an impact, which is true, but we're talking about a single, format-warping card. not a deck.
losing a match because it falls into the natural "rock paper scizzors" is one thing. that's a bad match up. you're just not favored against aggro in general, or control in general.
but losing because the rock to my scizzors ALSO has lands that produce twice as much mana as everyone elses is a bit different.
i mean, the reason eye got banned is because it made all of these new eldrazi (mimic, TKS, RS) cost about half as much or less. how is casting a wurmcoil engine for 3 mana so much different that it's immune to similar criticism?
the thing about debating with people like you is that you cherry pick arguments and disregard the details. most people should be able to see what i'm actually getting at whether or not it was typed out like it's an air tight contract. but you wanna be a lawyer and pick apart the wording and follow that up by responding to a warped, inaccurate version of my points that you made up just so you would be able to have a response. then you added comparisons that couldn't possibly be analogous until you watered down my arguments, made assumptions, and re stated them almost completely inaccurately.
i mean, you used a lot of strategies you see would see in politics, and ultimately derailed the discussion by forcing me to address your blatant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my views. well done
if you want to read my original post again bearing in mind that this is ultimately an issue i have with unfair cards/decks (tron being the example), that might help you understand it better. but if you tell me you understood it just fine and stand by your responses, i can't take you seriously.
-
2
Fiddlyr posted a message on Current Modern Banlist Discussion (4/4/2016 - Eye of Ugin banned, Ancestral Vision/Sword of the Meek unbanned)Posted in: Modern ArchivesQuote from GotSK »
It speaks volumes about this community that there were hundrets of pages crying about the splinter twin ban, whereas the obvious degradation of a whole archetype, including several format pillars like jund/abzan/melira, is apparently seen as mere collateral damage in the righteous fight versus the evil wizard ban dictators. More or less the same people that complained about modern being too linear. Well I got news for you: This ban list update will enforce exactly this. You can't beat AV and SotM in turns 6-10, you do beat them in turns 3-4, making hyper linear aggro the best choice if you dont want to play AV yourself, which will just increase the amount of 80-20 non-games aka glorified sideboard roulette.
This is the best post on this forum for months. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
9