Hey guys, new poster here. I've been interested in looking into this deck as a way to get into modern, I have a fair amount of the components, and most importantly the mana-base. An idea I had though, was how Congregation at Dawn could maybe serve as an alternative to Chord of Calling? One of my main questions is whether the instant speed casting of Kiki/Restoration Angel/specific hate card is a crucial aspect of the deck's function? Obviously CaD merely selects your next three draws (or less, if needed), but I'm guessing this deck doesn't always want to hard cast its tool box?
A benefit that Congregation may offer though is that one could assemble up to three cards that would likely be needed, or just straight up find Angel+Kiki off a third turn CaD and attempt to combo in the event of playing against a linear deck? And obviously the fact that it's cheaper could be beneficial, but I'm not sure.
Just a thought I wanted to ask some advice on from players with experience with the deck.
The problems arise with the fact that for modern, every card that gets printed is also a liability in standard and legacy. Cards need to be adjusted based on three different game types (not even thinking about limited now) that are very different from one another. Take for example the new manlands. These are probably very conservative in power level because we have the awaken mechanic in standard at the moment. Would that not be the case, Fumarole might have costed 1UR to activate and Quagmire might have been a 3/3 which would make them interesting in modern. This is the problem with the color blue in modern, in legacy it's one of the most powerful and therfore cards have to be adjusted to not interfere in the other formats.
Therefore I think it might not be a bad idea for Wizards to start a set in which they can introduce more cards to the modern format without impacting standard or legacy. Think a Modern Masters meets Commander set where there are numerous reprints of modern legal cards together with newly designed cards for the modern card pool only. We already saw this kind of approach where cards were printed in otherwise not standard/modern legal sets (Commander Precons & Conspiracy) to get them into Legacy (Flusterstorm, Council's Judgment, etc.).
It's a fantastic idea, and ideally that's precisely what WotC would do - but it's based on the premise that their primary concern is their player base and addressing their needs. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case though. If we look at how they've handled the Modern Masters sets we can see that the player base is their last concern, because if they were truly trying to make the cards more accessible they wouldn't have done blatantly prohibitive things like print Tarmogoyf at mythic or make the booster prices double that of a normal set. All their behavior suggests that they're trying to keep a stranglehold on micromanaging almost every aspect of the format. They could do any number of things to make it more accessible and to give their players some kind of assistance to get into the format, were that their real intention, but it's clear that it isn't.
Modern Masters was their opportunity to make cards more accessible, and they didn't. Instead what they do with that set is create hype and interest around the format, while essentially keeping the staples at roughly their same prices while making competitively irrelevant cards a little cheaper. If anything the fact that they printed Splinter Twin in MM2 and then subsequently banned it indicates they're putting little to no thought into how their actions influence the people who buy the product and play the game.
Isn't it a little asinine that a company that clearly banned Splinter Twin partly to benefit coverage of an event can also stipulate what the general player base plays at its respective LGSs? There seems to be a conflation between professional competitive requirements for the format and how "oppressive" a deck might be on any given day at an FNM. It's not really even a debatable point that for the most part an LGS's meta isn't a direct extrapolation of whatever a professional field looks like. Honestly I find it a little pathetic that a player base of a game that they spend their own hard earned money on totally falls in line with what the producing company tells them to do. At some stage the community is going to need to regulate itself to a degree, because jumping every time WotC tells you to jump just because it satisfies their numbers or agenda is honestly absurd.
If the ban list is a foil against cards dominating a format and a metagame, doesn't it make far more sense for there to be a more flexible approach to what can and can't be played? If a certain area/store's meta becomes "oppressive" and could actually use Splinter Twin/Pod/Jace/etc to water down some of [Insert Deck]'s dominance isn't that a better idea than everyone falling in line with what the gods at WotC tells them to do?
I run something quite similar to your list using Olivia as the Commander, I've been playing it for quite a while and I've found a couple of creatures in the list almost always being dead draws in multiplayer. Vampire Hexmage's ability can be useful occasionally, but she's usually far too situational. I'd recommend looking at Thief of Blood from Commander 15 as a replacement, it siphons all counters from all permanents on ETB, potentially having much more impact. Bloodhusk Ritualist is another one that's a bit too focused, I'd probably say swapping it out for Drana, Liberator of Malakir could be an option as another anthem type effect, and lastly I'd say Sengir Nosferatu hasn't usually been that fantastic when I've played him. Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet looks like it could be a really solid EDH card, possibly even as the commander. He has some decent synergy with Bloodghast and Oversold Cemetery to buff himself.
On the land side I'd probably recommend Shizo, Death's Storehouse as a way to possibly put your Commander through, and depending on who the Commander is Whispersilk Cloak might be worth a look, especially if it's the new Kalitas since he can get big quite quickly.
I did horribly trying to go UB, I pulled decent blue "removal"/counters and a Kalitas as a prospective bomb, I expected to be able to control the board and hopefully finish off opponents with the Kalitas or single 6/6 Eldrazi - which backfired horrendously. I had Containment Membrane and 2 Jwar Isle Avengers, with 2 Prophet of Distortion, expecting decent synergy between a U one-drop and the Surge costs for the Avenger and Membrane, never ended up coinciding and I almost always paid full costs for both cards. Other U cards included Sweep Away, Tightening Coils, Scatter to the Winds, Deepfathom Skulker and Mist Intruder. Black side of the deck had Kalitas, Voracious Null, Sky Scourer, Unnatural Endurance, Demon's Grasp, Witness the End, Vampire Envoy, Bloodbond Vampire, Essence Depleter and Oblivion Strike with my only notable Eldrazi being Kozilek's Pathfinder. I suspect I just didn't have enough higher end threats besides Kalitas and the Pathfinder, while most of my opponents played W/G/R in different combinations and ended up going wider than I had enough removal to contend with, most notably the 3 drop Gruul and Selesnya uncommon creatures did a lot of work against me, as did a few of the red Eldrazi.
After losing the first 3 matches 2-0 with relatively bad draws consistently I decided to just dismantle and put a bunch of green stuff in for the U I was playing, and ended up winning the fourth round 2-1. My green consisted of Canopy Gorger, Seed Guardian, Territorial Baloth, Snapping Gnarlid, Oran-Rief Invoker, 2 Pulse of Murasa, Lead by Example, Murasa Ranger, Saddleback Lagac, Sylvan Advocate and Jaddi Offshoot.
Not sure how weak or strong the pool in those three colors can be considered since I'm not really a limited player, but the majority of what I'd read yesterday insinuated UB was a strong pairing. Sadly my attempt at forcing it didn't end up working Best of luck to everyone else though.
New member here, never posted but I'm on the boards relatively often. I've played Magic on and off over the last twelve or so years but I'm quite inexperienced in regard to the subtlety and nuances in a number of formats (Modern being one). That being said, I just had a question for those with more experience with the Modern format as well as the implications and complexities of bans/unbans. The premise behind my question boils down to what I interpret as a linear approach to bans where a single card (Pod, Twin, etc) is selected as being too "oppressive" and is then eliminated from the format. Could it not be slightly less abrasive to the player base for them to ban co-occurring cards in decks, for instance not allowing Splinter Twin to be played in conjunction with Deceiver Exarch/Pestermite, or for them to limit the number of cards required for a certain combo? If they restricted Splinter Twin to 2 in a deck and Pestermite/Exarch to 2/3 of in a deck, would it not curb the reliability and near-inevitablity of its dominance without needing to eliminate a deck completely?
Again, I'm a de facto novice when it comes to Modern for the most part, but I'm just wondering if the extrapolation of WotC's behaviour in regards to bans doesn't just lead to a ban list as long as my arm that essentially has no rhyme or reason beyond stamping out the flavor of the day. I'd also question whether it isn't time for the community to start policing the ban list themselves, as a few people have mentioned that bans may "coincidentally" occur to push a deck utilizing different, i.e newer, cards. The Eldrazi list is likely to capture many an imagination and encourage mass consumption of OotG product, while Twin may have been a deck that could have kept up with and restricted its potential dominance? The community is who plays the game at their LGSs, perhaps it's time for the community to decide whether they find SFM, Birthing Pod, Bloom, Twin, etc prohibitive in their environments?
A benefit that Congregation may offer though is that one could assemble up to three cards that would likely be needed, or just straight up find Angel+Kiki off a third turn CaD and attempt to combo in the event of playing against a linear deck? And obviously the fact that it's cheaper could be beneficial, but I'm not sure.
Just a thought I wanted to ask some advice on from players with experience with the deck.
It's a fantastic idea, and ideally that's precisely what WotC would do - but it's based on the premise that their primary concern is their player base and addressing their needs. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case though. If we look at how they've handled the Modern Masters sets we can see that the player base is their last concern, because if they were truly trying to make the cards more accessible they wouldn't have done blatantly prohibitive things like print Tarmogoyf at mythic or make the booster prices double that of a normal set. All their behavior suggests that they're trying to keep a stranglehold on micromanaging almost every aspect of the format. They could do any number of things to make it more accessible and to give their players some kind of assistance to get into the format, were that their real intention, but it's clear that it isn't.
Modern Masters was their opportunity to make cards more accessible, and they didn't. Instead what they do with that set is create hype and interest around the format, while essentially keeping the staples at roughly their same prices while making competitively irrelevant cards a little cheaper. If anything the fact that they printed Splinter Twin in MM2 and then subsequently banned it indicates they're putting little to no thought into how their actions influence the people who buy the product and play the game.
If the ban list is a foil against cards dominating a format and a metagame, doesn't it make far more sense for there to be a more flexible approach to what can and can't be played? If a certain area/store's meta becomes "oppressive" and could actually use Splinter Twin/Pod/Jace/etc to water down some of [Insert Deck]'s dominance isn't that a better idea than everyone falling in line with what the gods at WotC tells them to do?
On the land side I'd probably recommend Shizo, Death's Storehouse as a way to possibly put your Commander through, and depending on who the Commander is Whispersilk Cloak might be worth a look, especially if it's the new Kalitas since he can get big quite quickly.
After losing the first 3 matches 2-0 with relatively bad draws consistently I decided to just dismantle and put a bunch of green stuff in for the U I was playing, and ended up winning the fourth round 2-1. My green consisted of Canopy Gorger, Seed Guardian, Territorial Baloth, Snapping Gnarlid, Oran-Rief Invoker, 2 Pulse of Murasa, Lead by Example, Murasa Ranger, Saddleback Lagac, Sylvan Advocate and Jaddi Offshoot.
Not sure how weak or strong the pool in those three colors can be considered since I'm not really a limited player, but the majority of what I'd read yesterday insinuated UB was a strong pairing. Sadly my attempt at forcing it didn't end up working Best of luck to everyone else though.
Again, I'm a de facto novice when it comes to Modern for the most part, but I'm just wondering if the extrapolation of WotC's behaviour in regards to bans doesn't just lead to a ban list as long as my arm that essentially has no rhyme or reason beyond stamping out the flavor of the day. I'd also question whether it isn't time for the community to start policing the ban list themselves, as a few people have mentioned that bans may "coincidentally" occur to push a deck utilizing different, i.e newer, cards. The Eldrazi list is likely to capture many an imagination and encourage mass consumption of OotG product, while Twin may have been a deck that could have kept up with and restricted its potential dominance? The community is who plays the game at their LGSs, perhaps it's time for the community to decide whether they find SFM, Birthing Pod, Bloom, Twin, etc prohibitive in their environments?