From what I've seen of spoilers, not all that much :/
There are some interesting hate cards though:
Ashes of the Abhorrent is at least interesting, essentially blanking the RDW deck that's currently gotten even better due to rotation, ie this crushes embalm and gives a second SB card against that deck that is quite relevant. However, there are myriad better options against graveyards and this card is outshined in eternal formats where cards like Yixlid Jailer long ago lost their luster. Sentinel Totem is another hate card that I feel is going to fall far short in the same arena as it does not cycle for a card, but offers a scry and to it's benefit over cards like relic of progenitus, it is usable on T1...this is still a far cry from tormod's crypt and grafdigger's cage though.
I think there are better cards than these available at the CMC, but Rowdy Crew and Bishop of Rebirth are both playable...just very slow. In RDW Rowdy Crew is a 5/5 most likely for 4 mana, it's a far cry better than Balduvian Horde as you actually stay at card parity, but are also capable of just missing with it and having a 3/3 for 4 mana (ie hill giant)...this card will not see a lot of play, but it might be tried. Bishop of Rebirth is a great card; however, in the deck that wants it (WW), it's a bit too much mana, in a deck running Ravages of War and Armageddon, this beauty will be a poor top deck post geddon, and should likely be avoided...it is a step up from Order of Whiteclay though.
Settle the Wreckage is a powerful card; however, the deck that want's this needs to be proactive. This card is complete garbage in a reactive deck, because of the overwhelming card advantage you're giving your opponent and the virtual advantage you're giving them on their top deck (this could be rendered moot if however you knew your opponent was not running basics or could only get 1 or so basics). I actually think this card needs to be used in aggressive or midrange (more aggressive) decks, where you can punish an opponent on the back swing. In a lot of ways this card will be similar to Path to Exile, where I tend to save this card unless completely necessary until T5-6 for their biggest threat, ie Primeval Titan or something dumb, because between T1-4, I'm likely just ramping my opponent into something better.
I think Kinjalli's Sunwing is actually a very strong card for WW or D&T (in 100cs not legacy :/), this card randomly stops splinter twin combos, and serves a very important timewalk role (removes a blocker) in the G/x matchup, that this critter also flies is not irrelevant as the WW mirror and G/x matchup are often determined by first strike, flying (or any evasion, shadow, etc), and protection mechanics. So, it's a fair sized, evasive body, with a relevant ability at an equitable price...can't say enough how much thalia, heretic cathar or imposing sovereign have bought me time to win with D&T...this card will offer more of the same. Shout out to Tocatli Honor Guard, but I'm not in the market for white cards with 1 power (alright there's a few: Mother of Runes, Weathered Wayfarer, Benevolent Bodyguard, etc), but this card is randomly hateful in the twin matchup...I guess, but plays second fiddle to Hushwing Gryff which again has flying, making it great vs the mirror or G/x, and actually brings a clock with it.
Ruin Raider is a fine card, but it's likely just going to cycle itself post combat, as it's a lightning rod, and frankly it's in a weird place, if it were white I'd say the card is great, but I think there's a lot better things to be doing in 100c in the B color pie (and the G cards that pair well with B) on 3 mana, I mean I could just play 2xliliana's here and--those are definitely better cards. I don't see this card ruining the superiority of Dark Confidant, but we'll see.
Ripjaw Raptor is a fine card too, but really just equates to a 4/5 unblockable, until it runs into a bigger threat and then it just cycles. but a 4/5 body for 4 isn't shabby, the double G color pie does take away from its allure a bit, but not much as this card is likely to see the most play in monoG style strategies where drawing into more cards is always a tough commodity to find and stapling it to a card that beats the opposition to death is not a bad deal. I don't think this will see a ton of play though as it's competing with a lot of PW's, with Polukranos, World Eater, and a bunch of other silly G beasts that beat just as well or better.
Deathgorge Scavenger is also an interesting card (no art available yet, and I couldn't tell the CMC from the art, if it's two then it could be playable as a 3/2 beater than becomes a 4/3 in the midgame, gains you life randomly, and all together is a fine edition in a green deck vs reanimator...it's certainly no scavenging ooze or deathrite shaman (both ubiquitous as the starting cards in most G/x decks for main deck tech against reanimator, but just plain good enough anyway on their own), but it's deece. Walk the Plank is a good card, but the BB CMC is too difficult to justify it over go for the throat or diabolic edict in most decks, although it is likely more powerful than go for the throat, but just far less splashable in G/x where I think these sorts of cards shine to enable you to maintain tempo in besting your opponent with your own efficient critters while removing their relevant ones, etc. This card will very likely see standard constructed play, unless merfolk become a deck in standard (which I doubt looking at the quality of efficient merfolk).
On the whole not a great set so far from my estimation...my favorite card randomly enough is the Sunwing or Settle, but neither of these cards is overpowering in all matchups, they're just fringe good in certain matchups. And, the PW's in this set are garbage, of the two I've seen (shirtless Jace[just bad] and Dinosaur man [I cost one more than I should]) :/
--KB
P.S.--Someone will build a Fleet swallower deck and someone will build a Revel in Riches deck...these will both be about as good as my unified 60 card freeform singleton Barren Glory Deck, which although sweet is no peach (although it's won over half of it's matches because generally they don't suspect why you're just wrecking all of your cards and hand etc)
After laughing to myself about Sensei Rob's pic above, I made all these trophies for the last 8 or so CSM's (two messages because I reached upload size)...interestingly only two of the decks ran blue, DrPringles' Hermit/Angel Combo deck, and only there as a supporting color to protect the combo from opposing countermagic; Sensei's U/G midrange deck is really the only true U deck to do well in the last 8 tournaments. Hmmm...I won't go into my tirade again, but I think this continues to lend greater support to an ongoing argument. I've recorded a decent bit of this last CSM here: 4CBlood 2SEP17 CSM. Enjoy folks and take it easy.
I think you're falling into the same trap, that's what you want to sit across from...me, I enjoy playing against any cards...you're right most people have an unqualified fear of decks that can "win" by T2-3, but again the issue is they allow their emotions about a negative experience drive their views as opposed to solid causal assessment of what happened, what it took to make it happen, and stopping it accordingly. I watched ML die to a boogles combo deck the other night, a fringe playable modern deck...he was playing a WW build, if he'd run blessed alliance in his SB with a few slots, it would have greatly increased his matchup, or some solid artifact enchantment hate coupled with aether vial to trick the hate in and win in combat...point being the matchup was not great G1, but post boards if he understood the format and the range of available and "most" viable archetypes, he could have killed one critter and likely left his opponent stranded with a bunch of crappy auras with nothing to put them on, combo decks are hugely reliant on most of their cards if you can disrupt one part of it, and have a proactive strategy yourself, then you can win...the point here is that even though Boogles isn't a tier 1 deck and it certainly doesn't win by T2, it's inevitability was undeniable because ML didn't account for it and didn't understand the weakness of his own deck vice this style of deck. Some of this comes in boarding, some of it comes in understanding the flexible cards that exist that can stop these sorts of thing (DR Shaman, Scavenging Ooze, Mental Misstep, Inquisition, Duress, Gaddock Teag, etc). I don't think you're wrong, most players just want to put their decks together and watch them do well, but sometimes they lack full understanding of their decks and how best to play them vice different possible matchups. It's a learning process...I'd just ask folks to be open minded and try the full range of what's available before making narrow minded decisions about what to ban or unban.
Your argument is understood; however, it is fraught with contradiction...you have played White Weenie or Red Deck Wins no? Think of aggro decks in the same light as a combo deck...the difference is simple but missed by the undiscerning eye. If I go 1 drop (2/1) on T1, then I attack for 2 dam on T2 and cast out a two drop (3/2 or 2/2) or play two one drops (2/1+2/1), T3 attack total damage at 7 to 9 play a three drop (will generally equate to 3 to 4 more power), on T4 I'm attacking for a total damage of 18-19, which means if my opponent fetched once or twice they're dead. WW decks if built well can both disrupt and kill on a fishing clock by T4-5; comparatively when you replace the 2 damages per crit above with 3 damage (generally at lower card economy, ie you're doing it with instants and sorcs) then this clock can range easily into the T3-4 territory for a well built and low to the ground RDW. The difference between these decks and a true combo deck, let's say reanimator is that they are roughly 40-50% more consistent, but are also more commonly hated out...and I don't mean dread of night or warmth, I mean that other folks can play blockers and midrange blockers or removal just tend to be bigger and better. The issue with the "True" combo deck as you call it, is that it is not consistent it tends to be focused on winning the game very singularly through it's combo, ie the builder is required to balance it's ability to react or control vice acquire consistency through cards that are generally non-interactive in the early turns of the game. For instance, when I cast entomb, it's a great play if I can back it up with a reanimation effect; however, if I don't do this in the first 4 turns against an aggro deck then I'm likely dead regardless, ie more of the cards required in these "True" combo decks tend to be dead draws...tutoring tends to be something that all players find intrinsically powerful, and it is, but when I cast demonic tutor, grim tutor, or vampiric tutor, I'm not using my mana to directly impact the board or gamestate in any meaningful way without the use of other cards, which at this point in time, to leverage immediate effect, need to cost 1-3 less mana then I would have over the course of the natural (one per turn) development of my mana base. Why do aggro decks tend to beat the living crap out of combo decks (check out legacy reanimators track record against D&T...ie not good at all)...because despite the uneven power level of the cards (in reanimator's favor), all of the aggro player's cards have an immediate effect and are used with a higher degree of efficiency...RDW excluded to some extent because this deck similar to many combo decks tends to end the game with very poor card economy...ie the deck wins or loses with 0 cards in hand. You can say you don't like this, but as Stsung has informed you combo players need to stay alive to win, just kill them faster. The biggest thing I could say to most deck builders, and certainly not excepting design trend today, embrace efficiency, flexibility, and interaction, they're what win you games...if you do it right you can find these effects stapled to cards that also have power and toughness that can randomly beat your opponent to death while erstwhile stopping them from enabling their plan what ever it might be. Funny thing is I've played storm in this format and it's fastest gold fish was about T4, although the permutation of cards and draw steps required to attain that game state were of much lower probability than fishing a WW deck to a T4-5 win. So, why does it not seem fair to up the odds to let's say 5-10% that you give such decks draws that fish out at T3, if I'm more than 70% likely to fish out to a win (let's say tendrils or brainfreeze) on T5-6, which mind you is far worse than the 70% to fish on T3-4 with RDW or 70% to fish on T4-5 with WW. The point being if someone wants to play this then give them the shot, their best draws will be devastating, but their worst draws will beat themselves, because in a very general sense the "better" you make a combo deck, the more fragile it becomes to being obtuse to the rest of the field, i.e. it loses the ability to interact and can just be killed. You liking or not liking it is irrelevant however...this is just magic...and I can get behind folks wanting to play it that way...and when they do I'll just counter their crap, thoughtsieze their hand, exile their critter cards, and kill them faster and more consistently
Just some thoughts
--KB
P.S. ML, I think you misread those statistics, look at the per capita results of the stats that Sensei was showing...those do show that it has the highest win percent based upon volume of its presentation in the format--Rob can contradict me but I think he was also trying to show the same thing, i.e. that deck is great--one of the best. It's one of the best decks in the format; despite it not being oppressive to your sense of fairness, but again your criteria for a "good" game of magic is based on a subjective assessment--whereas I subjectively enjoy this game to a high extent, I approach the game and its means of winning as objectively as possible and I tend to want to have available to me as many means as possible to exact all the different win cons available and I want my opponent to do the same against me--for me that's good magic, not haymakers per se, but small interactive fights and decisions that incrementally lead to overwhelming advantage if pressed and executed properly...this comes in point removal, winning critter combat, or correctly using a ponder to set your next 2 turns in motion...all of them are really the same thing, just seen in contrast due to the hazy lens of time. Additionally, your statement that we've only taken 4 cards out of the WoTC based ban list may be true (assume that they're DTT, TC, MD, and Entomb); you've been with the format longer than I have been; however, it also assumes that their last ban listing was actually worth a damn (hmmm..let's just ban all the restricted cards in vintage...trinisphere...really, what does this card do in this format) and that the ban listing then bears relevance about 10 or more sets later...this is the same sort of stale logic that doesn't take into account the passing of time and the changing of the game my man...you can bandy paltitudes about but your logic doesn't hold up to either the stats that Sensei has shown albeit a small subset of games or account for what has changed when WoTC made a decision that at the time was questioned by many folks regardless. It's our format, so I suppose we'll jump back into a very subjective voting process where we see cards such as blood moon bandied about as requiring bans because someone's pet deck get's blown out by it--the thing is folks come to the game for different reasons...most folks like winning; it reinforces the fun they have...I don't really care about winning, sure I too enjoy it, but at the end of the day; I enjoy jamming as many good archetypes as I can and having fun by learning something new everytime and building a deck to the best of my ability--this format does not offer that anymore to me. So if someone has read all of this, then I hope they can understand the logic in enabling players to truly play with a wide range of cards and not make parochial decisions that only serve to enhance their notion of fun, but enable the widest range of options for all players.
Think you all missed my point a bit, or rather I was speaking in some ways from a position of verbal irony--I'd make this my modest proposal: The solution to this problem is not in exclusion, or rather it's in what we've chosen to exclude historically. I don't want to ban birthing pod, I don't want to ban natural order...but I also wonder why we've banned analogous cards of similar power level in other colors. Why is mystical tutor (banned) fundamentally more powerful than worldly tutor (unbanned), or entomb (banned) for that matter? You could argue that I'll get show and tell endstep T2 on my opposition's trn and drop an emrakul or omniscience into emrakul, etc, but you're generally looking at a 3 card combo to truly win outright. With worldly tutor I could T1 cast on my opposition's endstep for hermit druid, put into play T2, on T3 post draw flip my whole library into the gyard (assuming no basics) have narcomoeba come into play from gyard, play land 3 to get a bloodghast back (have the 3/2 artifact critter for back up 2CMC recast), and sac the moeba, ghast, and hermit to dread return to return angel of glory's rise, to return azami+lab maniac for the win. Regardless, worldly tutor often get's critical disruption on a time horizon needed (low end use) or get's primeval titan, which if it resolves generally means the game. Funny thing is, this was a deck piloted by DrPringles last week (and I applaud you Dr, I think it's sweet). I managed to beat this deck 2-0, not because I'm a great player, or because I had removal and counterspells (although these helped), but because I understood what he was doing. Often times, players make assumptions that become convictions based upon what is frankly incomplete or misunderstood information...what is the best way to understand a thing, well we could contemplate it, or we could try it. No thing is static, this game not excluded, to approach it dynamically is to understand that it is morphing over time, at one point these cards were dangerous, because they were just plain faster than the critters, the disruption, etc, they're not that way anymore...sure they'll get some busted draws every now and then win rapidly and easily, but solid, interactive midrange is just as likely to grind them out--it won't typically be in as short a timeframe, but it will be just as assured if played well. My point is why do we put false limits on ourselves and our format, that aren't even logically congruent with what we currently allow...Mike as your people would say, "This is not possible"--but my friend it is true.
In regards to Ravager Shops, I hate to leap immediately to an ad hominin attack, but I believe you're speaking about yourself grinding out the gatherling vintage swiss with a ravager list that I built specifically for you (and loan to you ) based upon playstyle and limited knowledge of the format to grind out a bunch of tickets. If anything, then I think you would see this mentality as truly what is frightening for this format and what is to some extent beyond baffling is that you would do one thing in another tournament knowing it was not healthy, to ostensibly reap benefits, but would preserve your own for something that you assumed more pure and fair...I suppose you shouldn't $#%^ in your own back yard...but this would seem, my friend, a bit hypocritical. I play this format for fun and creation, I tend not to run the same deck back (okay some weeks I'm lazy and run back an oldie), but part of me wants to show you that this finding is quite true and just run 4CBlood until something changes, and not at the cost of this deck; which plays out like a more modern version of the original sligh decks (the value red deck before deadguy red [burn]).
Sorry if the mosaic of my argument tends toward the fiery, I'm trying to lend my eyes which I feel at least in this case see more clearly to avail us of the myopia that's beset us. People don't truly want fair--they want freedom--this draws players...because frankly these decks are too expensive, generally, to rationalize grinding 4 tiks, when I could do that winning a few two man q's at a fraction of the price (considering I can play better than 60-70% of folks and am paired well or choose a deck with minimal poor pairings). This is not a format of grinders, it's a format of creation, why should we limit folks in how they decide to do that by having 1-2 decks that have only a few pairings below 45% (accounting for the fact that those decks that do favor in low margins against these decks have a few matchups that are likely 40% to lose etc). We just create an environment where range is limited and deck selection plays a greater role than imagination and capability...
Guess that's what I was trying to get after, let's put these back in the format:
Crucible of Worlds
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Dig Through Time
Entomb
Gifts Ungiven
Imperial Seal
Intuition
Life from the Loam
Lion's Eye Diamond
Mana Drain
Memory Jar
Merchant Scroll
Mind's Desire
Mystical Tutor
Sensei's Divining Top
Stoneforge Mystic
Survival of the Fittest
Tinker (why is this worse than natural order, esp without moxen or sol rings etc)
Tolarian Academy
Treasure Cruise
Trinisphere
Vampiric Tutor
These cards all give combo and control decks a leg up against midrange and aggro, adding speed and consistency, and the best part is they force understanding and interaction at some point in time to beat...ie these sorts of cards enable high level decision making and a pure form of mtg where both players have to calculate risk to a higher extent due to increased consistency. Realistically, they open the meta up and enable a lot more cool stuff to rise to power (and well some of the other ones that don't do this, don't really do anything at all, ref trinisphere...so bad in 100c, why ban it).
Anyway, hope this follow up helps to enlighten or entertain you all. Take it easy
KB
P.S.--Check out Mardu Midrange/Control it's a deck I designed a while back to beat 4CBlood, C4R1S had some success with it, taking down a tourney with it. It's a very strong archetype vs. permanent based midrange or aggro, where is struggles (very poorly) is vs. U based control decks. It's a fine deck, just can't realistically beat permission, but I think it's at about a 60/40 or 55/45 split vs 4CBlood, given equal play on both sides. There are other strategies that can also beat 4CBlood the issue is they tend to be predatory in nature and have some matchups that are frankly just terrible, whereas this deck is a natural strategy (and likely the best one at doing it, eff and disruption) and it's worst matchups are likely still around the .50 mark.
And, I'd dispute the need for empirical results of resounding depth, theoretical physics and mental simulation likely allowed the first humans to know they shouldn't jump off of cliffs, or why it made sense to get large prey, like mammoths, to run off of said cliffs. The art was likely perfected by empirical results, but it was based on a pretty sound theory--stuff dies when if falls from great enough distance... (hmmm...this sounds like the woes of the previous standard rotation...results take time, and cost pain, in some ways this is yang to a more elegant, enlightened intuition that prevents the need for struggle by seeing clearly the problem...or we can bang our heads into it until we realize we can walk around it...eventually "even a blind chicken finds seed" another of your countryman's sayings I believe
I've uploaded gameplay from yesterday's CSM with Grixis Delve here: 29 JUL 17 CSM. The deck did as expected (X-1), but was, as always fun to play.
Another note, I truly think we need to revisit the ban listing, almost to a point that I'm getting tired of the format. We've systematically taken out a litany of combo cards and U cards and not shockingly critter based midrange and critter based aggro strategies, with support from continued design trend, are the most consistent and best in the format. This is debatable, but when a deck within 6-8 cards variation (4CBlood) has been piloted (I'm guilty I've piloted this deck as well ) to winning the tourney in over 25% of the overall matches in the season (likely higher win% capability in reality because this deck has been presented in less than half of all the matches possible [it's the best deck in format, and sure it loses sometimes, but when you beat it, you're prolly getting lucky or it's pilot is getting unlucky, or you've meta'd against it heavily at the cost of match% against other relevant strategies in the format]), then it should cause one to assess range in the format--do we live in a 1-2 best deck format. I don't think the needed change in the format involves this deck, because the cards in it are generally all fair, but work very well together (myriad 2-1 capability) and it ends games quickly when piloted well. And, it's a beatable deck, but beating it consistently tends to involve predatory build strategy that weakens one's build to a point of undesirability in multiple other, common matchups. My suggestion would be we make combo and control more powerful, I could revisit what I think is safe for the format, but won't do it in this post because I've brought these cards up ad nauseam historically as cards that could and should be in the format (I will relist these if there is more interest in changing the format).
However, and it hasn't seen much play recently, if we were to remain with the current ban list, the most busted card in this format is birthing pod (to a bad point, I would argue that this card is about as unbeatable as JTMS on an open board, with no immediate answer, but far better due to its strength in all other board states). I've rallied against Green before because of the flexibility of its multiple tutor effects available, while its near-peer equivalents in U/B are not. Birthing Pod is easily the worst (best) of these...some folks would cite Natural Order in this spot, but I think a good way of comparing the two cards is comparing the power between Fireblast and Sulfuric Vortex. Both are great and one does more now, but the other ensures that your opponent cannot interact with the one resource that matters, to you (sure they can, but they're likely drawing to 4-5 outs in deck, if they don't counter vortex, etc.).
Anyway, was just thinking about the format. I think an issue we'll run into is we don't have a litany of habitual players, and for every game I jam in the CSM I likely jam 10-30 more in the format in casual matches, so it might just be a personal issue, not perceived by other players due to their volume of play. Maybe it's a pessimistic outlook, but I think familiarity has bred contempt for me to some extent; but I think there's some credence logically as well given the relatively large subset of games I've seen or played personally--we're in a best deck format at this point--Let's change that--what do you think?
Couldn't play this week due to "flexible" obligations during the CSM timeframe. However, I was able to catch a decent number of matches and provide what is either banal, insightful, or C+ commentary...you choose. We also got to challenge the champ with our own BUG list that we intended on running, post finals, so there's at least some play from our end. Unfortunately, this tourney structure was weird and I had to leave in the middle of the recording so, it's a fairly chopped series, enjoy regardless:
CSM Part I CSM Part II CSM Part III
Michelle, not being intimately familiar with this format, I would assume that the basis of most aggro decks in this format is the first 4-6 damage from critters, if they're death's shadow, the first 4-6 with regular aggro critters and then this card, otherwise haste critters or burn. Try innocent blood board if this is your concern, it's cheap enough to increase redundancy early, but forces you to rethink how you play the deck in this matchup, as you'll be the control (I think this card is also decent vs Eldrazi, which is why I put a dismember main, and well also you need an answer to gurmag anger and tasigur main if they top deck the card late and you can't force them to discard it. Lingering souls could be upped in the SB as well if this is a matchup you fear as I think it's a decce card as well. Under current configuration, board plan for most aggro decks would be 2-3 Bob's out, against red aggro, 3 FWs in, or another combination of the mirran crusader, spirit of the lab, for non-red aggro decks. Zealous persecution would go in over the last Bob, inquisition over one thougthseize. This is a rough board plan, but it was at least planned for, but I certainly haven't tested it. The D&T matchp is intended to be won by going over the top with Elspeth (or don't go big enough as well), she's your outer against decks that go bigger than this build, and allows you to evasively jump the last 4-6 damage you need in there. But, like I said the board is mutable, and I thought this deck build fell into the initial concept you were proposing. I couldn't find a place for small pox, but I think pox will tend to lose to RDW regardless if the aggro player knows what they're doing. Just some further thoughts.
To answer your question from email in regards to the deck concept, start from this shell:
4 Dark Confidant
3 Fatal Push
4 Thoughtseize
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Dismember
4 Path to Exile
4 Tidehollow Sculler
3 Aether Vial
2 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
1 Spirit of the Labyrinth
2 Liliana of the Veil
4 Marsh Flats
4 Godless Shrine
3 Ghost Quarter
3 Leonin Arbiter
4 Concealed Courtyard
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
2 Swamp
2 Plains
1 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
1 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
1 Lingering Souls
3 Phyrexian Revoker
1 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Stony Silence
3 Rest in Peace
1 Surgical Extraction
1 Dismember
1 Mirran Crusader
1 Spirit of the Labyrinth
3 Kor Firewalker
1 Zealous Persecution
The board is highly mutable dependent upon expected meta; I could see either the artifact or gyard hate increasing depending upon what you expect. What I've built here is designed to optimize matchups against combo (storm [1xspirit of the lab, 2xthalia, tons of discard] or gyard recursion decks [discard, plus 3xRIP]), red based decks [discard+korfirewalker board], or control (revoker for PWs or other vial decks, or oblivion stone [plus land hate via g quarter and leonine arb]). This deck is designed to be low to the ground while grinding out card advantage with dark confidant (on 2 CMC cards or less [generally] which also inhibit opponent plays while filtering through discard in the late game which tends to be bad then) which is very crucial to the deck's plan, or else you'll start to lose the top deck war. It may be worth considering Sword of Light and Shadow for the board, as this deck will tend to hurt itself with both bob and thoughtseize and Bob is really central to the plan of the deck and combo's nicely with the 3 main vials to enable mana efficiency while gaining card advantage (ie higher percentage of playing 2 spells each turn). I could see doing drazi with this too, but right now it's more of a grindy agro/control (board and hand) deck, much like modern D&T. Tell me more about your expected meta and I can tune it, right now it's optimized to play several matchups at the loss of being truly tuned to the expected. Hope this helps.
Thanks for the cool trophy, yeah not as much blightsteel love, more so emrakul and jin-gitaxias love...didn't see the old one-shot robot this tourney, but the deck ran well. I was glad to pickup Sugar_Daddy's original framework and adjust it to a deck I felt a bit stronger; not to mention, and yeah I'm shamelessly taking credit, I think I provided a lot of input into changing that deck's original design and making it largely more coherent in it's approach to winning games by providing more flexible options for finding the most insurmountable threat given different matchups, as well as making the board doubly hateful toward strategies that just stop this sort of deck. This sort of deck is interesting to me, because while it is narrow in it's approach to winning games, it can be made very redundant and resilient...the most interesting thing about it is the fact that I've found generally you need to decide very early the specific approach that you intend on taking in any given matchup (and this can vary greatly depending on matchup), the issue with it is, and why I call it a narrow deck, is once you choose a certain path, it's very difficult to find the flexibility to shift gears into a different one based upon the raw number of cards (options) you dump very early on pursuing your strategic goal.
I know builds like this tend toward being controversial, but I'm truly glad that decks like this can exist, because they represent a cool and unique subset of magic the gathering and should be viable to players who enjoy intricate but generally insular game plans (not my typical cup of tea, but I'll engineer or tinker any deck to a point I consider it great because that's my love of this game and format). Definitely recommend it to new and old players alike, but make sure you put a few repetitions in playing it, because some hands are very easy to play and some require fairly intricate sequencing and forward planning to mitigate blow-out potential from your opponent.
The way I did it, is said hey this is what I want to play, and then went through the card listing and referenced each that would support my framework (then took away what was least optimal and supportive of my game plan), most of the cards I own, the mana base took significantly longer to purchase as most of the fixing isn't in general a thing in 100CS or other eternal formats. It was a lengthy but enjoyable process, took about 45 min to build the core of the deck (ie within 6-10 cards accuracy), about 4 hours over two days to ponder those last 6-10 cards and finalize the board with given options. Likely about 6-7 hours accumulated over three total days play testing it and making moderate tuning revisions (3-4 cards and 1-2 board). I at least enjoyed the process if it was a bit daunting, it certainly wasn't as difficult as I found storm to be in 100CS, but it was a rewarding experience for me.
Acknowledge on prize support.
If anyone's down to try out PD 100CS, let me know and reach out to folks for me if you have the time or see them on mtgo. If I get 16 players interested then I'll host the challonge. I'll put a prize pool of a TNN I got in a grudge match down for first place and 4xModernMasters packs for second place, obviously entry is free.
That was my initial thought as well, I've competed in one PD tourney, where I essentially stole someone's MBC deck, revamped the board because I didn't like how they'd made it, changed out about 3-4 cards main, and then jammed it (took 2nd too, sick brags ). Not because I was daunted by building a deck, but the level of unknowns was difficult, so I just jammed something I knew I'd enjoy playing but was unlikely to get me DQ'd. But, I actually just made my first PD 100CS deck, I utilized this resource to reference cards: PD Cardlist. It's shockingly well maintained. The deck runs actually quite well, and it's 3 colors (given this is on 4 fishing attempts), not saying it's a grand prix crusher, but it can definitely get the job done and has a shocking number of redundant, flexible, and powerful (relative) effects to win games. The real upside is that this deck costs under a dollar (alright I chromed out the basics, but that's for intimidation factor). Plus PD has a shockingly high following, might be a way to get new folks around. Definitely not saying I want to replace any event of the CSM with this, I love casting the nastiest cards made for the most part, but if there's interest I'd like to set up an alternate league based event. Let me know who'd play guys.
Just an idea, another idea that would be fun is a pauper or PD 100CS event, likely PD would be the most effective for a cheap, inclusive event. This might have to be a separate challenge series run through challonge with prize structure from outside. But I think something like this would be equally as sweet. The spike I am, I'd be looking to break .01 or commons in either event, but I think it would be a refreshing experience and look through MTG's common or historically cheap but powerful cards over time.
Just an idea, and perhaps our prize pool isn't big enough to support it. But, I was wondering what people thought of nominating, let's say, a brewer's challenge card...for instance Cadaverous Bloom, Food Chain, Descent Into Madness, Aggressive Mining, or any other nonsense card that is kind of unique in mechanic, and then establishing a special prize pool for players that use said card. Might only be one ticket for playing with a brewer's challenge card, but it would be pretty cool, as folks who play for tickets could walk away with a tik even if their "sweet" brew didn't do so hot vs. more spikey builds. I know Kumagoro does this with Tribal, so I thought it was worth putting the idea out there for fielding. Let me know what you think.
From what I've seen of spoilers, not all that much :/
There are some interesting hate cards though:
Ashes of the Abhorrent is at least interesting, essentially blanking the RDW deck that's currently gotten even better due to rotation, ie this crushes embalm and gives a second SB card against that deck that is quite relevant. However, there are myriad better options against graveyards and this card is outshined in eternal formats where cards like Yixlid Jailer long ago lost their luster. Sentinel Totem is another hate card that I feel is going to fall far short in the same arena as it does not cycle for a card, but offers a scry and to it's benefit over cards like relic of progenitus, it is usable on T1...this is still a far cry from tormod's crypt and grafdigger's cage though.
I think there are better cards than these available at the CMC, but Rowdy Crew and Bishop of Rebirth are both playable...just very slow. In RDW Rowdy Crew is a 5/5 most likely for 4 mana, it's a far cry better than Balduvian Horde as you actually stay at card parity, but are also capable of just missing with it and having a 3/3 for 4 mana (ie hill giant)...this card will not see a lot of play, but it might be tried. Bishop of Rebirth is a great card; however, in the deck that wants it (WW), it's a bit too much mana, in a deck running Ravages of War and Armageddon, this beauty will be a poor top deck post geddon, and should likely be avoided...it is a step up from Order of Whiteclay though.
Settle the Wreckage is a powerful card; however, the deck that want's this needs to be proactive. This card is complete garbage in a reactive deck, because of the overwhelming card advantage you're giving your opponent and the virtual advantage you're giving them on their top deck (this could be rendered moot if however you knew your opponent was not running basics or could only get 1 or so basics). I actually think this card needs to be used in aggressive or midrange (more aggressive) decks, where you can punish an opponent on the back swing. In a lot of ways this card will be similar to Path to Exile, where I tend to save this card unless completely necessary until T5-6 for their biggest threat, ie Primeval Titan or something dumb, because between T1-4, I'm likely just ramping my opponent into something better.
I think Kinjalli's Sunwing is actually a very strong card for WW or D&T (in 100cs not legacy :/), this card randomly stops splinter twin combos, and serves a very important timewalk role (removes a blocker) in the G/x matchup, that this critter also flies is not irrelevant as the WW mirror and G/x matchup are often determined by first strike, flying (or any evasion, shadow, etc), and protection mechanics. So, it's a fair sized, evasive body, with a relevant ability at an equitable price...can't say enough how much thalia, heretic cathar or imposing sovereign have bought me time to win with D&T...this card will offer more of the same. Shout out to Tocatli Honor Guard, but I'm not in the market for white cards with 1 power (alright there's a few: Mother of Runes, Weathered Wayfarer, Benevolent Bodyguard, etc), but this card is randomly hateful in the twin matchup...I guess, but plays second fiddle to Hushwing Gryff which again has flying, making it great vs the mirror or G/x, and actually brings a clock with it.
Ruin Raider is a fine card, but it's likely just going to cycle itself post combat, as it's a lightning rod, and frankly it's in a weird place, if it were white I'd say the card is great, but I think there's a lot better things to be doing in 100c in the B color pie (and the G cards that pair well with B) on 3 mana, I mean I could just play 2xliliana's here and--those are definitely better cards. I don't see this card ruining the superiority of Dark Confidant, but we'll see.
Ripjaw Raptor is a fine card too, but really just equates to a 4/5 unblockable, until it runs into a bigger threat and then it just cycles. but a 4/5 body for 4 isn't shabby, the double G color pie does take away from its allure a bit, but not much as this card is likely to see the most play in monoG style strategies where drawing into more cards is always a tough commodity to find and stapling it to a card that beats the opposition to death is not a bad deal. I don't think this will see a ton of play though as it's competing with a lot of PW's, with Polukranos, World Eater, and a bunch of other silly G beasts that beat just as well or better.
Deathgorge Scavenger is also an interesting card (no art available yet, and I couldn't tell the CMC from the art, if it's two then it could be playable as a 3/2 beater than becomes a 4/3 in the midgame, gains you life randomly, and all together is a fine edition in a green deck vs reanimator...it's certainly no scavenging ooze or deathrite shaman (both ubiquitous as the starting cards in most G/x decks for main deck tech against reanimator, but just plain good enough anyway on their own), but it's deece. Walk the Plank is a good card, but the BB CMC is too difficult to justify it over go for the throat or diabolic edict in most decks, although it is likely more powerful than go for the throat, but just far less splashable in G/x where I think these sorts of cards shine to enable you to maintain tempo in besting your opponent with your own efficient critters while removing their relevant ones, etc. This card will very likely see standard constructed play, unless merfolk become a deck in standard (which I doubt looking at the quality of efficient merfolk).
On the whole not a great set so far from my estimation...my favorite card randomly enough is the Sunwing or Settle, but neither of these cards is overpowering in all matchups, they're just fringe good in certain matchups. And, the PW's in this set are garbage, of the two I've seen (shirtless Jace[just bad] and Dinosaur man [I cost one more than I should]) :/
--KB
P.S.--Someone will build a Fleet swallower deck and someone will build a Revel in Riches deck...these will both be about as good as my unified 60 card freeform singleton Barren Glory Deck, which although sweet is no peach (although it's won over half of it's matches because generally they don't suspect why you're just wrecking all of your cards and hand etc)
After laughing to myself about Sensei Rob's pic above, I made all these trophies for the last 8 or so CSM's (two messages because I reached upload size)...interestingly only two of the decks ran blue, DrPringles' Hermit/Angel Combo deck, and only there as a supporting color to protect the combo from opposing countermagic; Sensei's U/G midrange deck is really the only true U deck to do well in the last 8 tournaments. Hmmm...I won't go into my tirade again, but I think this continues to lend greater support to an ongoing argument. I've recorded a decent bit of this last CSM here: 4CBlood 2SEP17 CSM. Enjoy folks and take it easy.
KB
I think you're falling into the same trap, that's what you want to sit across from...me, I enjoy playing against any cards...you're right most people have an unqualified fear of decks that can "win" by T2-3, but again the issue is they allow their emotions about a negative experience drive their views as opposed to solid causal assessment of what happened, what it took to make it happen, and stopping it accordingly. I watched ML die to a boogles combo deck the other night, a fringe playable modern deck...he was playing a WW build, if he'd run blessed alliance in his SB with a few slots, it would have greatly increased his matchup, or some solid artifact enchantment hate coupled with aether vial to trick the hate in and win in combat...point being the matchup was not great G1, but post boards if he understood the format and the range of available and "most" viable archetypes, he could have killed one critter and likely left his opponent stranded with a bunch of crappy auras with nothing to put them on, combo decks are hugely reliant on most of their cards if you can disrupt one part of it, and have a proactive strategy yourself, then you can win...the point here is that even though Boogles isn't a tier 1 deck and it certainly doesn't win by T2, it's inevitability was undeniable because ML didn't account for it and didn't understand the weakness of his own deck vice this style of deck. Some of this comes in boarding, some of it comes in understanding the flexible cards that exist that can stop these sorts of thing (DR Shaman, Scavenging Ooze, Mental Misstep, Inquisition, Duress, Gaddock Teag, etc). I don't think you're wrong, most players just want to put their decks together and watch them do well, but sometimes they lack full understanding of their decks and how best to play them vice different possible matchups. It's a learning process...I'd just ask folks to be open minded and try the full range of what's available before making narrow minded decisions about what to ban or unban.
Your argument is understood; however, it is fraught with contradiction...you have played White Weenie or Red Deck Wins no? Think of aggro decks in the same light as a combo deck...the difference is simple but missed by the undiscerning eye. If I go 1 drop (2/1) on T1, then I attack for 2 dam on T2 and cast out a two drop (3/2 or 2/2) or play two one drops (2/1+2/1), T3 attack total damage at 7 to 9 play a three drop (will generally equate to 3 to 4 more power), on T4 I'm attacking for a total damage of 18-19, which means if my opponent fetched once or twice they're dead. WW decks if built well can both disrupt and kill on a fishing clock by T4-5; comparatively when you replace the 2 damages per crit above with 3 damage (generally at lower card economy, ie you're doing it with instants and sorcs) then this clock can range easily into the T3-4 territory for a well built and low to the ground RDW. The difference between these decks and a true combo deck, let's say reanimator is that they are roughly 40-50% more consistent, but are also more commonly hated out...and I don't mean dread of night or warmth, I mean that other folks can play blockers and midrange blockers or removal just tend to be bigger and better. The issue with the "True" combo deck as you call it, is that it is not consistent it tends to be focused on winning the game very singularly through it's combo, ie the builder is required to balance it's ability to react or control vice acquire consistency through cards that are generally non-interactive in the early turns of the game. For instance, when I cast entomb, it's a great play if I can back it up with a reanimation effect; however, if I don't do this in the first 4 turns against an aggro deck then I'm likely dead regardless, ie more of the cards required in these "True" combo decks tend to be dead draws...tutoring tends to be something that all players find intrinsically powerful, and it is, but when I cast demonic tutor, grim tutor, or vampiric tutor, I'm not using my mana to directly impact the board or gamestate in any meaningful way without the use of other cards, which at this point in time, to leverage immediate effect, need to cost 1-3 less mana then I would have over the course of the natural (one per turn) development of my mana base. Why do aggro decks tend to beat the living crap out of combo decks (check out legacy reanimators track record against D&T...ie not good at all)...because despite the uneven power level of the cards (in reanimator's favor), all of the aggro player's cards have an immediate effect and are used with a higher degree of efficiency...RDW excluded to some extent because this deck similar to many combo decks tends to end the game with very poor card economy...ie the deck wins or loses with 0 cards in hand. You can say you don't like this, but as Stsung has informed you combo players need to stay alive to win, just kill them faster. The biggest thing I could say to most deck builders, and certainly not excepting design trend today, embrace efficiency, flexibility, and interaction, they're what win you games...if you do it right you can find these effects stapled to cards that also have power and toughness that can randomly beat your opponent to death while erstwhile stopping them from enabling their plan what ever it might be. Funny thing is I've played storm in this format and it's fastest gold fish was about T4, although the permutation of cards and draw steps required to attain that game state were of much lower probability than fishing a WW deck to a T4-5 win. So, why does it not seem fair to up the odds to let's say 5-10% that you give such decks draws that fish out at T3, if I'm more than 70% likely to fish out to a win (let's say tendrils or brainfreeze) on T5-6, which mind you is far worse than the 70% to fish on T3-4 with RDW or 70% to fish on T4-5 with WW. The point being if someone wants to play this then give them the shot, their best draws will be devastating, but their worst draws will beat themselves, because in a very general sense the "better" you make a combo deck, the more fragile it becomes to being obtuse to the rest of the field, i.e. it loses the ability to interact and can just be killed. You liking or not liking it is irrelevant however...this is just magic...and I can get behind folks wanting to play it that way...and when they do I'll just counter their crap, thoughtsieze their hand, exile their critter cards, and kill them faster and more consistently
Just some thoughts
--KB
P.S. ML, I think you misread those statistics, look at the per capita results of the stats that Sensei was showing...those do show that it has the highest win percent based upon volume of its presentation in the format--Rob can contradict me but I think he was also trying to show the same thing, i.e. that deck is great--one of the best. It's one of the best decks in the format; despite it not being oppressive to your sense of fairness, but again your criteria for a "good" game of magic is based on a subjective assessment--whereas I subjectively enjoy this game to a high extent, I approach the game and its means of winning as objectively as possible and I tend to want to have available to me as many means as possible to exact all the different win cons available and I want my opponent to do the same against me--for me that's good magic, not haymakers per se, but small interactive fights and decisions that incrementally lead to overwhelming advantage if pressed and executed properly...this comes in point removal, winning critter combat, or correctly using a ponder to set your next 2 turns in motion...all of them are really the same thing, just seen in contrast due to the hazy lens of time. Additionally, your statement that we've only taken 4 cards out of the WoTC based ban list may be true (assume that they're DTT, TC, MD, and Entomb); you've been with the format longer than I have been; however, it also assumes that their last ban listing was actually worth a damn (hmmm..let's just ban all the restricted cards in vintage...trinisphere...really, what does this card do in this format) and that the ban listing then bears relevance about 10 or more sets later...this is the same sort of stale logic that doesn't take into account the passing of time and the changing of the game my man...you can bandy paltitudes about but your logic doesn't hold up to either the stats that Sensei has shown albeit a small subset of games or account for what has changed when WoTC made a decision that at the time was questioned by many folks regardless. It's our format, so I suppose we'll jump back into a very subjective voting process where we see cards such as blood moon bandied about as requiring bans because someone's pet deck get's blown out by it--the thing is folks come to the game for different reasons...most folks like winning; it reinforces the fun they have...I don't really care about winning, sure I too enjoy it, but at the end of the day; I enjoy jamming as many good archetypes as I can and having fun by learning something new everytime and building a deck to the best of my ability--this format does not offer that anymore to me. So if someone has read all of this, then I hope they can understand the logic in enabling players to truly play with a wide range of cards and not make parochial decisions that only serve to enhance their notion of fun, but enable the widest range of options for all players.
Think you all missed my point a bit, or rather I was speaking in some ways from a position of verbal irony--I'd make this my modest proposal: The solution to this problem is not in exclusion, or rather it's in what we've chosen to exclude historically. I don't want to ban birthing pod, I don't want to ban natural order...but I also wonder why we've banned analogous cards of similar power level in other colors. Why is mystical tutor (banned) fundamentally more powerful than worldly tutor (unbanned), or entomb (banned) for that matter? You could argue that I'll get show and tell endstep T2 on my opposition's trn and drop an emrakul or omniscience into emrakul, etc, but you're generally looking at a 3 card combo to truly win outright. With worldly tutor I could T1 cast on my opposition's endstep for hermit druid, put into play T2, on T3 post draw flip my whole library into the gyard (assuming no basics) have narcomoeba come into play from gyard, play land 3 to get a bloodghast back (have the 3/2 artifact critter for back up 2CMC recast), and sac the moeba, ghast, and hermit to dread return to return angel of glory's rise, to return azami+lab maniac for the win. Regardless, worldly tutor often get's critical disruption on a time horizon needed (low end use) or get's primeval titan, which if it resolves generally means the game. Funny thing is, this was a deck piloted by DrPringles last week (and I applaud you Dr, I think it's sweet). I managed to beat this deck 2-0, not because I'm a great player, or because I had removal and counterspells (although these helped), but because I understood what he was doing. Often times, players make assumptions that become convictions based upon what is frankly incomplete or misunderstood information...what is the best way to understand a thing, well we could contemplate it, or we could try it. No thing is static, this game not excluded, to approach it dynamically is to understand that it is morphing over time, at one point these cards were dangerous, because they were just plain faster than the critters, the disruption, etc, they're not that way anymore...sure they'll get some busted draws every now and then win rapidly and easily, but solid, interactive midrange is just as likely to grind them out--it won't typically be in as short a timeframe, but it will be just as assured if played well. My point is why do we put false limits on ourselves and our format, that aren't even logically congruent with what we currently allow...Mike as your people would say, "This is not possible"--but my friend it is true.
In regards to Ravager Shops, I hate to leap immediately to an ad hominin attack, but I believe you're speaking about yourself grinding out the gatherling vintage swiss with a ravager list that I built specifically for you (and loan to you
Sorry if the mosaic of my argument tends toward the fiery, I'm trying to lend my eyes which I feel at least in this case see more clearly to avail us of the myopia that's beset us. People don't truly want fair--they want freedom--this draws players...because frankly these decks are too expensive, generally, to rationalize grinding 4 tiks, when I could do that winning a few two man q's at a fraction of the price (considering I can play better than 60-70% of folks and am paired well or choose a deck with minimal poor pairings). This is not a format of grinders, it's a format of creation, why should we limit folks in how they decide to do that by having 1-2 decks that have only a few pairings below 45% (accounting for the fact that those decks that do favor in low margins against these decks have a few matchups that are likely 40% to lose etc). We just create an environment where range is limited and deck selection plays a greater role than imagination and capability...
Guess that's what I was trying to get after, let's put these back in the format:
Crucible of Worlds
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Dig Through Time
Entomb
Gifts Ungiven
Imperial Seal
Intuition
Life from the Loam
Lion's Eye Diamond
Mana Drain
Memory Jar
Merchant Scroll
Mind's Desire
Mystical Tutor
Sensei's Divining Top
Stoneforge Mystic
Survival of the Fittest
Tinker (why is this worse than natural order, esp without moxen or sol rings etc)
Tolarian Academy
Treasure Cruise
Trinisphere
Vampiric Tutor
These cards all give combo and control decks a leg up against midrange and aggro, adding speed and consistency, and the best part is they force understanding and interaction at some point in time to beat...ie these sorts of cards enable high level decision making and a pure form of mtg where both players have to calculate risk to a higher extent due to increased consistency. Realistically, they open the meta up and enable a lot more cool stuff to rise to power (and well some of the other ones that don't do this, don't really do anything at all, ref trinisphere...so bad in 100c, why ban it).
Anyway, hope this follow up helps to enlighten or entertain you all. Take it easy
KB
P.S.--Check out Mardu Midrange/Control it's a deck I designed a while back to beat 4CBlood, C4R1S had some success with it, taking down a tourney with it. It's a very strong archetype vs. permanent based midrange or aggro, where is struggles (very poorly) is vs. U based control decks. It's a fine deck, just can't realistically beat permission, but I think it's at about a 60/40 or 55/45 split vs 4CBlood, given equal play on both sides. There are other strategies that can also beat 4CBlood the issue is they tend to be predatory in nature and have some matchups that are frankly just terrible, whereas this deck is a natural strategy (and likely the best one at doing it, eff and disruption) and it's worst matchups are likely still around the .50 mark.
And, I'd dispute the need for empirical results of resounding depth, theoretical physics and mental simulation likely allowed the first humans to know they shouldn't jump off of cliffs, or why it made sense to get large prey, like mammoths, to run off of said cliffs. The art was likely perfected by empirical results, but it was based on a pretty sound theory--stuff dies when if falls from great enough distance...
I've uploaded gameplay from yesterday's CSM with Grixis Delve here: 29 JUL 17 CSM. The deck did as expected (X-1), but was, as always fun to play.
Another note, I truly think we need to revisit the ban listing, almost to a point that I'm getting tired of the format. We've systematically taken out a litany of combo cards and U cards and not shockingly critter based midrange and critter based aggro strategies, with support from continued design trend, are the most consistent and best in the format. This is debatable, but when a deck within 6-8 cards variation (4CBlood) has been piloted (I'm guilty I've piloted this deck as well
However, and it hasn't seen much play recently, if we were to remain with the current ban list, the most busted card in this format is birthing pod (to a bad point, I would argue that this card is about as unbeatable as JTMS on an open board, with no immediate answer, but far better due to its strength in all other board states). I've rallied against Green before because of the flexibility of its multiple tutor effects available, while its near-peer equivalents in U/B are not. Birthing Pod is easily the worst (best) of these...some folks would cite Natural Order in this spot, but I think a good way of comparing the two cards is comparing the power between Fireblast and Sulfuric Vortex. Both are great and one does more now, but the other ensures that your opponent cannot interact with the one resource that matters, to you (sure they can, but they're likely drawing to 4-5 outs in deck, if they don't counter vortex, etc.).
Anyway, was just thinking about the format. I think an issue we'll run into is we don't have a litany of habitual players, and for every game I jam in the CSM I likely jam 10-30 more in the format in casual matches, so it might just be a personal issue, not perceived by other players due to their volume of play. Maybe it's a pessimistic outlook, but I think familiarity has bred contempt for me to some extent; but I think there's some credence logically as well given the relatively large subset of games I've seen or played personally--we're in a best deck format at this point--Let's change that--what do you think?
Take it easy all
--KB
Couldn't play this week due to "flexible" obligations during the CSM timeframe. However, I was able to catch a decent number of matches and provide what is either banal, insightful, or C+ commentary...you choose. We also got to challenge the champ with our own BUG list that we intended on running, post finals, so there's at least some play from our end. Unfortunately, this tourney structure was weird and I had to leave in the middle of the recording so, it's a fairly chopped series, enjoy regardless:
CSM Part I
CSM Part II
CSM Part III
Enjoy folks
Take it easy
To answer your question from email in regards to the deck concept, start from this shell:
4 Dark Confidant
3 Fatal Push
4 Thoughtseize
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
1 Dismember
4 Path to Exile
4 Tidehollow Sculler
3 Aether Vial
2 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
1 Spirit of the Labyrinth
2 Liliana of the Veil
4 Marsh Flats
4 Godless Shrine
3 Ghost Quarter
3 Leonin Arbiter
4 Concealed Courtyard
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
2 Swamp
2 Plains
1 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
1 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
1 Lingering Souls
3 Phyrexian Revoker
1 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Stony Silence
3 Rest in Peace
1 Surgical Extraction
1 Dismember
1 Mirran Crusader
1 Spirit of the Labyrinth
3 Kor Firewalker
1 Zealous Persecution
The board is highly mutable dependent upon expected meta; I could see either the artifact or gyard hate increasing depending upon what you expect. What I've built here is designed to optimize matchups against combo (storm [1xspirit of the lab, 2xthalia, tons of discard] or gyard recursion decks [discard, plus 3xRIP]), red based decks [discard+korfirewalker board], or control (revoker for PWs or other vial decks, or oblivion stone [plus land hate via g quarter and leonine arb]). This deck is designed to be low to the ground while grinding out card advantage with dark confidant (on 2 CMC cards or less [generally] which also inhibit opponent plays while filtering through discard in the late game which tends to be bad then) which is very crucial to the deck's plan, or else you'll start to lose the top deck war. It may be worth considering Sword of Light and Shadow for the board, as this deck will tend to hurt itself with both bob and thoughtseize and Bob is really central to the plan of the deck and combo's nicely with the 3 main vials to enable mana efficiency while gaining card advantage (ie higher percentage of playing 2 spells each turn). I could see doing drazi with this too, but right now it's more of a grindy agro/control (board and hand) deck, much like modern D&T. Tell me more about your expected meta and I can tune it, right now it's optimized to play several matchups at the loss of being truly tuned to the expected. Hope this helps.
Thanks for the cool trophy, yeah not as much blightsteel love, more so emrakul and jin-gitaxias love...didn't see the old one-shot robot this tourney, but the deck ran well. I was glad to pickup Sugar_Daddy's original framework and adjust it to a deck I felt a bit stronger; not to mention, and yeah I'm shamelessly taking credit, I think I provided a lot of input into changing that deck's original design and making it largely more coherent in it's approach to winning games by providing more flexible options for finding the most insurmountable threat given different matchups, as well as making the board doubly hateful toward strategies that just stop this sort of deck. This sort of deck is interesting to me, because while it is narrow in it's approach to winning games, it can be made very redundant and resilient...the most interesting thing about it is the fact that I've found generally you need to decide very early the specific approach that you intend on taking in any given matchup (and this can vary greatly depending on matchup), the issue with it is, and why I call it a narrow deck, is once you choose a certain path, it's very difficult to find the flexibility to shift gears into a different one based upon the raw number of cards (options) you dump very early on pursuing your strategic goal.
I know builds like this tend toward being controversial, but I'm truly glad that decks like this can exist, because they represent a cool and unique subset of magic the gathering and should be viable to players who enjoy intricate but generally insular game plans (not my typical cup of tea, but I'll engineer or tinker any deck to a point I consider it great because that's my love of this game and format). Definitely recommend it to new and old players alike, but make sure you put a few repetitions in playing it, because some hands are very easy to play and some require fairly intricate sequencing and forward planning to mitigate blow-out potential from your opponent.
Take it easy everyone
--KB
The way I did it, is said hey this is what I want to play, and then went through the card listing and referenced each that would support my framework (then took away what was least optimal and supportive of my game plan), most of the cards I own, the mana base took significantly longer to purchase as most of the fixing isn't in general a thing in 100CS or other eternal formats. It was a lengthy but enjoyable process, took about 45 min to build the core of the deck (ie within 6-10 cards accuracy), about 4 hours over two days to ponder those last 6-10 cards and finalize the board with given options. Likely about 6-7 hours accumulated over three total days play testing it and making moderate tuning revisions (3-4 cards and 1-2 board). I at least enjoyed the process if it was a bit daunting, it certainly wasn't as difficult as I found storm to be in 100CS, but it was a rewarding experience for me.
Acknowledge on prize support.
If anyone's down to try out PD 100CS, let me know and reach out to folks for me if you have the time or see them on mtgo. If I get 16 players interested then I'll host the challonge. I'll put a prize pool of a TNN I got in a grudge match down for first place and 4xModernMasters packs for second place, obviously entry is free.
Take it easy.
--KB
That was my initial thought as well, I've competed in one PD tourney, where I essentially stole someone's MBC deck, revamped the board because I didn't like how they'd made it, changed out about 3-4 cards main, and then jammed it (took 2nd too, sick brags
--KB
Just an idea, another idea that would be fun is a pauper or PD 100CS event, likely PD would be the most effective for a cheap, inclusive event. This might have to be a separate challenge series run through challonge with prize structure from outside. But I think something like this would be equally as sweet. The spike I am, I'd be looking to break .01 or commons in either event, but I think it would be a refreshing experience and look through MTG's common or historically cheap but powerful cards over time.
--KB
Just an idea, and perhaps our prize pool isn't big enough to support it. But, I was wondering what people thought of nominating, let's say, a brewer's challenge card...for instance Cadaverous Bloom, Food Chain, Descent Into Madness, Aggressive Mining, or any other nonsense card that is kind of unique in mechanic, and then establishing a special prize pool for players that use said card. Might only be one ticket for playing with a brewer's challenge card, but it would be pretty cool, as folks who play for tickets could walk away with a tik even if their "sweet" brew didn't do so hot vs. more spikey builds. I know Kumagoro does this with Tribal, so I thought it was worth putting the idea out there for fielding. Let me know what you think.
--KB