Hey everyone. I was playing online a few days ago and ran into a very interesting deck that made me think of Deadguy Ale. I figured that some of you might be interested. It seemed extremely good. I don't know the full list, but I can list what I did see, and how it seemed to work so effectively.
It looks like they took a typical Deadguy Ale deck and made it more explosive with the Eldrazi. It was exactly that: explosive. Being able to play a turn three Thought-Knot into a turn four Sorin, Solemn Visitor was quite impressive. It only got better once a Reality Smasher hit the field.
Hey everyone. Was able to get a good number of games in this past week. I made a copy of my original datasheet (here) and started entering my own data into a copy for myself (here). I'm relatively new to the deck, so I figure that many people might prefer to see data from more experienced pilots untainted by my own play data.
For those of you willing to accept my own play as acceptable, my games have updated some of the card rankings. Key takeaways:
- Skred's numbers are steadily increasing. It is no longer the worst performing card in the deck, surpassing Chandra (which is now the worst ranking card in the deck). I figure this might be due in large part to the increase of small-creature matchups in the metagame.
- Hazoret now has diminishing return numbers, and now ranks above Koth, just below Pia and Kiran. I have to say, Hazoret's been amazing for me. It feels like a Chandra with haste and can block to stabilize if we're behind. It's been great for when an opponent "stabilizes" the board at a low life total, allowing me to finish them out with the 2nd ability. Also has made for some great combat tricks with instant-speed burn spells.
- Mind Stone continues to outperform every other card in the deck, with Relic of Progenitus coming just behind.
- Magma Jet has risen quite a bit, and my experiences with it agree with the numbers. It's been fantastic at helping to keep the board clear while setting up draws, ensuring a steady stream of land drops or threats, whichever is needed more. Between the eggs, this scry effect, and Sheets, the deck feels very smooth at keeping pressure.
I've been very happy with the deck thus far. I plan on continuing entering data as I get it, and I still have a good number of games to log. I plan on recording the videos for the games I've entered and uploading them to my Youtube channel.
Edit: I forgot, here is the list I'm running. I was running Gobling Rabblemasters, but have decided on Legion Warboss instead. Rabblemaster seems better against decks with Ensnaring Bridge, but otherwise Warboss seems superior.
Anyways.
Esper does play logic knot, and has for years. I'm currently playing terminus, I know some other people are as well.
However, I don't think control decks have to be able to cheat on mana. While cheating on mana can be powerful, I don't think its required. Jund and twin were consistently modern powerhouses that did not cheat on mana. Many fair decks don't. Even burn doesn't. Sure, plenty of decks do, especially in current day modern, I don't believe its required.
Otherwise, esper has frequently played cards like think twice to keep up on mana efficiency. You can spend a majority of your mana every turn, sometimes casting highly impactful, interactive spells, sometimes not, but still getting ahead, atleast a little bit, every turn, every draw, every land drop.
I don't think radical idea is particularly playable. Some sort of baby jace + lotv + brutality + goryos deck could exist (I played a version a few months back), but honestly, I don't think the deck is particularly strong, and I don't think radical idea changes much.
For Jund, Twin, and Burn, they do cheat on mana, just not in the way that is obvious.
Jund does it by playing the most overpowered cards they can for the lowest cost. It looks "fair", and is often called that, but really it's built to run a strict curve of 1cmc discard into 2cmc threats that take over the game into 3- and 4-cmc cards that help seal the deal. Jund was best when it still had access to a card that obviously helped it cheat on mana: Deathrite Shaman.
Twin also cheated on mana, in not-always-obvious ways. The obvious way was being able to have infinite creatures for a proportionally low cost, but there's more to it. All who played during that time should be familiar with having a land tapped down during our end step. While this doesn't decrease the mana that they need to use, it does increase our land requirements for combating the deck. It, in itself, is a virtual form of cheating on mana. The threat of the combo also made it so that many decks just couldn't play the game, always holding up mana in case of the combo. Again, this forced delay in tempo was a round-about way for Twin to "cheat" on mana.
Burn "cheats" in the same way that Jund does, but using the whole "Theory of Fire". It uses the most low-cost-to-high-damage-ratio cards that it can. Jund does the same, but the support cards that don't actually do direct damage are there to make it so that the cards that do deal damage can deal the most they can for the mana invested in casting them.
The success of each deck in the meta is determined by how well each deck can "cheat" on mana relative to all other decks in the meta. If other decks are suddenly able to cheat on mana more efficiently for effects to achieve a desirable gamestate, then the other decks will perform better. To me, a good measure for this is by looking at Jund and Burn meta shares compared to other decks, as they are the "most fair" at cheating on mana (in my humble opinion).
As far as the term "fair", though, I think that it's often used improperly - Any deck that is looking to play fair is looking to lose. Fair is not competitive. Jund and Burn are not fair, they're illusions of fair relative to other decks. It's all relative. Tarmogoyf isn't fair compared to Grizzly Bears. A competitive deck has to be built to be as unfair as possible relative to every other competitive deck in the meta.
Thus, how do we (Esper) play unfair? Can we play even more unfair, or are the cards required for doing so just not printed yet?
I would suggest trying out Mono Blue Tron. It's a monoblue control deck that already has a good amount of work done on it, and is probably a good starting point. Many experienced will (correctly, in my opinion) tell you, Utron is just a monoblue control deck that runs Tron lands to help turn the corner. As for me, this is my list, and I use Dismember, Repeal, Walking Ballista, Commit in the main and Spatial Contortion in the side. Now that I look at it, my sideboard on there is outdated need to update it, but I still run those Contortions in the side. Hope this helps.
Mono Blue Tron is basically a colorless deck with a small blue splash and a "true" Mono Blue deck imho.
Also, it is just a weaker Tron deck than the green variants and plays less of the busted Tron payoff cards which make it what it is.
I suppose I'm "splashing" 18 blue cards. Coincidentally, the exact same number as you do in your "mono blue colossus" deck in your signature (if you include the Borderposts) As far as comparing blue and green Tron, the OP was specifically talking about blue decks, thus, I didn't talk about a green one.
I agree that that would be logic, and would make sense. But even if WotC provides their logic and evidence, that doesn't necessarily correlate to players in general being logical about their criticisms. That won't necessarily stop people from complaining, and may just change what they complain about. In my experience, most players seem to only accept data-driven arguments when the data supports their prior opinion. If the data doesn't correlate to support their opinion, they seem much more likely to look for a flaw in the data and resort to their prior opinion (often based on little to no data, only conjecture). People, in general, seem much more comfortable with their conjecture than any sort of data that conflicts with their opinion. Even in cases where it's clearly irrational to try to argue with the data, many will simply come up with more conjecture about some possible "solution". It's sort of like the whole "god of the gaps", but in Magic. There really is little or no point in reasoning with people who refuse to reason.
I can understand WotC's perspective and actions on this. Even if they do give an explanation, we'll have self-designated MtG experts passionately typing about how the game is being ruined. WotC would be wasting their time trying to explain, even if they gave the data they have from MTGO. The format is fine right now.
I hate to feel like I'm not contributing to the conversation of Esper Control (stopped in because the deck interests me), if you feel that UW is simply stronger, why post in the Esper thread at all? What are you contributing to the conversation?
In order to try to contribute the Esper conversation, though, I do feel that there are some requirements for Esper (or any deck) to be competitive in the Modern format. One of those is having some way to "cheat" on mana. It seems that (nearly) every competitive deck has something. Delve, Aether Vial, Simian Spirit Guide, Tron lands, Mox Opal, bypassing mana with dredge, KCI, infect (where everything has a sort of "doublestrike" when hitting a player, and the damage can't be recouped), Mind Stone, etc. Even UW Control has delve in Logic Knot and can cast a board wipe for W.
So, how do we make it so that Esper can keep up, mana-wise? How does Esper consistently "cheat" on mana, and how can we increase it's ability to do so?
I would suggest trying out Mono Blue Tron. It's a monoblue control deck that already has a good amount of work done on it, and is probably a good starting point. Many experienced will (correctly, in my opinion) tell you, Utron is just a monoblue control deck that runs Tron lands to help turn the corner. As for me, this is my list, and I use Dismember, Repeal, Walking Ballista, Commit in the main and Spatial Contortion in the side. Now that I look at it, my sideboard on there is outdated need to update it, but I still run those Contortions in the side. Hope this helps.
What would interest me, and what I think would progress the conversation to more than us posting to a forum attempting to support what we already think is true, is if we had an analysis like what was done with ModernNexus, where they are able to simulate 100,000 games and analyze how effective it is at contributing to the consistency and speed of a deck that could potentially play it. We already have a concrete argument that the deckbuilding requirements for Ancient Stirrings are more strict than Preordain, and we can see how dominating a card like Ancient Stirrings is to the meta (in that it isn't, as demonstrated by the wide open metagame), then if we can compare the respective power that each card brings to respective decks that they can be played in, we will have come to a better understanding of the nature of the card and it's potential effect(s) on the format.
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know they did that I like the effort put into it, but I personally prefer the method used with the Ancient Stirrings test. I won't discount what is presented in the article, though, as it does provide valuable insight into the subject. With that said, I suppose my personal opinion on the subject right now is that I'm indifferent to a Preordain unban. If it really is mediocre compared to Serum Visions and Sleight of Hand, then who cares if it stays banned? I suppose those who really don't like playing against Tron, KCI, and Lantern will continue to be angry that Ancient Stirrings exists and might use Preordain being banned as a way to lash out about Ancient Stirrings being legal, but unless I'm looking at the metagame wrong, Ancient Stirrings decks aren't having a negative effect on the format.
@FoodChainGoblins, I don't know if you were responding to me about your comment on testing, but the testing I meant was the sort of testing that ModernNexus did. It didn't require actual gameplay, but an algorithm that checked for how reliable a card is at enabling a deck to be more consistent. The article can be found here.
@AUTUMNTWILIGHT, I'd like to refer you to my post here.
I said it on another site, in another conversation, but I think there are two very relevant things to consider when we look at cards like Preordain being unbanned. First is how universally it would/could be played. If you were playing blue, what are the chances you wouldn't auto-include it into your deck? While that could, in itself, provide an argument for both how ubiquitous the card could be in the metagame, the power that it brings to decks (that could lead to it being so ubiquitous), and the motivations of many who argue for its' unban.
What would interest me, and what I think would progress the conversation to more than us posting to a forum attempting to support what we already think is true, is if we had an analysis like what was done with ModernNexus, where they are able to simulate 100,000 games and analyze how effective it is at contributing to the consistency and speed of a deck that could potentially play it. We already have a concrete argument that the deckbuilding requirements for Ancient Stirrings are more strict than Preordain, and we can see how dominating a card like Ancient Stirrings is to the meta (in that it isn't, as demonstrated by the wide open metagame), then if we can compare the respective power that each card brings to respective decks that they can be played in, we will have come to a better understanding of the nature of the card and it's potential effect(s) on the format.
Been a while since I posted here, but have some updates to my list based on some playtesting in my meta. It's been quite a while since I played an event (work responsibilities), but it consists largely of GW Valuetown, Humans, Mardu Pyromancer, UB Mill, Affinity, and Burn, with some random other stuff.
The biggest changes are the re-inclusion of Skred over Dismember. This is largely due to Grixis Shadow and Hollow One disappearing from my meta, so Skred is better in this particular case again, at least for me. I removed a single Eternal Scourge to make room for the fourth Skred, and it's been working well. Magma Jet's been incredible at smoothing out draws, ensuring that I don't get flooded and still make land drops in a timely manner, while removing problem creatures.
Otherwise, most of the deck is built based on the spreadsheet work, with Skred being the big outlier. I can definitely see Skred being better in a meta like mine, which is filled with smaller creatures that can be killed with a strictly worse Shock and whatnot in the early game.
I haven't tried the Dragon Skred lists yet, and they don't really appeal to me at the moment. I'm not saying that I'm dismissing the Dragon lists as inferior - I would agree with Hugo de Prado that they seem equally strong and just require different playstyles (and maybe metagame considerations could be important between choosing between the two).
I tested a decent amount against KCI. I found that disruption into a combination of Pithing Needle on Engineered Explosives and a Damping Sphere nearly auto-wins the game. Postboard they'll have Nature's Claims to answer the Sphere/Needle, but we'll also have more answers. I personally like a copy of Rest in Peace from the side. I do run one Sphere main, and it's been great. Not just against KCI, but Tron variants, Amulet Titans, Storm...
Haven't seen it, but personally not interested. Last premium article I saw was a blue-based list with 1 Bridge and cards like Thoughtcast. As far as builds with 3 Surgical and no Decay, that is about on par with lists from 2015 (specifically, mine). Zac is who ended up convincing me on the Decay.
It looks like they took a typical Deadguy Ale deck and made it more explosive with the Eldrazi. It was exactly that: explosive. Being able to play a turn three Thought-Knot into a turn four Sorin, Solemn Visitor was quite impressive. It only got better once a Reality Smasher hit the field.
For those of you willing to accept my own play as acceptable, my games have updated some of the card rankings. Key takeaways:
- Skred's numbers are steadily increasing. It is no longer the worst performing card in the deck, surpassing Chandra (which is now the worst ranking card in the deck). I figure this might be due in large part to the increase of small-creature matchups in the metagame.
- Hazoret now has diminishing return numbers, and now ranks above Koth, just below Pia and Kiran. I have to say, Hazoret's been amazing for me. It feels like a Chandra with haste and can block to stabilize if we're behind. It's been great for when an opponent "stabilizes" the board at a low life total, allowing me to finish them out with the 2nd ability. Also has made for some great combat tricks with instant-speed burn spells.
- Mind Stone continues to outperform every other card in the deck, with Relic of Progenitus coming just behind.
- Magma Jet has risen quite a bit, and my experiences with it agree with the numbers. It's been fantastic at helping to keep the board clear while setting up draws, ensuring a steady stream of land drops or threats, whichever is needed more. Between the eggs, this scry effect, and Sheets, the deck feels very smooth at keeping pressure.
I've been very happy with the deck thus far. I plan on continuing entering data as I get it, and I still have a good number of games to log. I plan on recording the videos for the games I've entered and uploading them to my Youtube channel.
Edit: I forgot, here is the list I'm running. I was running Gobling Rabblemasters, but have decided on Legion Warboss instead. Rabblemaster seems better against decks with Ensnaring Bridge, but otherwise Warboss seems superior.
For Jund, Twin, and Burn, they do cheat on mana, just not in the way that is obvious.
Jund does it by playing the most overpowered cards they can for the lowest cost. It looks "fair", and is often called that, but really it's built to run a strict curve of 1cmc discard into 2cmc threats that take over the game into 3- and 4-cmc cards that help seal the deal. Jund was best when it still had access to a card that obviously helped it cheat on mana: Deathrite Shaman.
Twin also cheated on mana, in not-always-obvious ways. The obvious way was being able to have infinite creatures for a proportionally low cost, but there's more to it. All who played during that time should be familiar with having a land tapped down during our end step. While this doesn't decrease the mana that they need to use, it does increase our land requirements for combating the deck. It, in itself, is a virtual form of cheating on mana. The threat of the combo also made it so that many decks just couldn't play the game, always holding up mana in case of the combo. Again, this forced delay in tempo was a round-about way for Twin to "cheat" on mana.
Burn "cheats" in the same way that Jund does, but using the whole "Theory of Fire". It uses the most low-cost-to-high-damage-ratio cards that it can. Jund does the same, but the support cards that don't actually do direct damage are there to make it so that the cards that do deal damage can deal the most they can for the mana invested in casting them.
The success of each deck in the meta is determined by how well each deck can "cheat" on mana relative to all other decks in the meta. If other decks are suddenly able to cheat on mana more efficiently for effects to achieve a desirable gamestate, then the other decks will perform better. To me, a good measure for this is by looking at Jund and Burn meta shares compared to other decks, as they are the "most fair" at cheating on mana (in my humble opinion).
As far as the term "fair", though, I think that it's often used improperly - Any deck that is looking to play fair is looking to lose. Fair is not competitive. Jund and Burn are not fair, they're illusions of fair relative to other decks. It's all relative. Tarmogoyf isn't fair compared to Grizzly Bears. A competitive deck has to be built to be as unfair as possible relative to every other competitive deck in the meta.
Thus, how do we (Esper) play unfair? Can we play even more unfair, or are the cards required for doing so just not printed yet?
I suppose I'm "splashing" 18 blue cards. Coincidentally, the exact same number as you do in your "mono blue colossus" deck in your signature (if you include the Borderposts)
In order to try to contribute the Esper conversation, though, I do feel that there are some requirements for Esper (or any deck) to be competitive in the Modern format. One of those is having some way to "cheat" on mana. It seems that (nearly) every competitive deck has something. Delve, Aether Vial, Simian Spirit Guide, Tron lands, Mox Opal, bypassing mana with dredge, KCI, infect (where everything has a sort of "doublestrike" when hitting a player, and the damage can't be recouped), Mind Stone, etc. Even UW Control has delve in Logic Knot and can cast a board wipe for W.
So, how do we make it so that Esper can keep up, mana-wise? How does Esper consistently "cheat" on mana, and how can we increase it's ability to do so?
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know they did that
@AUTUMNTWILIGHT, I'd like to refer you to my post here.
What would interest me, and what I think would progress the conversation to more than us posting to a forum attempting to support what we already think is true, is if we had an analysis like what was done with ModernNexus, where they are able to simulate 100,000 games and analyze how effective it is at contributing to the consistency and speed of a deck that could potentially play it. We already have a concrete argument that the deckbuilding requirements for Ancient Stirrings are more strict than Preordain, and we can see how dominating a card like Ancient Stirrings is to the meta (in that it isn't, as demonstrated by the wide open metagame), then if we can compare the respective power that each card brings to respective decks that they can be played in, we will have come to a better understanding of the nature of the card and it's potential effect(s) on the format.
2x Eternal Scourge
2x Hazoret the Fervent
2x Pia and Kiran Nalaar
2x Stormbreath Dragon
2x Scrying Sheets
21x Snow-Covered Mountain
3x Blood Moon
4x Magma Jet
4x Skred
4x Mind Stone
4x Relic of Progenitus
3x Anger of the Gods
3x Koth of the Hammer
1x Abrade
3x Damping Sphere
3x Dragon's Claw
3x Goblin Rabblemaster
1x Grafdigger's Cage
3x Ratchet Bomb
1x Shattering Spree
The biggest changes are the re-inclusion of Skred over Dismember. This is largely due to Grixis Shadow and Hollow One disappearing from my meta, so Skred is better in this particular case again, at least for me. I removed a single Eternal Scourge to make room for the fourth Skred, and it's been working well. Magma Jet's been incredible at smoothing out draws, ensuring that I don't get flooded and still make land drops in a timely manner, while removing problem creatures.
Otherwise, most of the deck is built based on the spreadsheet work, with Skred being the big outlier. I can definitely see Skred being better in a meta like mine, which is filled with smaller creatures that can be killed with a strictly worse Shock and whatnot in the early game.
I haven't tried the Dragon Skred lists yet, and they don't really appeal to me at the moment. I'm not saying that I'm dismissing the Dragon lists as inferior - I would agree with Hugo de Prado that they seem equally strong and just require different playstyles (and maybe metagame considerations could be important between choosing between the two).