It it just to protect it from artifact removal?
I think it has to be this. In theory it makes sense to me--if the reason to play Eldrazzos instead of Shops is to dodge artifact removal, you might as well run the creature-land that doesn't turn that removal back on.
Good writeup, but I'm wondering: was Colorless Eldrazi showing up because it's actually good, or were people just playing it because Shops was bugged on MTGO and this was the closest replacement?
I'm not sure what the timeline for the Shops bugs is/was, but clicking through to the tournament the sample Eldrazi list is from (Vintage Challenge on May 9), two Shops lists did do better than it. I'm inclined to go with "actually good, but maybe not the best at what it does, but also not very hated in sideboards at the moment."
@chubbyrain I should elaborate a little. They do (and always will) make mistakes sometimes and allow broken stuff through that then gets banned, but that's not really what I'm talking about. What I mean is the kind of combo or otherwise "unfair" play that sits alongside more "fair" strategies in a balanced format. The few times that I've dipped back into Standard since I stopped playing it regularly haven't really featured that kind of action. However if Outcome/Sai and Frenzy/Steamkin constitute(d) viable unfair tactics, I withdraw my previous assertion in the face of superior knowledge.
the first and most obvious culprit would probably be Serum Powder
I've seen comparisons of the odds of finding Bazaar now vs. under the London mulligan system, but has anyone run the numbers on finding it using London mulligans but with Serum Powder restricted?
I always think of "fairness" (regardless of format) as a measure of how closely a deck sticks to core Magic gameplay: advance your mana by approximately one per turn, play a small number of spells per turn, answer your opponent's threats, attack with creatures, gradually lower your opponent's life total. On that scale a deck is "unfair" to the extent that it seeks to bypass that gameplay and play a different way. So for example, Shops is an unfair deck because it advances its mana way too quickly, Storm is a more unfair deck than that because it completely refuses to even engage with what its opponent is doing beyond answering their disruptive plays, and Dredge is the least fair of all because it sidesteps the basic rules about how cards are drawn and played.
This a relative term, though. In the grand scheme of all things Magic, I don't think there is a viable Vintage deck that is truly fair... decks that are commonly described as fair do still have game-breaking cards like moxes and lotus and stuff like Monastery Mentor or whatever, and I would also say that while countering spells is generally considered a fair tactic, playing a card that just stops your opponent from playing most of their spells (i.e. Lavinia) is probably not. I would still say that it's a useful term even if it isn't perfectly descriptive though, since it does refer to a class of decks that is sometimes worth talking about as a group, and I think people generally know what you mean when you say it, barring a few edge cases.
@PugSuperStar Why not run something like Mana Drain then? I would be surprised if they did not have access to UU when paying 1U when all of their duels are blue. I could be wrong but it seems off.
They do have a couple of colorless lands in the deck, along with a ton of cards that cost a single U, so any time they have two duals and one Strip Mine/Wasteland they'd be able to play a cantrip and still hold up a 1U counterspell. It probably doesn't come up that often, but in this deck the opportunity to make really great use of Mana Drain mana probably comes up even less often. I wouldn't balk if it did have Mana Drain instead, but playing these cards makes sense to me.
@nsammael I agree with this. It's not even a criticism, this is an excellent look at the NA (+Snapcardster) community. I'd love to see follow-up articles about the other scenes worldwide, although obviously the research for those would be a bit more challenging.
BTW @volrathxp: I have no idea how you crank out so many high-quality articles as fast as you do, but thanks and great work.
Yes you are indeed correct about probe I should have looked thanks. I felt that this deck and survival were different but I could have been mistaken. Survival feels more like a grindy Toolbox deck that has answers to everything. When i was brewing the above list I was more worried about if it would just be a worse dredge.
Survival's strength is that it can opt into playing either the grindy toolbox style or the explosive comboish style, depending on what's appropriate to the matchup and/or game state. Not to say that Phoenix isn't worth trying, but getting some games in with Survival might bring the strengths and weakness of this deck into relief somewhat. Something that jumps out at me is this: is there much synergy between Phoenix/Buried Alive and Bazaar/Rootwalla/Hollow One? In Survival the latter package works because Rootwalla and Hollow One are reanimate Vengevines, so the only "extra" card is Bazaar which works with all of it, but unless I'm missing something you just have two separate game plans, right?
If you want to beat outcome, you can sideboard Sadistic Sacrament. This card will beat the pants off most outcome lists.
I always wonder why Cap effects aren't played more often, when there are so many decklists out there that have all of 1-3 win conditions.