I am currently testing this card on MTGO, and it's been fantastic so far! I'm not sure if I should call my deck Storm with Belcher, or Belcher with Storm, but it's both.
It's essentially a storm shell, with no Bargain, and 3-4 Bolas's Citadel. I'm currently using Land Grant, a singleton Bayou, and Tolarian Academy.
I can't post a list because it's been changing multiple times each day, but I will say that the deck (and Bolas's Citadel) have far exceeded my expectations, in every aspect.
As a statistician, this information is difficult for me to comprehend. Since when is restricted access to data a beneficial change?
What can I infer about the official stance regarding the staleness of a format? If we look at the recent happenings in Modern, WoTC is saying that the players (tournament participants, watchers, data collectors, et. al,) are the reason formats become stale and inbred. It has nothing do with the cards being printed (and pushed) by WoTC.
So rather than turn inward and examine the reason/purposes behind meta game structures, the necessities for bans and restrictions, etc., WoTC would basically rather blame the player base for being "too data aware" (I paraphrased the last bit.)
Ignore the man behind the curtain, folks. Nothing to see here.
@Topical_Island said in R&D is completely incompetent:
No, it isn't a matter of competence. They just aren't trying. Why would I, as a customer, want to be part of something as passionless as that? ...
I agree in part that WoTC can be taciturn regarding vintage. However, if we (you, me, us, whomever,) feels that WoTC is "passionless" about Vintage, then the ball is in our court.
The playerbase, the people who love and play Vintage every day, we are the ones who can create passion about Vintage. If Wizards has taken the stance that Vintage is the "wild west" of MAGIC (which I don't believe it is,) then the players can decide for themselves how much passion is contained in the format. If we let Vintage languish, or we bury it in gloom, then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I truly believe that the game designers love Vintage. They just don't specifically design for it. If we want the playerbase to continue to grow, and if we want others to love the format as much as we do, then we always need to remain professional, optimistic, and inviting.
Sometimes people who don't have a ton of experience in particular meta (paper or online,) will perceive a high-variance game (or turn) as luck or "braindead" playstyle.
A large part of understanding and becoming good at vintage is understanding the nuances of the format, and becoming accustomed to the back-and-forth nature of high variance.
An opponent might sometimes seem like they don't know what they're doing, when in fact they have an acute awareness of the particular meta and of the deck they are playing against.
@ribby said in August 28, 2017 Banned & Restricted Announcement:
But what exactly does the possibility of 4x Bargain add to this format? Does drawing 12-19 cards and killing someone on the spot add dimension to this format? Is that "fun" for more than one of the two players involved in a game?
Adding more combo decks to the format does indeed add dimension (depth.) You strategically omitted the sequenced lines of play that lead to "drawing 12-19 cards and killing someone on the spot..." You have to accelerate into a Bargain (surpassing missteps and counters,) then carefully sequence the cards you draw so that you avoid (or bait) countermagic and then find your kill condition (most likely tendrils.)
Combo decks, especially of the older variety, are notoriously challenging to pilot.
Great show, as usual! The number of powerful and interesting cards in Modern Horizons is staggering.
One small note: In the introduction to Hogaak, Kevin correctly states the casting cost of 5 B/G B/G, but then when he's evaluating the card he incorrectly identifies that you need creatures that are "....either black or red."
This errors leads you to the response that it's difficult to cast in Survival builds, because of the restrictive red requirement.
However, because it's black or green, I think the cards is much better in Survival than was evaluated in the podcast.
I've been using 4x in my dredge deck. It's great! Yes, a bit disappointing to see in your opening hand, but that's part of the risk of running the card.
I run 4x Hollow One in the board. That in combination with Creeping Chill makes for a very strong post-board game.
@thewhitedragon69 I'm pretty sure Narset does much more than Chains. She doesn't "only" impede drawing (which I contend is a bigger impediment than you're presuming,) but she also offers exceptional card selection, sometimes chaining into another Narset.
Narset allows you to see 8 cards into the deck (with two activations,) while at the same time inhibiting the opponent's draws.
@Smmenen The article is insightful and well-articulated. I found the section on homogenization to be particularly interesting, specifically the pondering of the restricted list.
@Soly I think that critiquing the format and opining about the state of vintage are reasonable actions. Sometimes, however, we (vintage players) have a tendency to scour the spaces between space to find things to complain about.
So far, I'm thrilled with the cards that have been spoiled. And, the art on Chrome Mox and Enlightened tutor... simply divine.
I do like the flavor of the card. As for likely outcomes, if you were to choose 5, the two more likely outcomes (winning 2 or 3 flips) has a combined probability of 62.5%. So, a 62.5% probability of either drawing 2 cards and taking 6 damage, or drawing 3 cards and and taking 4 damage. For comparison on drawing cards and losing life, Night's Whisper is 2 cards for 2 life.
This also pitches to forces, but is also hit by pyro and oko.
I've been testing a similar deck, and it's quite fun. I do run pyroblasts, just because the online meta is a sea of blue. Also, I run 2x Dark Confidant (in place of the welders) because the deck has such a low ceiling that it's great almost always with near zero downside.
@fsecco said in [STX] Strict Proctor:
@botvinik so I guess just Mystic Sanctuary then? So yeah, it's not worth it.
We could also evaluate a new card in the context of deck creation possibilities, rather than boxing it in to the current meta. Although new cards can be evaluated based on their effect on the current meta, that's not the only purpose of evaluating new cards.
For example, this also works with Phyrexian Dreadnought and Lotus Field. Now, would I create a deck with either card and play it in vintage? Lotus Field probably not, Phyrexian Dreadnought maybe (I've always liked the card.) The point is that I picked two random cards outside of the current vintage "meta" that have interesting synergy with this newly spoiled card.
There are hundreds of cards with ETB triggers. Most of those probably aren't going to appear in Top 8 decks, but I think it's worthwhile (at least for deck creators,) to see what's within the realm of possibility.
@protoaddict said in Lurrus unbanned:
Honestly after rereading them I actually question the way a few of them are worded. Zirda, the Dawnwaker should probably say all instead of EACH because we know all includes 0, each is not as explicit. I realize we use them the way we use them because WOTC can just say by edict that it works this way, but the templating seems sloppy to me.
I would say that if Zirda said "All" instead of "Each," that would be ambiguous because it could imply that all cards would have the same activated ability. The use of "each" implies that for each permanent card in your deck, they each have their own activated ability.
If the templating were instead "All permanent cards in your starting deck each have their own activated ability," that would be redundant. The templating, as worded, uses "each" to save space and use fewer words on the card
I used to work in publishing, and it always boiled down ensuring the typesetting and format of a page not only made sense, but looked "as clean as possible."
I've been testing my old Lurrus Combo PO deck. A bunch of good stuff, and my protection is discard instead of coutermagic. So far, with the companion rule change, Lurrus is more fair but still incredibly strong.
Their rationale provided by Wizards is that the "companion tax" is more detrimental in vintage. However, because Lurrus is such a cheap companion at only 3CMC the tax only delays the powerful plays, usuallly by only a turn.
No, if you choose 19, you'd lose 19 life. Then, you'd discard your hand and draw 7.
You discard and draw 7 if you chose the larger number, and if you choose the smaller number, you lose that amount of life but don't discard or draw.
Edit: Actually, upon further thought, if you choose the smaller number I don't think you lose life either. Each player has to choose the same number (e.g., the largest number) and you'll both lose that amount of life and draw 7.
@vaughnbros said in [CMR] Opposition Agent:
Any list with this needs Dark Ritual, and probably other fast mana (Elvish Spirit Guide?). So I'd add that.
I'd add 2 more Ouphes, 1 Null Rod, and 1 Chalice of the Void. Need to deny their moxen.
Cut Liliana too slow. Cut Demonic, and the Symetries. Also too slow.
I'd try with the 3 Maralen, but probably cut that 1 eventually. That's just a random finisher for the game. You need a lock before you can play her.
I don't think I would ever cut Demonic Tutor. I can't see how it's ever too slow, especially with rituals. And Scheming Symmetry seems great also.
I'm looking at blowout lines of play such as... flash Agent EOT (or earlier in the turn depending), and on your turn cast Symmetry, find your best card, find their best card (ancestral?) Their ancestral doesn't go on top of their library, it's exiled and you can play it and pay any color mana (notably for this deck, B.)
@protoaddict
Currently I'm testing:
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Ruby
1 LED
1 Lotus Petal
4 Simian Spirit Guide
3 Ancient Tomb
The combo of ancient tomb + SSG help to power a turn 1 Blood Moon if needed (since I'm running no off-color moxen.)
@tittliewinks22 said in Conspicuous Snoop:
Friends and I have been testing mono red gob list. Basically an aggro list with red blast and null rod for disruption.
Snoop is a great value engine, and theres minimal deckspace requirement to run a copy of kiki and mogg fanatic.
We do not run ringleader or matron, both engines are too slow for vintage we've determined.
Yes, I've also been testing a mono-red goblins list. I do run 1-of Ringleader and Matron, just because I like the flexibility. But they are a bit slower. I'm also running 4x Blood Moon as disruption, because if it hits the battlefield, it's exceptional.
@ambivalentduck said in Conspicuous Snoop:
Also, I think this is a VERY consistent turn 2 kill. Eg. Turn 1 Recruiter (Snoop, Torch Courier, Kiki), Turn 2 play Snoop, Play Courier, Sac Courier, Go Infinite, Copy Recruiter to put Fanatic on top. I think some combination of Lightning Bolt and countermagic disrupts most of the disruption, too.
You need RRR on turn 2, which isn't necessarily a consistent turn 2 line of play. I think you need Mox Ruby to facilitate the turn 2 win, because if you opened with Black Lotus, you'd have cracked in T1 for the Recruiter.