Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
You're more than welcome to think Maverick is playable, but for people attending real tournaments, it's not, and hasn't been for a long time. I don't understand this quest to prove it was a good deck or is a good deck. Things go in and out all the time, and Maverick's just been out. Winning an FNM is great, but don't think the results of that FNM are going to win you a PTQ or an Open. It's much better for players to aim to play decks that win in larger fields and its proof of power and consistency. In terms of the B/R list, if a deck is performing too well it needs to be looked at. The last few weeks of Open data have showed a tremendous amount of diversity which is a sign of a good format. Maybe Maverick with Sylvan Basilisk would cure your ills. Decay proof, Bolt proof, and TNN can't block it profitably either.
Self fulfilling prophecy is self fulfilling.
For whatever it's worth, Punishing Maverick did get a Top 8 finish at the Bazaar of Moxen.
0/10, Obvious Troll is Obvious. I suggest just ignoring the trolls who completely ignore any sort of actual data thats put in front of them. FWIW, Maverick actually was in the DTB forum quite recently, I think maybe last month? Clearly a dead deckOriginally Posted by HSCK
If nobody plays a deck because the internet instructs them not to then the number of placements will dwindle. 90% of the people who play SCGs / GPs are just reading whatever the internet has to offer from their favorite acronym writer, copying a 75 that they can afford and heading off to the event. Nothing wrong with that, but it's how it is. People speaking in absolutes like "G/w CAN'T WIN ANYTHING" just sound stupid.
HSCK, your insistence on not acknowledging thecouncil's data is quite puzzling. I'm not quite sure why you believe that the only relevant tourney data comes from SCG Opens and BoM. You do understand that for every 1 SCG Open (129+) there are probably 10 mid-sized tourneys (30-50+), right? I mean, when you're talking about what the overall meta looks like, narrowing your pool of data to just 129+ player tourneys gives you an incredibly small sample size to draw any conclusions from.
You claim that I'm "skewing the data" by including all results (regardless of tourney size, I count it) yet you believe that cherry picking a handful of large tourneys out of dozens and dozens gives you a more accurate meta representation? Are you being serious?
Why is 50 a better floor than 36? You have to draw a cut-off somewhere. Do you have rationale for 50 being "big enough" and 36 "not big enough", or does the 0 just look really sexy with all its curves but lack of love handles? Why not set the floor higher and count only SCGs, GPs, etc.? Or at least 65 to have min. 7 rounds?
How is a 6-round 51-man tourney better data than a 6-man 45-man tourney? How is the 6-round 45-man tourney as poor data as a 19-man event, barely bigger than a 4-round 16-man where half top8. I think a floor based on a functional value is better than one based on a nice round number.
Possible reasons for 36:
-33+ means at least 6 rounds and <25% top 8.
-In probability and statistics, with n>30 you can generalize from the Binomial distribution to a Normal distribution (i.e. sample size is big enough to smooth out to a bell curve shape, except for rare events)
Taking top8 finish from a 36-man seems fine to me. Taking top16 (or even 9th place, since it's just based on tiebreakers) from 36-man events does seem sketchier.
What you could do is, instead of looking at final placing in a mid-sized event like that, just extract their match records against other top decks across all those events and match them up.
(e.g. Jund was X-Y vs Esperblade, A-B against RUG, etc. )
That might be a more meaningful extrapolation of data from smaller events, where the individual match results are useful to know but event placing is more subject to variance.
Obviously the real offenders are TNN and Delver, not BS. You even wrote it: "hand-shaping alone doesn't win you games, you also need the tools to win the game" and this leads me to question: if you'd have the power, would you rather ban BS (to stop unmulligans and to open space for future tools to win the game), or would you rather ban the Delver and TNN (the overpowered tools) and kept BS alive.
Both approaches are valid, imho. If BS is too powerful that it limits future design, makes it too easy to dig for bombs, or w/e, then it should get the axe. Otoh, library manipulation is blue's domain.
If TNN and Delver break the color pie by the fact that they are too good for blue threats, they might be banned. Otoh, this doesn't solve the trouble of future broken cards.
I would be sad if WotC bans BS, esp. as I just got my Chinese ones. But I could live with the fact of ban.
The trouble with blue and Legacy is that library manipulation (and raw card draw) are the most important aspects of game and they are quite limited to blue. With every new set and every new Commander, the pool of broekn cards will be bigger and bigger, unil it may come to the point where BS would be too powerful (see Vintage). Is it yet? IDK...
Maybe it'll be good to iprove other colors and give them library manipulation and/or card selection, call it as you wish. But if this would lead to even more bomby format... I once again don't know.
Yep. But R&D (or Maro or whoever responsible) should also consider their design patterns. It's not like they're really abstemious when it comes to (mainly blue) overpowered crap.
I'd say there are some more of them... :-(
Interesting opinion.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
I understand that they won't ban Brainstorm because too many people will pitch a fit, but we should at least be honest and acknowledge that by all criteria we use to ban cards in a normal business order- unless you think the list has to be kept down to ten cards or something- Brainstorm should be banned. It is significantly better than a number of cards on the banned list that probably shouldn't come off.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Blue also gets the best stack manipulation, and got some very strong fast creatures recently. R&D has serious blinders when it comes to blue.
Three of the four best creatures in the format- Delver, TNN, and Griselbrand- are blue, and the fourth (Tarmogoyf) is played in blue decks and Jund and that's it afaict.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Would have listed SFM and DRS there too to get a relation and hammer the fact that all those are played in blue decks ... Whatever.
Blitz-Edit: Can we ban the first guy pointing out that Griselbrand is not blue and costing 3 mana total? Thanks.
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
In B/R Thread:
Blue = Blue
Green = Blue
Black = Blue
So DRS = Double Blue?
Also, I just learned today that Show and Tell is actually a creature card that is immune to Remove Soul. The more you know!
I would state, that all 1cc and 1x cards are, in fact, blue...
LOL
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Interesting opinion.
Of all the creatures in the "best creature" poll:
Stoneforge Mystic = Oath of Druids = blue
Griselbrand = blue
Tarmogoyf = blue
Delver of Secrets = blue
True Name I'm actually not that good = blue
Deathrite Shaman = 2nd best blue planeswalker, honorable mention on the "creature" list
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn = blue
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben = white
Dark Confidant = black
Hammerfist Giant = red
Of the non-blue ones, only one clearly wins in a bar fight.
WotC should either stop printing such good blue creatures or start printing more Hammerfist Giants
Delver can be explained, TNN being blue? I have no idea.
Delver was made for modern. Simple. In Modern, blue is the worst colour. It is a splash colour for some decks and used in a few second tier control builds. So Wizards tried to buff it the way they buff decks these days. They gave it a creature. Not creative, but that's the way the game is now. They are pushing Tempo of the identity of choice for Modern Blue. The trickle down effect on legacy... Yea.
TNN on the other hand was just Wizards. Not sure what they where thinking.
As for Green=Blue being a joke, Goyf was "The best blue card in the game" for a dam long time. Black tends to go hand in hand with Blue as well. There is a good reason underground costs more that a play set of some other duals.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
I'm actually quite dubious about this. I'd expect that 90% of the people who play in those have maybe one or two decks and just play the one they actually have.
Modern was created like one month before Innistrad came out. There is no freaking way Delver of Secrets was created to have any effect on Modern, because by that point the set was finalized and was being printed.
Not to mention that, at least looking at the Top 8 of the Pro Tour Philadelphia, Blue was the best color at the time in the format, with 6 decks in it having Blue in them. Black was the worst, having 0 decks in the Top 8.
That's why they printed Delver. Blue needed a boost. Every Spike knows there should be blue cards in 8/8 top decks.
There are currently 3033 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3033 guests)
Reply With Quote