@Soly I agree with you. Unfortunately Goblin Welder is one of my favorite cards, and "red shops" is probably the best "goblin" deck in vintage. I'm a sucker for tribes (play elves in legacy and merfolk in modern), so this is more for my personal enjoyment.
@mdkubiak Hands 1 and 3 look like easy keeps no matter the situation, and I could be talked to keeping Hand 2 in a Game 1 situation vs. a non-blue deck (where I wouldn't likely see Null Rod effects), but otherwise I would probably ship it back. Hand 3 has plans vs. Rod or Force, and the deck has a high number of low-casting bombs. It's not a high percentage among the ideal hands, but it seems better than a random six draw.
Sam's article today basically verifies everything we have been deducing:
Aether Revolt is a set I am personally excited about. We definitely attempted to make a format that delivered on the "inventor" promise of Kaladesh's setting by filling it with a lot of combo-rific cards. There is certainly some danger here, but also a lot of opportunity. If combo decks become the "thing" to do, we have cards and decks that should do a good job of preying on those decks. I can't say for sure that something won't get out of hand, but I think the format will be able to adjust if it does.
Most notably, we will be looking closely at the Copycat decks from the Pro Tour and seeing how they emerge and evolve over the next few weeks. I remember when Khans of Tarkir came out, there was a lot of concern that Jeskai Ascendancy combo would be the strongest deck in the format, but despite some early success, the deck remained pretty fringe. There are a lot of cards in the format that are good against Copycat, and we didn't feel like taking a preemptive swing at the deck with a banning was an appropriate action.
I'm also pleased to see that Wizards is adopting a "print aggressive and complicated cards and ban them if a problem" approach rather than "print boring and safe cards so we never have to ban." I'm very happy for them to use the banned and restricted list, not (just) development or the Oracle, to fix mistakes. Happy little mistakes.
How good is the card filtering aspect of tiny Jace #3 as opposed to having the power of gush #4? I haven't played much with tiny Jace and just wanted more input. In your experience does the ability to rebuy spells once jace flips worth the trade off?
The deck looks really good and I will be bringing a version of it to my next event.
I would argue that costing two makes doomblade a lot worse and it doesn't kill opposing tinker monsters which swords does. If you want something closer i would suggest dismember, or the new fatal push, or what has been pretty popular lately: snuff out.
I usually lump Aggro Shops (car shops) and eldrazi together for sideboarding purposes. So if i am going to lump stuff together it is usually for that matchup. Without knowing a lot about your deck i would say snuff out, snapcaster mage, bolt (to a lesser extent) the new fatal push, and maybe even something like shriekmaw or FTK could be reasonable since those both dodge reality smasher discard and thorn effects, but I don't know how that matches up with your mana bse.
In general point removal + snapcaster is where I want to be against large creature aggressive decks.
For mentor I think sulfur elemental is the best card, full stop if you have access to red. You need something that can handle both mentor and cleanup the tokens. I would still side in spot removal, but in my experience it isn't enough unless you have your own token generator. The white decks have been running some number of supreme verdict sometimes, for the same reason I think? Notion thief is also powerful in those matchups but only if you can protect the board too, i don't know if you are running young pyromancer or not.
I went 7-0 (14-3) with a Paradoxical Outcome deck last night and won the Cardhoarder season championship series finals event. The list I played is here: http://www.gatherling.com/deck.php?mode=view&id=43480. I don't think there is anything especially attractive or egregious with the list, which focuses on Tezzeret in game 1 and Mentor in sideboard games. I think I had two turn-one kills. I beat WW in round 1, Shops in round 2, Grixis Control in round 3 (forfeit win off a disconnect), and UW mentor decks in rounds 4-7 (two of which had Delver and a full Wasteland package). What to bring in is usually obvious in the matchups. For sideboarding, I'll limit my sideboarding comments to my blue decks matchup where I usually took out around seven cards among Chain, Vampiric, a Top, a Key, a Monolith, Snapcaster, and Tezzeret (sometimes two), and Jar. This was the first time I had ever cast Mentor - a.k.a., Mr. Staples button - before. My daughter told me to name the deck after Zeno, a Greek philosopher (mentor) whom she informed me was the master of paradoxes. My deepest appreciation to Cardhoarder for the sponsorship (a Black Lotus!)
Which brings me to my first point... the bad players have gotten better. Now do we know this for sure? No. Because again we have no measure of how bad the bottom losing players really were a decade ago, but I'm just going to make some inductive reasoning here. Player's access to information about strategy, tactics, and especially deck lists has gone way way up in the past decade. Thanks to MODO, their ability to practice has gone way up. Heck Steve wrote a friggin book about Gush, which is simultaneously kind of hilarious and also probably important. I'm assuming some people buy it. I'm assuming those people read it. I'm assuming it makes those players at least a little better. The cumulative effect almost has to be profound. And part of it's effect is that it's likely more difficult for the best players to beat the average player than it was in the past... ergo, more based on the fall of the cards than it was.
I think this is a great point. A few years ago, the average person would only have a chance to get better by:
1.) Being friends with better players or live in a Vintage hotbed.
2.) Doing a ton of reading and goldfishing
3.) Playing other formats.
These days, with MTGO, streaming, player videos, and a proliferation of articles, the average player has so many resources. Many years ago you could put in thousands of hours into Magic, but not really get better. These days, if you have the time, you'll get better. Just the ability to get dozens of live Vintage reps in a week is something unfathomable years ago for a bulk of Vintage players.
I had the same problem last time playing elves, which shares some similarities. Mentor and pyromancer have the same advantages that tribal decks have, but their ability to control the game is much bigger. Combo decks are faster than you. And control decks have evolved to be effective against creatures. Not a good time to be in the tribal side of the road.
I'm really, REALLY getting the vibe that design around this set went like this:
Designer 1: You know how players like spells and effects that just put things into play? Like, from the graveyard, library, or battlefield?
Designer 2: Sure, they're interesting combo pieces and players like them. But, we can't print them. When you get something for free, the result has ALWAYS been bad. Phyrexian Mana, Show and Tell, whatever.
Designer 1: Okay, but what if we did this.... what if we put a limitation on the converted mana cost of what you're cheating? That way, we can control exactly how broken the cards can be.
Designer 2: Huh. That's a very elegant solution to the problem. Let's design a whole set around getting stuff for free, but with that limitation.
Designer 1: And we can call it, "Urza's Block Continues: The Return of Tinker"
@benjamin_berry it will not be impacted by Thorn of amethyst and anihiliates this thorn effect. This is huge. It's legendary so what? if you counter something you can get ride of another copy. You probably won't be playing 4 of this guy.
Reducing 1 sphere effect is HUGE! Many games are 1 mana close. By playing this you get "1 extra mana" which is totally awesome. As a cool side effect, it blocks phryexian revoker pretty well...