I touched on it a bit in the thread that was linked but you don't really need a dedicated draw engine in this deck. The creatures are your card advantage mechanisms by providing pressure while also being another spell. I wouldn't be opposed to JTMS in this deck but I don't think it is necessary and outside of SFM this is very much a draw-go style deck so adding an expensive sorcery speed draw engine seems counter productive. Also if you really want to draw cards fetch Sword instead of Batterskull and go to town. ;)
Nice podcast as usual. I think you guys missed the synergy between scrap trawler and ballista having CMC 0 when discussing if scrap trawler will see play. I don't think scrap trawler will see a ton of play, but Nick DiJohn already played one in a deck a week or so ago. Also although I unfortunately think ballista puts grixis pyromancer in a very difficult position, fatal push not costing life for that deck is key when you want to flash back your removal.
Do you plan to have a non set review/preview card podcast in the near future? It feels like it has been a while.
I don't pretend to be a storm expert, but aren't you making yourself weaker to Workshops by adding in three flusterstorms? With how high percentage of the field being workshops is, it doesn't necessarily feel right to me. Or at least not in my local meta where I faced 50 percent Shops on a Sunday (though one of them was an incredibably odd Shops list).
Your build makes it more resilent but it sounds less explosive.
I do understand cutting Chrome Mox. I haven't been impressed with the card, really. But it has its moments.
While I understand wanting sensei's divining too, it doesn't always do the same thing as ponder and preordain. But of course that doesn't necessarily make it weaker.
Just listened to this the other day and I agree with @CHA1N5 on him not being sure if Emrakul is actually correct in landstill. I find it to be insanely slow, boarded out in more matchups than I'd like, and honestly ONLY good in a late game grind vs blue. But at that point there are other better options that came down a bunch of turns earlier that already started winning me the game. I'll go on the record and say I only think he's OK in landstill. Feels wrong more often than not 🤘
I also don't think minislaver will be a thing, but there are a lot of little disruptive applications Hope has that no other card can duplicate. You can attack, sac this and play a threat like Mentor knowing your opponent won't be able to try and deal with it before you untap. That's just huge. You can over-extend with Mentor knowing for sure your opponent won't Supreme Verdict you. You may even tap out for that and don't care.
This is way different than Silence. Silence can help you combo, or pseudo-Time Walk, but this can make you play stuff after the effect knowing for sure they won't be dealt with before you untap. No need to leave Flusterstorm or Drain mana up,
You can also sac this and just pass the turn, knowing you'll win all counter wars and that you'll resolve that Dig uncontested eot.
I think it has a lot of applications. We normally fail to understand novel effects because it's hard to get the nuances without actually playing the card. Hope is not Silence, not at all. Granted, it suffers in a Misstep/StP/Bolt/Null Rod meta, so maybe it's not that splashy (which is a good thing). But dismissing it's effect by saying it's worse than Silence is like saying Dack was just a worse Faithless Looting and that card disadvantage was bad. Remember? A LOT of people dismissed Dack - we actually had long discussions on CA vs card quality and filtering.
@Smmenen I hope I haven't given you cause for offence - I'm not saying you're a bad player or anything along those lines. My view is quite the opposite on that point. My claim is much more modest than that.
I don't think the Doomsday/Standstill matchup is the most egregious in terms of play mistakes (although to be fair allowing Ancestral to resolve was pretty questionable, I think I would generally trade my 3rd Misstep for 3 turns)
My point was more "If Stephen targets his Force in a way I'm pretty sure all Vintage players should by now know to do automatically, he wins the game". You seem to agree on every part of that sentiment, so I'm just going to drop the in-between argument that has somehow sprung up.
As to the "play Gush" vs "sit on Gush" argument I think Lotus is actually a very interesting point of departure for analysis. I prefer to sit on Gush there, which if your opponent topdecks a simple 1-for-1 answer is equivalent to the "play Gush" line (because he has to act first, 1 answer will be stranded on the stack). So passive Gush is only at a disadvantage versus single topdecks that enable multiple answers - narrowing down the field of concern to things like Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall (or possibly multi-mana lands). One posture you might adopt is "sit on Gush, play it in response to Lotus or in response to answers" which is only worse than the aggressive Gush line if he has Black Lotus in hand and topdecks an answer (I think this is extremely unlikely); if he topdecks Ancestral Recall and simply casts it, you can Gush in response and are no worse off than the aggressive line. If he topdecks Ancestral and plays it in the middle of a stack, it becomes extremely contextual and difficult to analyse. If you can hit his Ancestral with a Flusterstorm that also sweeps up other cards (I think this is likely) then the topdeck is blank and waiting to make your opponent act first is +1 relevant card compared to the aggressive line. If he successfully resolves Ancestral on top of a stack and finds additional impactful cards then you're pretty well punished, but your opponent's mana restrictions become a major factor.
@ajfirecracker I don't think it's strange at all. You're citing to Rules in a loose way, but the actual text is not what you're suggesting.
705.3. A coin used in a flip must be a two-sided object with easily distinguished sides and equal
likelihood that either side lands face up. If the coin that’s being flipped doesn’t have an obvious
“heads” or “tails,” designate one side to be “heads,” and the other side to be “tails.” Other methods
of randomization may be substituted for flipping a coin as long as there are two possible outcomes
of equal likelihood and all players agree to the substitution. For example, the player may roll an
even-sided die and call “odds” or “evens,” or roll an even-sided die and designate that “odds”
means “heads” and “evens” means “tails.”
I bolded the relevant part. As you see, the substituted method technically must involve 1) two possible outcomes of equal likelihood AND 2) player agreement. Nothing in this Rule suggests you can simply accept one possible result, however well-justified, and then adopt it without actually resolving the random event.
You are saying that, to resolve 1,000,000 coin flips, the players simply take the standard variance and apply that in someone's favor. What is the variance, though? It's a statement about the expectation about how many more heads or tails you will usually get, on average.
In probability theory and statistics, variance is the expectation of the squared deviation of a random variable from its mean, and it informally measures how far a set of (random) numbers are spread out from their mean. The variance has a central role in statistics.
However, the actual result of flipping the entire sequence will virtually never actually equal this exactly. Variance or not, the chance of getting precisely X heads and Y tails on a million flips is vanishingly small for any particular choice if X and Y.
Now, of course, if no one calls a judge and no judge is watching... you can do whatever you want to. But, nothing in the Rules supports the procedure you suggest.
Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.