In that case I apologize. I did not get that from your post. You’ll definitely be interested in Sheridan’s piece on the matter then, heh.

p.s. I love your work.

What?

All I was doing was posting the Facts about the card. Had nothing to do with being “intentionally abrasive”. I’m not one of those people who “leave comments and run” on the Internet. I have a Masters in Economics. I thought it might be useful to provide more data.

Well, that depends. if the Paths stay in (they should IMO) and the push replaces something like the decays the deck gets better vs eldrazi IMO as it can now kill a T1 hierarch efficiently.
In the end the deck has more choices now so it gets better if configured correctly.

Abzan certainly gets better, though I think this is another spot where the second level of that adaptation is clear- Bant Eldrazi really ends up winning, as I allude to in the article.

The Delver decklist was included as an afterthought at the end because I knew people would ask about one. The Dredge and Tron sections address your point. As the comment by Gabriel says, GB Tron may be a big winner though.

I think it will have a noticeable impact on Modern. it won’t kill the aggro decks outrights but especially decks like death’s shadow that used to thrive in bolt-heavy meta’s are going to feel this.

What the author thinks this article is about: Why Fatal Push is overrated in Modern.

What Fatal Push really does: Fatal Push opens up new avenues for decks like UB Control, BUG and UB Faeries to get the kill spells they couldn’t have earlier.

I didn’t change the sideboard for the purpose of this article, though if we do see a radical metagame shift and/or a banning that will be reason to make some changes.

For now I left Surgicals in for this article because I think you have enough stuff for the mirror, though it’s definitely true that Fatal Push will lead to a non-zero uptick in controlling decks. I would like to see which specific strategies emerge before saying anything terribly definitive, but things like an extra land (Cavern of Souls) and more counterspells are where you want to be against blue decks. If Lingering Souls decks show up, you’re going to want to start playing Electrolyzes and possibly a Staticaster.

People will play new-ish archetypes (Sultai control isn’t really groundbreaking, heh) and some will likely be at least somewhat successful. I found it more important to address that these decks are going to have Dredge and Tron problems, so that was the angle I took. It’s certainly true that they will be better against plenty of decks.

that makes more sense. i didnt see his comment as very abrasive but it definitely is a refutation. and overall i agree with your point.

I’m sorry you took my reply so negatively. Nonetheless, while I respect your analysis of the card, it’s premised on an analysis of about half of the card’s impact on the format. Enabling new color combinations is, to my mind, at least as important a facet of a card to analyze as is how it improves upon existing strategies, and, to my mind, supplies more of the gas for the kinds of comments about influencing the format that you dismiss at the article head. I’m not suggesting that the article needed to delve into archetypes and strategies you’re unfamiliar with, but presenting half of a card analysis without even a mention of the rest of its impact doesn’t seem like an effective way to tackle this kind of topic.

Heh, I’ve been running a BWC Eldrazi Processors deck with 4 MB Relics and 4 Lingering Souls for many months now, and I guess that I want to be “that” deck because in my case that deck just straight up beats the Snapcaster decks.

With fetches and Relic to enable Push, and Souls and Smasher to resist it, I’m thinking my rogue midrange build is looking pretty good going forward.

This was posted as a refutation of my analysis without any consideration for the substance of the article. This comment appears to be intentionally abrasive, and I don’t see how this makes any of my points against the card matter less. Truthfully, my article could easily be a refutation of this comment. I was just saying that those numbers are just numbers. There needs to be analysis to give them meaning.

Why you gotta be needlessly lashing out at people man.

Last couple of posts you’ve been doing this in all the comments. Seems pretty destructive. This guy was providing interesting data which is a huge part of what this site is about. (Not exclusively of course).

Just seems to be overly harsh as of late for not much reason