Your addition of splashing Blue seems quite odd as Blue doesn't give you many threats and splashing less relevant cards would hurt your deck more than it helps. Stalking Tiger, Severed Legion are defineatly pretty insane in the 10th format as evasion is crucial. I understand the point behind not playing Viridian Shaman yet in theory the format resolves around many equipment and none the less it is a 2/2 for 3. I would've built the following build if I came across this pool:
The reason CR is not an auto-win when drawn is because there are no common cards that are designed to be auto-wins. Yet CR is as close to auto-win as you can get in many scenarios MBC finds itself in. I could easily take your B) statement about finding the right win cards and skew it like you did with my points about CR, but it wouldn't really advance the argument. Like you said, most times one specific uniqueness about a card will not be enough to get it banned or restricted. My point about cards like Ponder or Gush (which is not really a classic variance reducer) is that different power levels can be banned or restricted. It's not simply the most powerful cards created. Further, the power level of Pauper is a fraction of other formats; it would hold that the power level of its banned/restricted cards would also be a fraction of other formats.
In regards to the multiple times you can activate Rats: yes, it helps a ton against Acolyte and COP: Black, but that is by no means the only application it has. Even if Slivers has a sizable force on the board and holds a Temporal Isolation, if the game has gone long enough, a top-decked CR will wreck the team because you can activate multiple times. You can't do that with Rolling Thunder or any other "sweeper" in Pauper. Again, that's just one part to my reasoning, not the whole deal.
There are multiple cards you can run that achieve more than one of CC's abilities. But that's a tangent.
The synopsis that anti-B/R people have that "here is how I see your argument: CR is a good card in the best deck and since the deck can survive without it, you should ban it" is so lazy and offbase that I almost can't stand it anymore. Just because you don't want to accept or agree with a point of someone's argument doesn't mean you should just lazily condense it into the fact that it's a good card in the best deck so we should get rid of it.
I will replace your argument with another card and then we'll analyze.
Now, if that is true, I can simply replace Crypt Rats with ANY HEAVILY PLAYED CARD in Pauper and I could come up with an argument for banning. For example:
Cranial Plating is a good card in a good deck, and the only card that can do what it does. If we take it away, the deck will still be good. All decks in Pauper must prepare to face Cranial Plating.
Yup, exactly the same argument for CP and it's banned. See how it's not so cut and dry? I have made detailed arguments for my side about CR, but people on the other side only counter with, well, then we have to ban all good cards and/or it keeps aggro in control. I certainly did not make the argument solely that CR is good so we have to cut it. Come on.
There are a number of other issues that I won't get into right now conerning 8 player Standard Queues, this QP earnings rush and the like. Reason being, an article should be written up about it that breaks down the flaws in the MTGO system. We are given loose rules with no real effect if other users violate them. Period. Cheating, and the like will happen. Who is to say a user can't fake 4 accounts in his room and run those accounts on 4 monitors and have them all join an tournament and the like, can they be caught? Someone please write an article entitled 1001 ways to scam MTGO and get away with it. Loose lips sinks ships! Kinda reminds me of that guy in real life who had to cheat his way into the pro tour and when they found out about it he got suspended but was allowed to continue. What was his name again? 1 tix to the correct answer! Seriously...this kind of thing can get stupid really fast.
He writes a comprehensive article on the possibilites and people act too immature to understand that he is correct that people do and will continue to do this. Not everyone, not most people, but it will happen. People should chill out. It's fine to be against the practice, but shooting the messenger is the wrong response.
Logging an IP address is pointless, as is logging their MAC address. You can play your account from any computer/location making this useless.
Also, as for the whole issue of having someone else play for you...If the person who would substitute for you is adept enough at Magic to gain you any QPs, wouldn't they be better served getting points for themselves and trying for a spot in Rome????? I see having a sub. play is just throwing Tix and product away, not to mention risking your collection.
Not sure what to say, but Tog's account being suspended is overly harsh.
Dear Wotc Team, I'll will happily give back the Text-less Terror to reinstate Tog's account and QP points. If that seems like a rather empty gesture... guess how I felt when I received it.
Please stop being critical to your customers and perhaps we will try to overlook the multiple "My Bads" Wotc makes.
Harm to the system... what a joke.
Edits* Please un-ban the Black Tutors in 100 Card Singleton... thanks...
I don't think Crypt Rats is Yawgmoth's Will of Pauper, so I don't think arguing on it's power level is going to get anyone anywhere. I think it will only become target of banning if the metagame gets warped past its current state getting closer to that Mirroden reference. When the metagame gets to that point(it hasn't and it may very well not but I'm dabbling into "what ifs") and 50% of the field is MBC all the time then the decision has to come how best to nerf the decks power level without killing the deck outright or having a splash effect onto other decks. Crypt Rats is a card that greatly increases to the overall powerlevel of MBC but to no other deck, which is why it would probably be the primary target for banning. I think both sides could argue to the death of CR's powerlevel and come to no conclusion, and I don't think it's solely advocates of MBC calling for them to remain untouched.
MBC has more than tendrals and corrupt to fight burn. It also has Chittering rats and modern builds have targeted discard in addition to shinobi. MBC has always been a favorite against burn and will continue to be regardles of if burn cuts keldon maurauders. Tendrals can hit MBC's own guys.
GotG is in the deck mostly as a target for Cloak. The fact that it dodges Black removal is not incidental, but it is not specifically there for Black ,as it also turns off blocking and all manner of Red removal. And if that deck really was concerned with MBC, I am sure it would have run Mire Boas over River Boas, as Swampwalk seems, I dunno, better in that situation.
Yes, 3rd place is a hate deck, but that's one.
I do not know what your are testing, but in my experience, Storm, no matter how many creatures, is a dog to MBC, since MBC can just overload on discard and Chittering Rats.
Yes, MBC made up a plurality of the top 8, but that makes sense, since it was also a plurality of the field.
I am not saying the meta is not skewed, but it is my opinion that skew comes from A) People net decking MBC B) People not innovating C) People refusing to acknowledge certain truths about the format.
Well, if you look at the actual top 16 decks, a majority of them are tweaked maindeck and sideboard to further their MBC matchup. Note the River boa and the Guardian of the Guildpact in the cloak list to combat MBC's primary removal methods. The 3rd place deck is a anti-MBC decklist, pure and simple with 8 maindeck prot-black creatures. Martyrlock doesn't really have any need for anti-MBC, due it its highly controlling nature, but note that a good reason to play guardian is that it will always have protection from non-edict removal. The storm list is a grapeshot-based list, which obviously has a better chance vs MBC (doesn't scoop to crypt rats). Note that the RG aggro list in the top 10 included more shroud creatures as well, and I do think that the deck would benefit from some (wrap in vigor)s to help combat removal. On another note, I think going for creatureless lists is much better for burn vs MBC. The only lifegain that MBC has is Tendrils and corrupt (which costs 6 mana). Burn should be able to kill MBC before they can corrupt if they don't have to worry about tendrils. I don't see how going creatures will help them fight MBC. The next top 16 deck is MUC, which obviously has a great matchup vs MBC.
Also, take a note on how MBC placed in the top 8. MBC had 37.5% of the top 8 slots, vs its 16.8% representation in the field. Decks that have good tools vs MBC (Hate, MUC, creatureless storm) made higher slots than their matchups vs non-MBC would indicate, while Slivers made a very low ranking despite being one of the strongest decks vs non-MBC. If that isn't a skewed meta, then what is? (Don't bring up mirrodin affinity, as it is obvious that the field is nowhere near as degenerate as that, and never will be in the forseeable future).
Unfortunately Tarmatog's account has been suspended from MTGO servers until it is investigated. By this time, he won't be able to use his account and join tournaments. His QP's were also deleted for the season 1. Wizards take "Violation of Terms" seriously and will act accordingly to prevent any harm to the system.
Well, couldn't a user's ISP IP address be used to determine who is running the game at any given time? If not, then it's liable to happen. One can accuse another of such activity but really, how is WOTC to know the truth via their investigations, let alone a viable accusation in the first place. Even with the writer of this article admitting and promoting such activity, will MTGO issue a warning at the very least? Perhaps going as far as penalizing this writer? Something has to come from MTGO in this regard, because if nothing is done at the higher level then what's to say the COC has any merit here. Other moderators will just edit the submission to avoid the situation. So yeah, I support the COC and the TOS for the MTGO, therefore feel it is incumbent to practice what we preach and have AT LEAST something official about this kind of activity. Other than that I enjoy this game and feel equally suited to adhere to all the rules. If nothing is done then it's just as good as saying, those who 'cheat' or 'share accounts' have a better chance at obtaining QP points. I use the term 'cheat' very lightly and mean no offense. I'm at a loss for words.
Well a 50/50 chance isn't exactly what I would call 'good'. I think it backs up my claim that they 'can' win. Don't get me wrong, I love playing the WW deck. I even Top-8'd a couple of DE's with it pre-Conflux. An experienced WW player can often just get there. But I will tell you why I have stopped playing it in DEs. There is way too much hate. Against an experienced player that knows how to defeat a WW deck the easy instant removal can make life extremely difficult. But even that was really just annoying. The biggest reason was Goblin Outlander which obliterates the deck.
For example, yesterday I was playing a B/R aggro deck I'm fooling around with against a WW deck and got flooded to the tune of - on Turn 12 I had 13 lands out (he Path'd a Shambling Remains). Only thing I had on the board was Goblin Outlander. He had 2 Sigiled Paladin, 3 Akrasan Squire, and a Ranger of Eos. I managed to kill his Battlegrace Angel and a Aven Scout with removal I had in my opener. He finally killed me with an Aven Scout on Turn 15 or 16. The point is that if I can draw that badly and still be in the game on the back of one card - which sees alot of play - I don't think I can run the deck. Having 80 or 90 percent win rate against Naya and one card that destroys my deck I can handle, but a 50% win rate against Naya and most other decks (5CC/Blightning Aggro/Jund) I will face are running Goblin Outlander then I have to move onto something else.
Just my views on it though and thanks for the comment.
I agree that 5cc will likely benefit alot from the coming set. Especially getting removal that doesn't require such a heavy investment in white. So much investment in white for Path/O-Ring/Martial Coup costs the deck the card advantage and great creatures (read: Broodmate Dragon) it needs to beat Naya.
I too am very concerned that the Naya decks can't even get hated out of the format. In fact it is one of the major reasons that I think the format, right now, is so busted all that all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put it back together again.
"(...) the old stalwart Mono-White decks that have proven they can win against the Naya jauggernaut. They 'can' win. Unfortunately it is not even close to a good chance."
In my record, that is not even close to true :) I am not a very good player, but I have a recorded 60 games of WW against some sort of Naya in the queues or in Daily Events since the release of Conflux. Exactly 31 of those I have won. That's not entirely impressive, but as compared to most other Non-Naya decks I feel WW has a rather decent matchup with Naya (which, frankly, comes down to who wins the dice roll and who has the better draw). I think WW is the single most underappreciated deck in Block currently - sure, it will gain nothing from Reborn and will probably die with its online release, but for now it's perhaps the best choice you have when you are sick of playing Naya mirrors. At least it has an a lot better Naya matchup than 5CC (which is just terrible in the current meta).
There is so much irrelevant chatter in this thread. What matters is whether or not you MUST play Crypt Rats to be competitive. The answer to that is clearly no. Sorry if this doesn't cover your pet deck.
I have high hopes for Alara Reborn. The removal you mentioned (terminate and pulse) solve two major issues that control decks have now. Sacrificed tempo and incomplete removal that the white removal options bring with them.
Path is good, except that it accelerates naya and fixes their mana.
O-Ring is good, except that they run them too and get back their creature/PW.
Pulse will replace O-Ring right off the bat, and I intend on replacing Path with Terminate as well. This way I can cut White out of the 5CC deck completely stabilize the mana base and focus on BRUg, which means more basics and less craptacular hands where I die to mana issues. I'll lose martial coup but I think I can live with that right now.
When you can't even hate out the best deck, it's a bad sign. I've tried to build 'anti-Naya' decks, but they don't have enough answers to the threats presented. Naya has aggro, control, card advantage and tempo all built into one package and it's extremely consistent at doing what it does....
Your addition of splashing Blue seems quite odd as Blue doesn't give you many threats and splashing less relevant cards would hurt your deck more than it helps. Stalking Tiger, Severed Legion are defineatly pretty insane in the 10th format as evasion is crucial. I understand the point behind not playing Viridian Shaman yet in theory the format resolves around many equipment and none the less it is a 2/2 for 3. I would've built the following build if I came across this pool:
3cc:
1x Doomed Necromancer
1x Dusk Imp
1x Femeref Archers
1x Looming Shade
1x Phyrexian Rager
1x Severed Legion
4cc:
1x Giant Spider
1x Gravedigger
1x Stalking Tiger
5cc:
1x Elven Riders
1x Razormane Masticore
1x Seedborn Muse
6cc:
2x Craw Wurm
Spells:
1x Lure
1x Assasinate
1x Consume Spirit
1x Essense Drain
1x Leonin Scimitar
1x Recollect
2x Terror
1x Whisphersilk Cloak
Lands:
1x Terramorphic Expanse
9x Fores
7x Swamps
The reason CR is not an auto-win when drawn is because there are no common cards that are designed to be auto-wins. Yet CR is as close to auto-win as you can get in many scenarios MBC finds itself in. I could easily take your B) statement about finding the right win cards and skew it like you did with my points about CR, but it wouldn't really advance the argument. Like you said, most times one specific uniqueness about a card will not be enough to get it banned or restricted. My point about cards like Ponder or Gush (which is not really a classic variance reducer) is that different power levels can be banned or restricted. It's not simply the most powerful cards created. Further, the power level of Pauper is a fraction of other formats; it would hold that the power level of its banned/restricted cards would also be a fraction of other formats.
In regards to the multiple times you can activate Rats: yes, it helps a ton against Acolyte and COP: Black, but that is by no means the only application it has. Even if Slivers has a sizable force on the board and holds a Temporal Isolation, if the game has gone long enough, a top-decked CR will wreck the team because you can activate multiple times. You can't do that with Rolling Thunder or any other "sweeper" in Pauper. Again, that's just one part to my reasoning, not the whole deal.
There are multiple cards you can run that achieve more than one of CC's abilities. But that's a tangent.
The synopsis that anti-B/R people have that "here is how I see your argument: CR is a good card in the best deck and since the deck can survive without it, you should ban it" is so lazy and offbase that I almost can't stand it anymore. Just because you don't want to accept or agree with a point of someone's argument doesn't mean you should just lazily condense it into the fact that it's a good card in the best deck so we should get rid of it.
I will replace your argument with another card and then we'll analyze.
Now, if that is true, I can simply replace Crypt Rats with ANY HEAVILY PLAYED CARD in Pauper and I could come up with an argument for banning. For example:
Cranial Plating is a good card in a good deck, and the only card that can do what it does. If we take it away, the deck will still be good. All decks in Pauper must prepare to face Cranial Plating.
Yup, exactly the same argument for CP and it's banned. See how it's not so cut and dry? I have made detailed arguments for my side about CR, but people on the other side only counter with, well, then we have to ban all good cards and/or it keeps aggro in control. I certainly did not make the argument solely that CR is good so we have to cut it. Come on.
mike long.
There are a number of other issues that I won't get into right now conerning 8 player Standard Queues, this QP earnings rush and the like. Reason being, an article should be written up about it that breaks down the flaws in the MTGO system. We are given loose rules with no real effect if other users violate them. Period. Cheating, and the like will happen. Who is to say a user can't fake 4 accounts in his room and run those accounts on 4 monitors and have them all join an tournament and the like, can they be caught? Someone please write an article entitled 1001 ways to scam MTGO and get away with it. Loose lips sinks ships! Kinda reminds me of that guy in real life who had to cheat his way into the pro tour and when they found out about it he got suspended but was allowed to continue. What was his name again? 1 tix to the correct answer! Seriously...this kind of thing can get stupid really fast.
He writes a comprehensive article on the possibilites and people act too immature to understand that he is correct that people do and will continue to do this. Not everyone, not most people, but it will happen. People should chill out. It's fine to be against the practice, but shooting the messenger is the wrong response.
Logging an IP address is pointless, as is logging their MAC address. You can play your account from any computer/location making this useless.
Also, as for the whole issue of having someone else play for you...If the person who would substitute for you is adept enough at Magic to gain you any QPs, wouldn't they be better served getting points for themselves and trying for a spot in Rome????? I see having a sub. play is just throwing Tix and product away, not to mention risking your collection.
BLU is joking. Tarm was logged in no longer than an hour ago.
Beware of what you read in article comments...
are you stupid? why would you ban crypt rats? it's not THAT good.
Getting a suspension and a QP reset over this nonsense is unreal. Completely ridiculous imo.
Not sure what to say, but Tog's account being suspended is overly harsh.
Dear Wotc Team, I'll will happily give back the Text-less Terror to reinstate Tog's account and QP points. If that seems like a rather empty gesture... guess how I felt when I received it.
Please stop being critical to your customers and perhaps we will try to overlook the multiple "My Bads" Wotc makes.
Harm to the system... what a joke.
Edits* Please un-ban the Black Tutors in 100 Card Singleton... thanks...
Much love,
Philip
I don't think Crypt Rats is Yawgmoth's Will of Pauper, so I don't think arguing on it's power level is going to get anyone anywhere. I think it will only become target of banning if the metagame gets warped past its current state getting closer to that Mirroden reference. When the metagame gets to that point(it hasn't and it may very well not but I'm dabbling into "what ifs") and 50% of the field is MBC all the time then the decision has to come how best to nerf the decks power level without killing the deck outright or having a splash effect onto other decks. Crypt Rats is a card that greatly increases to the overall powerlevel of MBC but to no other deck, which is why it would probably be the primary target for banning. I think both sides could argue to the death of CR's powerlevel and come to no conclusion, and I don't think it's solely advocates of MBC calling for them to remain untouched.
MBC has more than tendrals and corrupt to fight burn. It also has Chittering rats and modern builds have targeted discard in addition to shinobi. MBC has always been a favorite against burn and will continue to be regardles of if burn cuts keldon maurauders. Tendrals can hit MBC's own guys.
GotG is in the deck mostly as a target for Cloak. The fact that it dodges Black removal is not incidental, but it is not specifically there for Black ,as it also turns off blocking and all manner of Red removal. And if that deck really was concerned with MBC, I am sure it would have run Mire Boas over River Boas, as Swampwalk seems, I dunno, better in that situation.
Yes, 3rd place is a hate deck, but that's one.
I do not know what your are testing, but in my experience, Storm, no matter how many creatures, is a dog to MBC, since MBC can just overload on discard and Chittering Rats.
Yes, MBC made up a plurality of the top 8, but that makes sense, since it was also a plurality of the field.
I am not saying the meta is not skewed, but it is my opinion that skew comes from A) People net decking MBC B) People not innovating C) People refusing to acknowledge certain truths about the format.
-Alex
Well, if you look at the actual top 16 decks, a majority of them are tweaked maindeck and sideboard to further their MBC matchup. Note the River boa and the Guardian of the Guildpact in the cloak list to combat MBC's primary removal methods. The 3rd place deck is a anti-MBC decklist, pure and simple with 8 maindeck prot-black creatures. Martyrlock doesn't really have any need for anti-MBC, due it its highly controlling nature, but note that a good reason to play guardian is that it will always have protection from non-edict removal. The storm list is a grapeshot-based list, which obviously has a better chance vs MBC (doesn't scoop to crypt rats). Note that the RG aggro list in the top 10 included more shroud creatures as well, and I do think that the deck would benefit from some (wrap in vigor)s to help combat removal. On another note, I think going for creatureless lists is much better for burn vs MBC. The only lifegain that MBC has is Tendrils and corrupt (which costs 6 mana). Burn should be able to kill MBC before they can corrupt if they don't have to worry about tendrils. I don't see how going creatures will help them fight MBC. The next top 16 deck is MUC, which obviously has a great matchup vs MBC.
Also, take a note on how MBC placed in the top 8. MBC had 37.5% of the top 8 slots, vs its 16.8% representation in the field. Decks that have good tools vs MBC (Hate, MUC, creatureless storm) made higher slots than their matchups vs non-MBC would indicate, while Slivers made a very low ranking despite being one of the strongest decks vs non-MBC. If that isn't a skewed meta, then what is? (Don't bring up mirrodin affinity, as it is obvious that the field is nowhere near as degenerate as that, and never will be in the forseeable future).
Jeeze. Give it a rest guys!
First of all, he mentioned that it was not a good thing to do.
Second of all, he's apologized for the inference that it was something to consider.
Third of all, he's not the first to suggest it and he won't be the last.
I certainly don't condone account sharing, much like many of you. However, I also don't condone berating an individual after they've apologized.
He realizes now that it's not only morally wrong, but is also against the rules completely.
Live and learn, and let it go.
Congratulations on the early QPs. What are your plans for accumulating more?
Nice article, by the way.
Unfortunately Tarmatog's account has been suspended from MTGO servers until it is investigated. By this time, he won't be able to use his account and join tournaments. His QP's were also deleted for the season 1. Wizards take "Violation of Terms" seriously and will act accordingly to prevent any harm to the system.
Kind regards,
Well, couldn't a user's ISP IP address be used to determine who is running the game at any given time? If not, then it's liable to happen. One can accuse another of such activity but really, how is WOTC to know the truth via their investigations, let alone a viable accusation in the first place. Even with the writer of this article admitting and promoting such activity, will MTGO issue a warning at the very least? Perhaps going as far as penalizing this writer? Something has to come from MTGO in this regard, because if nothing is done at the higher level then what's to say the COC has any merit here. Other moderators will just edit the submission to avoid the situation. So yeah, I support the COC and the TOS for the MTGO, therefore feel it is incumbent to practice what we preach and have AT LEAST something official about this kind of activity. Other than that I enjoy this game and feel equally suited to adhere to all the rules. If nothing is done then it's just as good as saying, those who 'cheat' or 'share accounts' have a better chance at obtaining QP points. I use the term 'cheat' very lightly and mean no offense. I'm at a loss for words.
Well a 50/50 chance isn't exactly what I would call 'good'. I think it backs up my claim that they 'can' win. Don't get me wrong, I love playing the WW deck. I even Top-8'd a couple of DE's with it pre-Conflux. An experienced WW player can often just get there. But I will tell you why I have stopped playing it in DEs. There is way too much hate. Against an experienced player that knows how to defeat a WW deck the easy instant removal can make life extremely difficult. But even that was really just annoying. The biggest reason was Goblin Outlander which obliterates the deck.
For example, yesterday I was playing a B/R aggro deck I'm fooling around with against a WW deck and got flooded to the tune of - on Turn 12 I had 13 lands out (he Path'd a Shambling Remains). Only thing I had on the board was Goblin Outlander. He had 2 Sigiled Paladin, 3 Akrasan Squire, and a Ranger of Eos. I managed to kill his Battlegrace Angel and a Aven Scout with removal I had in my opener. He finally killed me with an Aven Scout on Turn 15 or 16. The point is that if I can draw that badly and still be in the game on the back of one card - which sees alot of play - I don't think I can run the deck. Having 80 or 90 percent win rate against Naya and one card that destroys my deck I can handle, but a 50% win rate against Naya and most other decks (5CC/Blightning Aggro/Jund) I will face are running Goblin Outlander then I have to move onto something else.
Just my views on it though and thanks for the comment.
I agree that 5cc will likely benefit alot from the coming set. Especially getting removal that doesn't require such a heavy investment in white. So much investment in white for Path/O-Ring/Martial Coup costs the deck the card advantage and great creatures (read: Broodmate Dragon) it needs to beat Naya.
I too am very concerned that the Naya decks can't even get hated out of the format. In fact it is one of the major reasons that I think the format, right now, is so busted all that all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put it back together again.
High hopes for Alara Reborn, as you said.
where do i find the score board ? to see the number of points that i have
Nice article, but your constant shifting of tense makes for an awkward read.
"(...) the old stalwart Mono-White decks that have proven they can win against the Naya jauggernaut. They 'can' win. Unfortunately it is not even close to a good chance."
In my record, that is not even close to true :) I am not a very good player, but I have a recorded 60 games of WW against some sort of Naya in the queues or in Daily Events since the release of Conflux. Exactly 31 of those I have won. That's not entirely impressive, but as compared to most other Non-Naya decks I feel WW has a rather decent matchup with Naya (which, frankly, comes down to who wins the dice roll and who has the better draw). I think WW is the single most underappreciated deck in Block currently - sure, it will gain nothing from Reborn and will probably die with its online release, but for now it's perhaps the best choice you have when you are sick of playing Naya mirrors. At least it has an a lot better Naya matchup than 5CC (which is just terrible in the current meta).
There is so much irrelevant chatter in this thread. What matters is whether or not you MUST play Crypt Rats to be competitive. The answer to that is clearly no. Sorry if this doesn't cover your pet deck.
I have high hopes for Alara Reborn. The removal you mentioned (terminate and pulse) solve two major issues that control decks have now. Sacrificed tempo and incomplete removal that the white removal options bring with them.
Path is good, except that it accelerates naya and fixes their mana.
O-Ring is good, except that they run them too and get back their creature/PW.
Pulse will replace O-Ring right off the bat, and I intend on replacing Path with Terminate as well. This way I can cut White out of the 5CC deck completely stabilize the mana base and focus on BRUg, which means more basics and less craptacular hands where I die to mana issues. I'll lose martial coup but I think I can live with that right now.
When you can't even hate out the best deck, it's a bad sign. I've tried to build 'anti-Naya' decks, but they don't have enough answers to the threats presented. Naya has aggro, control, card advantage and tempo all built into one package and it's extremely consistent at doing what it does....