cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years ago
But I can't imagine you actually want those lists, do you? I certainly can, but other than a card tweak here and there, most lists are just stolen from League dumps or Twitter postings.
I asked, didn't I? I know of the lists currently being played, I even played some of them. I even made my own DelverBlade brews. But I don't want those lists, I want the Jitte list(s) and the testing that you (or someone else did) that clearly show Jitte will be fine in Modern.
cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years ago
I think it's fair for many things that have analogous existing pieces that could be compared. Namely with Jitte. We have Stoneforge decks that play Swords. Would any of them consider Jitte a substantial upgrade? Would they cut their F&Fs or cut some other card and run an extra sword? Since those decks aren't doing outstanding in the first place now, what effect does Jitte provide that improves their shortcomings? At least any more support than F&F/F&I or other X&Y swords already provide?
Blade decks have been doing very well the past couple of weeks. Other than that, yeah, they'd rather have Jitte over any Sword, but they'd probably play 3 Equipments, with priority going to F&F. Jitte is superior against any deck that uses creatures, which is the majority of Modern and it'll also give an unnecessary edge to E-Tron that already has big creatures.
cfusionpm wrote: ↑3 years ago
My thesis statement is that "I believe Jitte is fine, because the shells which use equipment now are already not very strong, and the effects Jitte provide are less relevant and less impactful than what the current suite of Swords already provide in the majority of cases."
Can you
prove that? Blade decks are having a kind of a renaissance the past few weeks, so that's part of your thesis on shaky grounds.
True-Name Nemesis wrote: ↑3 years ago
This goes both ways. Some other people were also dismissing arguments based on evidence they claimed* they had from testing they claimed* they did but refused to present any of it for fear of being put under scrutiny.
Sure it does, and that person can speak for themselves and/or demand as such from them.
However, I am not them, but my (and others') arguments were dismissed by asking for proof, while the Jitte discussion has been using the same arguments that were dismissed earlier due to "lack of proof".
So what is it? Arguments can only be made when there's proof? Or are personal experience, format history and present and current (and potential) card pool a valid basis for an argument? Because, I'm seeing a certain disconnect here.