@Mooncrow: For someone interested in intellectual honesty and being a decent human being, you come off as arrogant, pretentious and condescending, two things at total odds with your claim. I believe FieryBalrog summed it up perfectly as 'monocle popping elitism'. That was the only thing I felt you were wrong about. Well, that, and twisting the argument of someone you potentially agree with into a rant on semantics, an argument that only perpetuates because you made it so.
@CMoriarty: Exactly what about Modern isn't diverse? Combo has Storm, Kiki Pod, Melira Pod, Splinter Twin, and Scapeshift. Control has UW, UWR, Teachings, Mono U Faeries. Aggro has Infect, Zoo, Jund, Affinity. Then you have hybrids like 3 different flavors of Tron, all of which can put up top 8's. So what is this 'diversity' that's missing? Adding BB back to Faeries? Adding BBE back to Jund? Seething Song and Rite of Flame back to Storm? Giving back Nacatl and Jitte to Zoo? In case you haven't noticed, most of the banned list are cards that would go right into existing decks that are doing just fine without them.
You also didn't read what I was saying about Legacy. I said it's that most cards post-Mirrodin are garbage, meaning it is difficult to find a new card that will spawn new archetypes, and the existing card pool/deck pool to choose from involves a finite number of expensive, format-defining cards. Basically, Legacy is a slow-moving, crotchety old man that clings to old ways, and it takes a 'wow' card like Death Rite Shaman or Delver of Secrets to make someone take notice. Modern is a more open format, a little more friendly to new players, and a little more open to new lines of attack. While everyone is feeling those out, some decks (like Eggs) pop up and become a stain on the meta, for whatever the reason. So they get the ban hammer. That was my whole point.
@CMoriarty: Exactly what about Modern isn't diverse? Combo has Storm, Kiki Pod, Melira Pod, Splinter Twin, and Scapeshift. Control has UW, UWR, Teachings, Mono U Faeries. Aggro has Infect, Zoo, Jund, Affinity. Then you have hybrids like 3 different flavors of Tron, all of which can put up top 8's. So what is this 'diversity' that's missing? Adding BB back to Faeries? Adding BBE back to Jund? Seething Song and Rite of Flame back to Storm? Giving back Nacatl and Jitte to Zoo? In case you haven't noticed, most of the banned list are cards that would go right into existing decks that are doing just fine without them.
Modern doesn't have viable creatureless decks. They banned them all. It also doesn't have a good control deck. What it does have is 75 different versions of aggro.
Modern doesn't have viable creatureless decks. They banned them all. It also doesn't have a good control deck. What it does have is 75 different versions of aggro.
I'm sorry, what version of aggro is storm? And what, pray tell, is on the banned list that doesn't allow for a creatureless deck? Mental Misstep, JTMS, Ancestral Vision, Divining Top, Blazing Shoal and Second Sunrise are the only cards that would in no way work with/interact with a creature. Every single other one either goes in Storm, is part of a creature strategy, or is part of a combo with a creature strategy. What the heck is it you can't build without one of those? Countertop?
Haha There are like billions viable control decks, are you really that narrow-minded? This thread is really (I have to say it) retarded, full of people who don't understand Modern at all...
Viable control decks? There were no control top 8's in the 2012 Modern GP's, in the 2012-2013 season's 7 Modern GP's there were 3. So out of 10 GP's, 80 various decks that top 8'ed a mere 3 were any form of control. You call that viable? I don't.
I'm sorry, what version of aggro is storm? And what, pray tell, is on the banned list that doesn't allow for a creatureless deck? Mental Misstep, JTMS, Ancestral Vision, Divining Top, Blazing Shoal and Second Sunrise are the only cards that would in no way work with/interact with a creature. Every single other one either goes in Storm, is part of a creature strategy, or is part of a combo with a creature strategy. What the heck is it you can't build without one of those? Countertop?
I guess you missed the part where storm is no longer tier 1.
Viable control decks? There were no control top 8's in the 2012 Modern GP's, in the 2012-2013 season's 7 Modern GP's there were 3. So out of 10 GP's, 80 various decks that top 8'ed a mere 3 were any form of control. You call that viable? I don't.
I guess you missed the part where storm is no longer tier 1.
Just so I understand, now: diversity in the format is only what GP standings and arbitrary 'tier #' you can assign to them? Are you like, just watching the format as a series of numbers, or actually playing it? Viability does not mean anyone can sleeve it up and derp to top 8...where are you guys getting this line of reasoning from?
Viable means it does well consistently. There has been a year of Modern GP's now. Yes you can sleeve up a creature light deck or a control deck (not always the same thing) and play it, you might even win at your FNM, I just did that last week with a 4 color superfriends list. The tournament results have been pretty clear though. Play a version of aggro or midrange if you want a shot at doing well when you're going up against good decks.
Modern doesn't have viable creatureless decks. They banned them all. It also doesn't have a good control deck. What it does have is 75 different versions of aggro.
Wait?
Do you ever played Valakut/Scapeshift?
Yes there are creatures
Do you know what?
Remove them and put burn and ramp in they place
Do you see? Its a viable creatureless deck
Grow up
just cause they banned the main card of your deck you say the format is a *******
adapt
oh wait you have to sit down and wait for some one ( a pro ) to win a tornament with a new eggs for you to build your deck?
Wait?
Do you ever played Valakut/Scapeshift?
Yes there are creatures
Do you know what?
Remove them and put burn and ramp in they place
Do you see? Its a viable creatureless deck
Grow up
just cause they banned the main card of your deck you say the format is a *******
adapt
oh wait you have to sit down and wait for some one ( a pro ) to win a tornament with a new eggs for you to build your deck?
That would be why I have a thread in the eggs forum with a post ban list I came up with that works very well and has over 100 hands tested to make sure it's consistent, right? Clearly I'm waiting for someone else to come up with a list.
I've had 5 modern decks. Infect Shoal, 12post, eggs, melira pod, and superfriends. Guess what has happened to three of them and is pretty much guaranteed to happen to pod one day?
You see, I'm fine with the combat step happening, what I don't like is when the game revolves around the combat step turn after turn. Hence the reason I play decks where it doesn't. Modern and Standard push the combat step very heavily.
That would be why I have a thread in the eggs forum with a post ban list I came up with that works very well and has over 100 hands tested to make sure it's consistent, right? Clearly I'm waiting for someone else to come up with a list.
I've had 5 modern decks. Infect Shoal, 12post, eggs, melira pod, and superfriends. Guess what has happened to three of them and is pretty much guaranteed to happen to pod one day?
You see, I'm fine with the combat step happening, what I don't like is when the game revolves around the combat step turn after turn. Hence the reason I play decks where it doesn't. Modern and Standard push the combat step very heavily.
Ohhhh....now I get the line of reasoning you've been posting with. I really hate to break this to you, but you're not playing 'viable' decklists that don't revolve around the combat step, you're trying to play solitaire. Those decks are borderline 0-interaction decks, every last one of them. There is a reason your pet decks keep getting banned, you keep gravitating toward decks that win or lose almost ignorant of your opponent's presence. For that, play solitaire. There's no way a Jack of Diamonds is getting banned.
Wrong, I'm trying to play unfair decks that generate virtual card advantage by operating on an axis that people can rarely deal with preboard. In Legacy I play Stasis, Dredge, and Burn. In Standard I play Esper Control. They all operate on that same principal.
I don't have a problem with my opponent interacting with me, but I very much like the advantage that comes from their 7 card hand effectively only being a 2 card hand because everything else is dead.
I don't see how this is any different than someone who plays a bunch of resilient or hexproof threats. Why is one ok but the other isn't?
There is something I don,t get with all that arguing: why don,t you people get creatuive and build your own decks, like for example: A Kitsune deck or a deck around Lighthouse Chronologist or whatever, then you won't have to argue over the ban list everytime a new ban comes out.
Try building your own decks dammit
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If there is such a thing as too much power, I have not discovered it!
Wrong, I'm trying to play unfair decks that generate virtual card advantage by operating on an axis that people can rarely deal with preboard. In Legacy I play Stasis, Dredge, and Burn. In Standard I play Esper Control. They all operate on that same principal.
I don't have a problem with my opponent interacting with me, but I very much like the advantage that comes from their 7 card hand effectively only being a 2 card hand because everything else is dead.
I don't see how this is any different than someone who plays a bunch of resilient or hexproof threats. Why is one ok but the other isn't?
The reason why one is okay and the other one is not is actually rather interesting from a game design perspective, and is rather easily summarized: people like to FEEL like they have a chance of winning, even if they don't.
Let's say there are two decks a player can use, and both generate unfair advantage. Let's say both have a 100% chance of winning a given game (just for the sake of argument). Let's say one is a Hexproof deck, and one is the Blazing Shoals deck.
Against the Hexproof deck, there's constant interaction. I can't target my opponent's creatures, but I can board-wipe, I can block, I can race, I can use midrange threats to create higher quality creatures. And even if I have a 100% chance of losing, I still FEEL like I can win, because I feel like I'm doing something to stop my opponent.
Contrast this to a Blazing Shoals deck. If you don't happen to have the perfect answer the turn it happens, you just lose. No fanfare, no epic struggle, no chance, goodbye. That leaves the player with a feeling of dissatisfaction, that can grow into resentment, that can grow into leaving the game, which creates financial loss for Wizards.
Eggs, however, is a billion times worse. It's the Blazing Shoals deck, but it takes 15 minutes rather than 20 seconds. Ever seen that scene in Buffy where Buffy gets shot, and then Willow shoots Warren back, but makes him feel the agony of the bullet ripping slowly through his flesh? Shoals is a gun, Eggs is Willow. In both cases, someone is getting shot, no save. Hexproof's just a cool fight scene; the Slayer is still gonna win, but her opponent's at least feel like they've got a shot.
Wrong, I'm trying to play unfair decks that generate virtual card advantage by operating on an axis that people can rarely deal with preboard. In Legacy I play Stasis, Dredge, and Burn. In Standard I play Esper Control. They all operate on that same principal.
I don't have a problem with my opponent interacting with me, but I very much like the advantage that comes from their 7 card hand effectively only being a 2 card hand because everything else is dead.
I don't see how this is any different than someone who plays a bunch of resilient or hexproof threats. Why is one ok but the other isn't?
You kind of answered your own question there, bro. Nullifying the effectiveness of an entire deck type pre-board, and still being favored post-board is just not welcome in Modern. Unfair is not fun. Unfair doesn't get people buying Modern Masters to get into the format. Unfair is fun for you, not your opponent. The decks that do that are few and far between, and catch the ban hammer with the swiftness. And I'm not sure what resilience in creatures played in Modern you're referring to, or what hexproofers besides GoST get that much play. Besides, any example you're going to cite isn't likely to either A) cost your opponent a card to make it so, B) can't be countered, C) can't be removed with a board sweep, or D) Require a SB slot just to deal with it. My SB for every Modern deck I have is tailored to the inherent answers to the deck types that are out there, whatever form they take (GY hate, decks that finish by comboing at my face, enchantment/artifact hate, and life gain). Nothing I run has be set aside just for one deck, and I prefer it that way.
As an aside, it always catches me off guard when someone reveals so much of their personality when they finally go off like you did. It's not enough that you play to win, but you have to frustrate and nullify your opponent in the process...shrinks would have a field day with that.
Wrong, I'm trying to play unfair decks that generate virtual card advantage by operating on an axis that people can rarely deal with preboard. In Legacy I play Stasis, Dredge, and Burn. In Standard I play Esper Control. They all operate on that same principal.
I don't have a problem with my opponent interacting with me, but I very much like the advantage that comes from their 7 card hand effectively only being a 2 card hand because everything else is dead.
I don't see how this is any different than someone who plays a bunch of resilient or hexproof threats. Why is one ok but the other isn't?
There's nothing wrong with what your playing. Sorry your teams have gotten banned. Its been a long time since I've had a deck wrecked by WotC but I still can remember how much it sucked. Chin up man and keep up the good fight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
You kind of answered your own question there, bro. Nullifying the effectiveness of an entire deck type pre-board, and still being favored post-board is just not welcome in Modern. Unfair is not fun. Unfair doesn't get people buying Modern Masters to get into the format. Unfair is fun for you, not your opponent. The decks that do that are few and far between, and catch the ban hammer with the swiftness. And I'm not sure what resilience in creatures played in Modern you're referring to, or what hexproofers besides GoST get that much play. Besides, any example you're going to cite isn't likely to either A) cost your opponent a card to make it so, B) can't be countered, C) can't be removed with a board sweep, or D) Require a SB slot just to deal with it. My SB for every Modern deck I have is tailored to the inherent answers to the deck types that are out there, whatever form they take (GY hate, decks that finish by comboing at my face, enchantment/artifact hate, and life gain). Nothing I run has be set aside just for one deck, and I prefer it that way.
As an aside, it always catches me off guard when someone reveals so much of their personality when they finally go off like you did. It's not enough that you play to win, but you have to frustrate and nullify your opponent in the process...shrinks would have a field day with that.
Trouncing someone for their honesty says just as much about you...just saying...:rolleyes:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
You kind of answered your own question there, bro. Nullifying the effectiveness of an entire deck type pre-board, and still being favored post-board is just not welcome in Modern. Unfair is not fun. Unfair doesn't get people buying Modern Masters to get into the format. Unfair is fun for you, not your opponent. The decks that do that are few and far between, and catch the ban hammer with the swiftness. And I'm not sure what resilience in creatures played in Modern you're referring to, or what hexproofers besides GoST get that much play. Besides, any example you're going to cite isn't likely to either A) cost your opponent a card to make it so, B) can't be countered, C) can't be removed with a board sweep, or D) Require a SB slot just to deal with it. My SB for every Modern deck I have is tailored to the inherent answers to the deck types that are out there, whatever form they take (GY hate, decks that finish by comboing at my face, enchantment/artifact hate, and life gain). Nothing I run has be set aside just for one deck, and I prefer it that way.
As an aside, it always catches me off guard when someone reveals so much of their personality when they finally go off like you did. It's not enough that you play to win, but you have to frustrate and nullify your opponent in the process...shrinks would have a field day with that.
Or maybe he just enjoys playing combo decks? Like a lot of mentally sane players do (myself included). Combo decks are like puzzles. You need to find the best, most efficient way, while keeping hate and disruption in mind. If the decks in the format have no way of interacting with the existing, and well-known combo decks, that's a flaw in the fair deck's design.
While it sounds weird, unfair decks actually keep the format in check. For example, without combo decks to beat up on the super fair decks, legacy would suck.
Now, eggs has a design flaw, it's slow, boring, and if the player is not experienced enough with the deck to play at a reasonable pace, it will hinder tournaments. I think it's correct to get decks like these out of the format. Storm, however, was not in any way bad for the format. It didn't put up oppressing numbers, killed fairly fast, and could be prepared for.
Sure, some people hate playing against storm, but unless they have proof that decks like these are lowering attendance (caw blade style), I think a ban is uncalled for.
In fact, because of the aggressive bannings, wizards has made a lot of pro players turn their back to the format. And if those guys openly say they hate it, a lot of people will follow.
IMO, modern could do without the turn 4 rule and a much shorter banlist. It will, however, need some cards printed to keep some strategies in check. While I don't think modern needs to become legacy lite, I think cards like Force of will and Wasteland, meaning 'free' (it's far from free) instant speed disruption and efficient mana disruption would do good to keep the unfair strategies in check.
I'm not saying print FoW and Wasteland in modern (although it might be interesting to see what effect they would have and I assume wizards has tested this, since it would be good to see them reprinted.) but a modern equivalent might be good for the format.
Leaving both combo and control players in the cold is not a good idea if they want modern to become the go-to eternal format though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: RUG Tempo Tresh RUG BUG Team america, Shardless BUG, BUG control BUG WUBEsper StonebladeWUB WUGBRTESWUGBR UBRSneak and ShowUBR
I'm curious as to just how bad Mental Misstep would be for the format if it wasn't banned. I feel like it - and a lot of other "powerful, but not ruining tournaments" cards - could do well to come off the banlist.
Mental misstep is a skullclamp-level mistake IMO, and should never EVER be unbanned in modern or legacy. some decks would start playing misstep to counter stuff like DRS. Then the DRS running decks would run misstep to counter misstep, and it would just result in every decklist starting with 4 Mental misstep.
Some cards could be removed from the list. Misstep is not one of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: RUG Tempo Tresh RUG BUG Team america, Shardless BUG, BUG control BUG WUBEsper StonebladeWUB WUGBRTESWUGBR UBRSneak and ShowUBR
I'm curious as to just how bad Mental Misstep would be for the format if it wasn't banned. I feel like it - and a lot of other "powerful, but not ruining tournaments" cards - could do well to come off the banlist.
The problem with MM is not that it's broken but rather that it is warping. Every deck could and likely would run 4 in their 75.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Trouncing someone for their honesty says just as much about you...just saying...:rolleyes:
Never trounced. That's a strong word for putting a finer point on the gentleman's honesty, as you put it. No offense was intended, though I do question what exactly the person spiking the ball is really playing magic for, because being social and having fun seem to take a big backseat when your opponent can't stand being across the table from you.
Back on topic, it seems like a lot of the banning decisions people aren't agreeing with, and this notion of 'needs more power' is a desire to shape the format in way that is in direct conflict with the direction Wizards is taking it. This idea of printing powerful cards to combat what they take off the banned list is reverse engineering and wishful thinking. You do realize those cards have to sit in Standard for a year, right?
Don't get me wrong, I think Wizards makes gigantically boneheaded moves, and often. I just don't see all this 'unban this and give us a pseudo FoW to combat it' as making much sense. Modern isn't legacy-lite. It isn't the go-to eternal format. It's the de facto eternal format. If you want legacy, play legacy, but stop trying to turn Modern into it. If control and combo are going to emerge as tier 1 decks, it's going to happen naturally, and with the road map of the format and future sets, not by digging up the ghosts of Standard's past, some of which never should have seen the light of day in the first place.
This is exacty what i think. IMHO there are so much undiscovered options in Modern, but lazy people just wait until somebody else builds a deck for them and then they just completely copy it...
It's not lazy to netdeck. I have realized a long time ago that I do not have the deck-building skill or the experience that the pro's have. I also don't have the time to spend on improving myself to get on at last a comparable level as they are.
I build decks for casual games with friends, and for EDH, and while they work fine, They're not the fine-tuned machines that guys like Sam Black make.
If I enter a tournament, I play to win. I want to have fun as well, but I want to have fun while winning. So I want to give myself every chance to do that. That means I will choose a deck that does well, and looks like a good option for the meta. I'll make the appropriate sideboard/mainboard changes.
As for modern, I will at the most play 2-3 modern tournaments this year. I have no way to fine-tune a completely new deck for these tournaments, unless I play modern a lot on MODO (where the meta might be completely different from IRL) which would cost me a lot of money.
This means I have little choice but to netdeck.
Why is that lazy?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: RUG Tempo Tresh RUG BUG Team america, Shardless BUG, BUG control BUG WUBEsper StonebladeWUB WUGBRTESWUGBR UBRSneak and ShowUBR
Never trounced. That's a strong word for putting a finer point on the gentleman's honesty, as you put it. No offense was intended, though I do question what exactly the person spiking the ball is really playing magic for, because being social and having fun seem to take a big backseat when your opponent can't stand being across the table from you.
Back on topic, it seems like a lot of the banning decisions people aren't agreeing with, and this notion of 'needs more power' is a desire to shape the format in way that is in direct conflict with the direction Wizards is taking it. This idea of printing powerful cards to combat what they take off the banned list is reverse engineering and wishful thinking. You do realize those cards have to sit in Standard for a year, right?
Don't get me wrong, I think Wizards makes gigantically boneheaded moves, and often. I just don't see all this 'unban this and give us a pseudo FoW to combat it' as making much sense. Modern isn't legacy-lite. It isn't the go-to eternal format. It's the de facto eternal format. If you want legacy, play legacy, but stop trying to turn Modern into it. If control and combo are going to emerge as tier 1 decks, it's going to happen naturally, and with the road map of the format and future sets, not by digging up the ghosts of Standard's past, some of which never should have seen the light of day in the first place.
Force of Will wouldn't even see play in standard; it didn't the first time, and it's unlikely that will change. There aren't any unfair combo decks to fight against, and if you use it to counter GoST, you've just 2-for1'd yourself. Even Foil, which is a worse FoW, would be fine for modern. The only real gripe is that it would force people to play blue, which is true; other colours need to have a means of winning spell wars on the stack against blue (and combo in general), in the same way that all colours can duke it out on the battlefield. But that's a pretty fundamental game design issue that probably should have been addressed a while go, and is unlikely to change.
The result is that Wizards has no problem printing power cards and letting them see play in modern and legacy, they just prefer that those power cards be creatures and not instants/sorceries. Everyone can duke it out with creatures, but on the stack, blue always has the final word. That said, this is an unsatisfactory solution to those who actually prefer playing on the stack to the battlefield (and there are a lot of us).
As for going off at Aazadan, how is playing combo any different to fighting against aggro? Blitz and affinity decks can kill you before you ever have the chance to do anything; they're the definition of un-interactive, because that's the point of any Sligh deck. If that's fair, then bring on the spell-based combo. Setting an arbitrary minimum number of turns for a format is ridiculous when there are creature decks that will kill you on turn 3 or 4 if you aren't packing enough wipes, and really, the only colour that can help you survive that kind of onslaught is red. By the time your wraths are online, you're close to dead.
The problem is that the range of strategies is so low, because Wizards is attempting to control the game through a banlist rather than let the meta balance itself out. If good control actually existed in modern, combo wouldn't be a problem; there are plenty of control players out there that are more than happy to beat up combo players, and in turn, will get slaughtered by aggro. The alternative is that Wizards bans something new every time a new combo deck comes along that breaks the format. Given how easy that is to do, the implications for the future of modern aren't good.
At some stage, Wizards needs to determine whether or not modern is catering to experienced standard players looking for a deeper format. If it is, then we should have viable control and combo, because those are a valid part of the game, and appeal to different types of player. If Wizards isn't catering to those players, that's fine too, but those players need some place to go. At the moment the only answer is legacy, and spending thousands of dollars on dual lands just to build a functional deck.
It's not lazy to netdeck. I have realized a long time ago that I do not have the deck-building skill or the experience that the pro's have. I also don't have the time to spend on improving myself to get on at last a comparable level as they are.
I build decks for casual games with friends, and for EDH, and while they work fine, They're not the fine-tuned machines that guys like Sam Black make.
If I enter a tournament, I play to win. I want to have fun as well, but I want to have fun while winning. So I want to give myself every chance to do that. That means I will choose a deck that does well, and looks like a good option for the meta. I'll make the appropriate sideboard/mainboard changes.
As for modern, I will at the most play 2-3 modern tournaments this year. I have no way to fine-tune a completely new deck for these tournaments, unless I play modern a lot on MODO (where the meta might be completely different from IRL) which would cost me a lot of money.
This means I have little choice but to netdeck.
Why is that lazy?
I agree with you. Unless you have time to test out a bunch of decks, then it only makes sense to go with something that has already been tested. Some of us don't play that much modern, and don't have time too. I use to build my own decks for standard and vintage when I had the time to test them. Now, with work, it is impossible. Even if you netdeck, you should make some meta-game choices to increase your likelihood of winning. I don't see that as lazy. It is prudent.
Force of Will wouldn't even see play in standard; it didn't the first time, and it's unlikely that will change. There aren't any unfair combo decks to fight against, and if you use it to counter GoST, you've just 2-for1'd yourself. Even Foil, which is a worse FoW, would be fine for modern. The only real gripe is that it would force people to play blue, which is true; other colours need to have a means of winning spell wars on the stack against blue (and combo in general), in the same way that all colours can duke it out on the battlefield. But that's a pretty fundamental game design issue that probably should have been addressed a while go, and is unlikely to change.
The result is that Wizards has no problem printing power cards and letting them see play in modern and legacy, they just prefer that those power cards be creatures and not instants/sorceries. Everyone can duke it out with creatures, but on the stack, blue always has the final word. That said, this is an unsatisfactory solution to those who actually prefer playing on the stack to the battlefield (and there are a lot of us).
As for going off at Aazadan, how is playing combo any different to fighting against aggro? Blitz and affinity decks can kill you before you ever have the chance to do anything; they're the definition of un-interactive, because that's the point of any Sligh deck. If that's fair, then bring on the spell-based combo. Setting an arbitrary minimum number of turns for a format is ridiculous when there are creature decks that will kill you on turn 3 or 4 if you aren't packing enough wipes, and really, the only colour that can help you survive that kind of onslaught is red. By the time your wraths are online, you're close to dead.
The problem is that the range of strategies is so low, because Wizards is attempting to control the game through a banlist rather than let the meta balance itself out. If good control actually existed in modern, combo wouldn't be a problem; there are plenty of control players out there that are more than happy to beat up combo players, and in turn, will get slaughtered by aggro. The alternative is that Wizards bans something new every time a new combo deck comes along that breaks the format. Given how easy that is to do, the implications for the future of modern aren't good.
At some stage, Wizards needs to determine whether or not modern is catering to experienced standard players looking for a deeper format. If it is, then we should have viable control and combo, because those are a valid part of the game, and appeal to different types of player. If Wizards isn't catering to those players, that's fine too, but those players need some place to go. At the moment the only answer is legacy, and spending thousands of dollars on dual lands just to build a functional deck.
You have a few good points here, let me address them all. First, I have absolutely no problem with combo in Modern. As much as I dislike 2-card auto-wins, Splinter Twin and Kiki Pod are basically auto wins if you don't have the answer right then and there, and they do just fine. Storm, despite what anyone says, got their clocked pushed back, but are by no means dead and gone. The only combos left out of the format by the existing ban list are the ones that had a reliable turn 3 or less finish, and were very difficult to disrupt. The proof was there at the time of the bannings, every jackass and their grandmother gravitated toward what they felt was the loophole in the turn 4 rule. Glutting the format with those that are playing a deck and those that are answering that deck is a ban hammer, always has been in every format.
I don't coddle, love, or play aggro in Modern. Aggro is trimmed (I think it could be pared down a little more, really) to avoid clogging the format. BBE stifled Jund just enough to open the field. Nacatl trimmed Zoo lists. Jitte and Skullclamp never being there were early decisions against a swarm of aggro.
I completely disagree with the assessment that the ban lists keep the available top tier decks low. Quite honestly, there are more tier 1 decks in the format than any Standard in recent memory. The banned list isn't stifling deckbuilding, it is stifling the build of VERY specific decks. Sure, you can say you want Bitterblossom to come off the list for B/W tokens, but everyone knows day 1 that it happens, Faeries is back. Lets be honest here, can you point to 1 card on the banned list that can come off and would not immediately skyrocket a deck type to tier 1 status? Even Ancestral Vision, which seems harmless enough, there was a Pro player not too long ago that was quoted if Wizards took it off the list he would make them regret it.
I'd love to see combo and control flourish alongside aggro, but I'd rather see it come about with strong control cards coming out down the line, because honestly, I don't see a lot of cards on that banned list I'd be thrilled to see come off. We already have their time in Standard to remember just how degenerate some of them were.
At the moment the only answer is legacy, and spending thousands of dollars on dual lands just to build a functional deck.
I really wish people would stop saying that about Legacy. You don't need dual lands or to spend thousands of dollars to have a functional deck. Burn is a thing (not the best, but for around $100 you can't do any better), Affinity is a thing (again not the best, but very cheap. You want a tier one deck without duals? Goblins, Merfolk both capable of top place at a major tournament. Death and Taxes just got first place at a GP (though due to 4 Karakas, it isn't really an inexpensive deck, but less than $1000). You can even play mono-colored combo with High Tide or combo with a single dual land with Belcher. There are many ways to make a functional, competitive deck in Legacy without spending $1000 on the mana base.
I also think that Modern and Legacy should both coexist and appeal to different types of players. The push to make Modern Legacy-light makes no sense. What is the purpose of Modern if you just want it to be Legacy with slightly worse cards? Don't say to be more affordable because the difference in price between say Modern Jund and Legacy Jund is not so great. I think Wizards is doing a pretty poor job with the format now, but trying to make it like Legacy is a mistake.
I really wish people would stop saying that about Legacy. You don't need dual lands or to spend thousands of dollars to have a functional deck. Burn is a thing (not the best, but for around $100 you can't do any better), Affinity is a thing (again not the best, but very cheap. You want a tier one deck without duals? Goblins, Merfolk both capable of top place at a major tournament. Death and Taxes just got first place at a GP (though due to 4 Karakas, it isn't really an inexpensive deck, but less than $1000). You can even play mono-colored combo with High Tide or combo with a single dual land with Belcher. There are many ways to make a functional, competitive deck in Legacy without spending $1000 on the mana base.
I also think that Modern and Legacy should both coexist and appeal to different types of players. The push to make Modern Legacy-light makes no sense. What is the purpose of Modern if you just want it to be Legacy with slightly worse cards? Don't say to be more affordable because the difference in price between say Modern Jund and Legacy Jund is not so great. I think Wizards is doing a pretty poor job with the format now, but trying to make it like Legacy is a mistake.
You keep invalidating your own responses. Legacy IS an expensive format, and aside from vintage, is THE expensive format. We've established that it is a spike format. Spikes play to win. How do you win? With the good cards. Are the good cards cheap? Hell no. Goblins, burn, and Merfolk aren't WINNING decks. They are 'okay' decks. You cannot disregard the most expensive card in a winning deck! There is a reason he played 4 Karakas. That is 300 for one playset, and we haven't even touched the rest of the deck! I can fund my entire modern deck I'm working on, and two more edh decks for that! Screw legacy, the money wins format.
@CMoriarty: Exactly what about Modern isn't diverse? Combo has Storm, Kiki Pod, Melira Pod, Splinter Twin, and Scapeshift. Control has UW, UWR, Teachings, Mono U Faeries. Aggro has Infect, Zoo, Jund, Affinity. Then you have hybrids like 3 different flavors of Tron, all of which can put up top 8's. So what is this 'diversity' that's missing? Adding BB back to Faeries? Adding BBE back to Jund? Seething Song and Rite of Flame back to Storm? Giving back Nacatl and Jitte to Zoo? In case you haven't noticed, most of the banned list are cards that would go right into existing decks that are doing just fine without them.
You also didn't read what I was saying about Legacy. I said it's that most cards post-Mirrodin are garbage, meaning it is difficult to find a new card that will spawn new archetypes, and the existing card pool/deck pool to choose from involves a finite number of expensive, format-defining cards. Basically, Legacy is a slow-moving, crotchety old man that clings to old ways, and it takes a 'wow' card like Death Rite Shaman or Delver of Secrets to make someone take notice. Modern is a more open format, a little more friendly to new players, and a little more open to new lines of attack. While everyone is feeling those out, some decks (like Eggs) pop up and become a stain on the meta, for whatever the reason. So they get the ban hammer. That was my whole point.
Modern doesn't have viable creatureless decks. They banned them all. It also doesn't have a good control deck. What it does have is 75 different versions of aggro.
I'm sorry, what version of aggro is storm? And what, pray tell, is on the banned list that doesn't allow for a creatureless deck? Mental Misstep, JTMS, Ancestral Vision, Divining Top, Blazing Shoal and Second Sunrise are the only cards that would in no way work with/interact with a creature. Every single other one either goes in Storm, is part of a creature strategy, or is part of a combo with a creature strategy. What the heck is it you can't build without one of those? Countertop?
Viable control decks? There were no control top 8's in the 2012 Modern GP's, in the 2012-2013 season's 7 Modern GP's there were 3. So out of 10 GP's, 80 various decks that top 8'ed a mere 3 were any form of control. You call that viable? I don't.
I guess you missed the part where storm is no longer tier 1.
Just so I understand, now: diversity in the format is only what GP standings and arbitrary 'tier #' you can assign to them? Are you like, just watching the format as a series of numbers, or actually playing it? Viability does not mean anyone can sleeve it up and derp to top 8...where are you guys getting this line of reasoning from?
Wait?
Do you ever played Valakut/Scapeshift?
Yes there are creatures
Do you know what?
Remove them and put burn and ramp in they place
Do you see? Its a viable creatureless deck
Grow up
just cause they banned the main card of your deck you say the format is a *******
adapt
oh wait you have to sit down and wait for some one ( a pro ) to win a tornament with a new eggs for you to build your deck?
That would be why I have a thread in the eggs forum with a post ban list I came up with that works very well and has over 100 hands tested to make sure it's consistent, right? Clearly I'm waiting for someone else to come up with a list.
I've had 5 modern decks. Infect Shoal, 12post, eggs, melira pod, and superfriends. Guess what has happened to three of them and is pretty much guaranteed to happen to pod one day?
You see, I'm fine with the combat step happening, what I don't like is when the game revolves around the combat step turn after turn. Hence the reason I play decks where it doesn't. Modern and Standard push the combat step very heavily.
Ohhhh....now I get the line of reasoning you've been posting with. I really hate to break this to you, but you're not playing 'viable' decklists that don't revolve around the combat step, you're trying to play solitaire. Those decks are borderline 0-interaction decks, every last one of them. There is a reason your pet decks keep getting banned, you keep gravitating toward decks that win or lose almost ignorant of your opponent's presence. For that, play solitaire. There's no way a Jack of Diamonds is getting banned.
I don't have a problem with my opponent interacting with me, but I very much like the advantage that comes from their 7 card hand effectively only being a 2 card hand because everything else is dead.
I don't see how this is any different than someone who plays a bunch of resilient or hexproof threats. Why is one ok but the other isn't?
Try building your own decks dammit
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
The reason why one is okay and the other one is not is actually rather interesting from a game design perspective, and is rather easily summarized: people like to FEEL like they have a chance of winning, even if they don't.
Let's say there are two decks a player can use, and both generate unfair advantage. Let's say both have a 100% chance of winning a given game (just for the sake of argument). Let's say one is a Hexproof deck, and one is the Blazing Shoals deck.
Against the Hexproof deck, there's constant interaction. I can't target my opponent's creatures, but I can board-wipe, I can block, I can race, I can use midrange threats to create higher quality creatures. And even if I have a 100% chance of losing, I still FEEL like I can win, because I feel like I'm doing something to stop my opponent.
Contrast this to a Blazing Shoals deck. If you don't happen to have the perfect answer the turn it happens, you just lose. No fanfare, no epic struggle, no chance, goodbye. That leaves the player with a feeling of dissatisfaction, that can grow into resentment, that can grow into leaving the game, which creates financial loss for Wizards.
Eggs, however, is a billion times worse. It's the Blazing Shoals deck, but it takes 15 minutes rather than 20 seconds. Ever seen that scene in Buffy where Buffy gets shot, and then Willow shoots Warren back, but makes him feel the agony of the bullet ripping slowly through his flesh? Shoals is a gun, Eggs is Willow. In both cases, someone is getting shot, no save. Hexproof's just a cool fight scene; the Slayer is still gonna win, but her opponent's at least feel like they've got a shot.
That's the difference.
You kind of answered your own question there, bro. Nullifying the effectiveness of an entire deck type pre-board, and still being favored post-board is just not welcome in Modern. Unfair is not fun. Unfair doesn't get people buying Modern Masters to get into the format. Unfair is fun for you, not your opponent. The decks that do that are few and far between, and catch the ban hammer with the swiftness. And I'm not sure what resilience in creatures played in Modern you're referring to, or what hexproofers besides GoST get that much play. Besides, any example you're going to cite isn't likely to either A) cost your opponent a card to make it so, B) can't be countered, C) can't be removed with a board sweep, or D) Require a SB slot just to deal with it. My SB for every Modern deck I have is tailored to the inherent answers to the deck types that are out there, whatever form they take (GY hate, decks that finish by comboing at my face, enchantment/artifact hate, and life gain). Nothing I run has be set aside just for one deck, and I prefer it that way.
As an aside, it always catches me off guard when someone reveals so much of their personality when they finally go off like you did. It's not enough that you play to win, but you have to frustrate and nullify your opponent in the process...shrinks would have a field day with that.
There's nothing wrong with what your playing. Sorry your teams have gotten banned. Its been a long time since I've had a deck wrecked by WotC but I still can remember how much it sucked. Chin up man and keep up the good fight.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Trouncing someone for their honesty says just as much about you...just saying...:rolleyes:
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Or maybe he just enjoys playing combo decks? Like a lot of mentally sane players do (myself included). Combo decks are like puzzles. You need to find the best, most efficient way, while keeping hate and disruption in mind. If the decks in the format have no way of interacting with the existing, and well-known combo decks, that's a flaw in the fair deck's design.
While it sounds weird, unfair decks actually keep the format in check. For example, without combo decks to beat up on the super fair decks, legacy would suck.
Now, eggs has a design flaw, it's slow, boring, and if the player is not experienced enough with the deck to play at a reasonable pace, it will hinder tournaments. I think it's correct to get decks like these out of the format. Storm, however, was not in any way bad for the format. It didn't put up oppressing numbers, killed fairly fast, and could be prepared for.
Sure, some people hate playing against storm, but unless they have proof that decks like these are lowering attendance (caw blade style), I think a ban is uncalled for.
In fact, because of the aggressive bannings, wizards has made a lot of pro players turn their back to the format. And if those guys openly say they hate it, a lot of people will follow.
IMO, modern could do without the turn 4 rule and a much shorter banlist. It will, however, need some cards printed to keep some strategies in check. While I don't think modern needs to become legacy lite, I think cards like Force of will and Wasteland, meaning 'free' (it's far from free) instant speed disruption and efficient mana disruption would do good to keep the unfair strategies in check.
I'm not saying print FoW and Wasteland in modern (although it might be interesting to see what effect they would have and I assume wizards has tested this, since it would be good to see them reprinted.) but a modern equivalent might be good for the format.
Leaving both combo and control players in the cold is not a good idea if they want modern to become the go-to eternal format though.
RUG Tempo Tresh RUG
BUG Team america, Shardless BUG, BUG control BUG
WUBEsper StonebladeWUB
WUGBRTESWUGBR
UBRSneak and ShowUBR
EDH:
GUExperiment Kraj - FOILEDGU
RUBGwendlyn Di CorciRUB
My MTG metagame analysis software Project (Work in progress)
Mental misstep is a skullclamp-level mistake IMO, and should never EVER be unbanned in modern or legacy. some decks would start playing misstep to counter stuff like DRS. Then the DRS running decks would run misstep to counter misstep, and it would just result in every decklist starting with 4 Mental misstep.
Some cards could be removed from the list. Misstep is not one of them.
RUG Tempo Tresh RUG
BUG Team america, Shardless BUG, BUG control BUG
WUBEsper StonebladeWUB
WUGBRTESWUGBR
UBRSneak and ShowUBR
EDH:
GUExperiment Kraj - FOILEDGU
RUBGwendlyn Di CorciRUB
My MTG metagame analysis software Project (Work in progress)
The problem with MM is not that it's broken but rather that it is warping. Every deck could and likely would run 4 in their 75.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Never trounced. That's a strong word for putting a finer point on the gentleman's honesty, as you put it. No offense was intended, though I do question what exactly the person spiking the ball is really playing magic for, because being social and having fun seem to take a big backseat when your opponent can't stand being across the table from you.
Back on topic, it seems like a lot of the banning decisions people aren't agreeing with, and this notion of 'needs more power' is a desire to shape the format in way that is in direct conflict with the direction Wizards is taking it. This idea of printing powerful cards to combat what they take off the banned list is reverse engineering and wishful thinking. You do realize those cards have to sit in Standard for a year, right?
Don't get me wrong, I think Wizards makes gigantically boneheaded moves, and often. I just don't see all this 'unban this and give us a pseudo FoW to combat it' as making much sense. Modern isn't legacy-lite. It isn't the go-to eternal format. It's the de facto eternal format. If you want legacy, play legacy, but stop trying to turn Modern into it. If control and combo are going to emerge as tier 1 decks, it's going to happen naturally, and with the road map of the format and future sets, not by digging up the ghosts of Standard's past, some of which never should have seen the light of day in the first place.
It's not lazy to netdeck. I have realized a long time ago that I do not have the deck-building skill or the experience that the pro's have. I also don't have the time to spend on improving myself to get on at last a comparable level as they are.
I build decks for casual games with friends, and for EDH, and while they work fine, They're not the fine-tuned machines that guys like Sam Black make.
If I enter a tournament, I play to win. I want to have fun as well, but I want to have fun while winning. So I want to give myself every chance to do that. That means I will choose a deck that does well, and looks like a good option for the meta. I'll make the appropriate sideboard/mainboard changes.
As for modern, I will at the most play 2-3 modern tournaments this year. I have no way to fine-tune a completely new deck for these tournaments, unless I play modern a lot on MODO (where the meta might be completely different from IRL) which would cost me a lot of money.
This means I have little choice but to netdeck.
Why is that lazy?
RUG Tempo Tresh RUG
BUG Team america, Shardless BUG, BUG control BUG
WUBEsper StonebladeWUB
WUGBRTESWUGBR
UBRSneak and ShowUBR
EDH:
GUExperiment Kraj - FOILEDGU
RUBGwendlyn Di CorciRUB
My MTG metagame analysis software Project (Work in progress)
Force of Will wouldn't even see play in standard; it didn't the first time, and it's unlikely that will change. There aren't any unfair combo decks to fight against, and if you use it to counter GoST, you've just 2-for1'd yourself. Even Foil, which is a worse FoW, would be fine for modern. The only real gripe is that it would force people to play blue, which is true; other colours need to have a means of winning spell wars on the stack against blue (and combo in general), in the same way that all colours can duke it out on the battlefield. But that's a pretty fundamental game design issue that probably should have been addressed a while go, and is unlikely to change.
The result is that Wizards has no problem printing power cards and letting them see play in modern and legacy, they just prefer that those power cards be creatures and not instants/sorceries. Everyone can duke it out with creatures, but on the stack, blue always has the final word. That said, this is an unsatisfactory solution to those who actually prefer playing on the stack to the battlefield (and there are a lot of us).
As for going off at Aazadan, how is playing combo any different to fighting against aggro? Blitz and affinity decks can kill you before you ever have the chance to do anything; they're the definition of un-interactive, because that's the point of any Sligh deck. If that's fair, then bring on the spell-based combo. Setting an arbitrary minimum number of turns for a format is ridiculous when there are creature decks that will kill you on turn 3 or 4 if you aren't packing enough wipes, and really, the only colour that can help you survive that kind of onslaught is red. By the time your wraths are online, you're close to dead.
The problem is that the range of strategies is so low, because Wizards is attempting to control the game through a banlist rather than let the meta balance itself out. If good control actually existed in modern, combo wouldn't be a problem; there are plenty of control players out there that are more than happy to beat up combo players, and in turn, will get slaughtered by aggro. The alternative is that Wizards bans something new every time a new combo deck comes along that breaks the format. Given how easy that is to do, the implications for the future of modern aren't good.
At some stage, Wizards needs to determine whether or not modern is catering to experienced standard players looking for a deeper format. If it is, then we should have viable control and combo, because those are a valid part of the game, and appeal to different types of player. If Wizards isn't catering to those players, that's fine too, but those players need some place to go. At the moment the only answer is legacy, and spending thousands of dollars on dual lands just to build a functional deck.
I agree with you. Unless you have time to test out a bunch of decks, then it only makes sense to go with something that has already been tested. Some of us don't play that much modern, and don't have time too. I use to build my own decks for standard and vintage when I had the time to test them. Now, with work, it is impossible. Even if you netdeck, you should make some meta-game choices to increase your likelihood of winning. I don't see that as lazy. It is prudent.
You have a few good points here, let me address them all. First, I have absolutely no problem with combo in Modern. As much as I dislike 2-card auto-wins, Splinter Twin and Kiki Pod are basically auto wins if you don't have the answer right then and there, and they do just fine. Storm, despite what anyone says, got their clocked pushed back, but are by no means dead and gone. The only combos left out of the format by the existing ban list are the ones that had a reliable turn 3 or less finish, and were very difficult to disrupt. The proof was there at the time of the bannings, every jackass and their grandmother gravitated toward what they felt was the loophole in the turn 4 rule. Glutting the format with those that are playing a deck and those that are answering that deck is a ban hammer, always has been in every format.
I don't coddle, love, or play aggro in Modern. Aggro is trimmed (I think it could be pared down a little more, really) to avoid clogging the format. BBE stifled Jund just enough to open the field. Nacatl trimmed Zoo lists. Jitte and Skullclamp never being there were early decisions against a swarm of aggro.
I completely disagree with the assessment that the ban lists keep the available top tier decks low. Quite honestly, there are more tier 1 decks in the format than any Standard in recent memory. The banned list isn't stifling deckbuilding, it is stifling the build of VERY specific decks. Sure, you can say you want Bitterblossom to come off the list for B/W tokens, but everyone knows day 1 that it happens, Faeries is back. Lets be honest here, can you point to 1 card on the banned list that can come off and would not immediately skyrocket a deck type to tier 1 status? Even Ancestral Vision, which seems harmless enough, there was a Pro player not too long ago that was quoted if Wizards took it off the list he would make them regret it.
I'd love to see combo and control flourish alongside aggro, but I'd rather see it come about with strong control cards coming out down the line, because honestly, I don't see a lot of cards on that banned list I'd be thrilled to see come off. We already have their time in Standard to remember just how degenerate some of them were.
I really wish people would stop saying that about Legacy. You don't need dual lands or to spend thousands of dollars to have a functional deck. Burn is a thing (not the best, but for around $100 you can't do any better), Affinity is a thing (again not the best, but very cheap. You want a tier one deck without duals? Goblins, Merfolk both capable of top place at a major tournament. Death and Taxes just got first place at a GP (though due to 4 Karakas, it isn't really an inexpensive deck, but less than $1000). You can even play mono-colored combo with High Tide or combo with a single dual land with Belcher. There are many ways to make a functional, competitive deck in Legacy without spending $1000 on the mana base.
I also think that Modern and Legacy should both coexist and appeal to different types of players. The push to make Modern Legacy-light makes no sense. What is the purpose of Modern if you just want it to be Legacy with slightly worse cards? Don't say to be more affordable because the difference in price between say Modern Jund and Legacy Jund is not so great. I think Wizards is doing a pretty poor job with the format now, but trying to make it like Legacy is a mistake.
RGoblinsR
RWerewolf StompyR
URU/R DelverRU
RGBelcherGR
BThe GateB
GBLoam PoxBG
WGBNic FitBGW
UHigh TideU
UMerfolkU
UFaerieNinjaStillU
WBUAffinityUBW
GSquirrelsG
UWGSliversGWU
You keep invalidating your own responses. Legacy IS an expensive format, and aside from vintage, is THE expensive format. We've established that it is a spike format. Spikes play to win. How do you win? With the good cards. Are the good cards cheap? Hell no. Goblins, burn, and Merfolk aren't WINNING decks. They are 'okay' decks. You cannot disregard the most expensive card in a winning deck! There is a reason he played 4 Karakas. That is 300 for one playset, and we haven't even touched the rest of the deck! I can fund my entire modern deck I'm working on, and two more edh decks for that! Screw legacy, the money wins format.
EDH is a CASUAL format. Get with the program, or GTFO.