And I feel this is the case with getting some people into modern or even accepting its existence. I'm not talking about people who just say "I just don't like modern". Preferences are preferences and that's cool. I'm talking about the people who say that modern is "not diverse". They would have to ignore a whole year's worth of very many diverse top 8's to make that statement, they would have to ignore basic facts. Same with "its too expensive", they would have to ignore Storm, Twin, Affinity, and a crap ton of other viable decks that all fall well below the cost of the majority of standard decks.
The question is... Why the resistance? Not "why don't they like it"? That's a different but closely related question. When I ask "why the resistance"? I am asking why, more than any other format, modern draws so much derision despite proving itself to be a diverse and cost-effective format.
The only true criticism of the format that seems valid is "there is no traditional control". But hey, every single format has problems.
Also, about the banlist... Even legacy players have cards that they think should come off the banlist. So that can't explain the derision. Even legacy has cards that seem and maybe even are on the ban list for silly reasons (Mind Twist is banned in a format which has possible non-god hand turn 2 storm wins?).
But back to the original question... There is a difference between saying you don't like something and bashing it. I don't like tea, but im not gonna bash it. So why is Modern the format with the largest amount of weird, almost frantic and emotionally driven, hate towards it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
Modern is often compared to Legacy.
Its Wizard's answer to the "reserved list", when the real answer to the reserved list is to abolish it.
Modern has the same feel as Extended, the other Constructed, non-eternal format. It lives between Legacy and Standard.
Modern is perceived to be a cost effective alternative to Legacy. But its not, its just as expensive. The same decks that are cheap to build for modern are just as cheap to build for Legacy.
People speak out against things that threaten them. Modern was created to fill a hole between Standard and Legacy and many have felt it should be Legacy. This leads to defense of Legacy and the talking down of Modern.
I find the most vocal against Modern are the first ones in line to sign up for tournaments when they happen. Take the talking with a grain of salt.
@ Hagalaz, I feel for you when Legacy is done and over. Which is going to happen.
And I feel this is the case with getting some people into modern or even accepting its existence. I'm not talking about people who just say "I just don't like modern". Preferences are preferences and that's cool. I'm talking about the people who say that modern is "not diverse". They would have to ignore a whole year's worth of very many diverse top 8's to make that statement, they would have to ignore basic facts. Same with "its too expensive", they would have to ignore Storm, Twin, Affinity, and a crap ton of other viable decks that all fall well below the cost of the majority of standard decks.
The question is... Why the resistance? Not "why don't they like it"? That's a different but closely related question. When I ask "why the resistance"? I am asking why, more than any other format, modern draws so much derision despite proving itself to be a diverse and cost-effective format.
The only true criticism of the format that seems valid is "there is no traditional control". But hey, every single format has problems.
Also, about the banlist... Even legacy players have cards that they think should come off the banlist. So that can't explain the derision. Even legacy has cards that seem and maybe even are on the ban list for silly reasons (Mind Twist is banned in a format which has possible non-god hand turn 2 storm wins?).
But back to the original question... There is a difference between saying you don't like something and bashing it. I don't like tea, but im not gonna bash it. So why is Modern the format with the largest amount of weird, almost frantic and emotionally driven, hate towards it?
I totally agree. My friends and I were trying to figure out what format to play, and all of those concerns came up.
My favorite is "Modern is too expensive". From what I've seen, modern is CONSIDERABLY cheaper than standard and legacy too (obv). Yes, I know that you CAN make a very expensive deck in modern, but you don't have to. I've been playing D&T with tons of success and a lot of fun for about $120 (I already had a few of the cards). Since standard is a lot more narrow, most decks will need eight shocks (as those are the only good lands availible), and base their strategy around 8-16 format staples that usually run a high price.
Ex:
1st place list from Brooklyn 5k. Eight fetches, ten medium priced lands, 4 ten dollar terminus, 2 thirty dollar tamiyo, four forty dollar jace, four twenthfive dollar thragtusk, three twelve dollar restoration angel. That's pricey. And the problem is, if you want to be competitive, its going to have to be that pricey (exemption for RDW).
Oh, and people who say that standard is more diverse than modern are dead wrong. Standard has 3 types of midrange and two types of control end of story.
P.S. you're the first person other than myself who I've seen say "crapton"
I totally agree. My friends and I were trying to figure out what format to play, and all of those concerns came up.
My favorite is "Modern is too expensive". From what I've seen, modern is CONSIDERABLY cheaper than standard and legacy too (obv). Yes, I know that you CAN make a very expensive deck in modern, but you don't have to. I've been playing D&T with tons of success and a lot of fun for about $120 (I already had a few of the cards). Since standard is a lot more narrow, most decks will need eight shocks (as those are the only good lands availible), and base their strategy around 8-16 format staples that usually run a high price.
Ex:
1st place list from Brooklyn 5k. Eight fetches, ten medium priced lands, 4 ten dollar terminus, 2 thirty dollar tamiyo, four forty dollar jace, four twenthfive dollar thragtusk, three twelve dollar restoration angel. That's pricey. And the problem is, if you want to be competitive, its going to have to be that pricey (exemption for RDW).
Oh, and people who say that standard is more diverse than modern are dead wrong. Standard has 3 types of midrange and two types of control end of story.
P.S. you're the first person other than myself who I've seen say "crapton"
This isn't Death and Taxes. I don't know what to call this, Bant Control maybe, but its not death and taxes. I just priced up a traditional legacy DnT list and assuming you don't have any cards, it would run you about 800$, with Karakas being the culprit at about half the cost.
The list you just posted costs about $600 assuming you don't have any of the cards. Sure its about $200 cheaper, but its unlikely it holds its value as well because Jace, Tamiyo, Thragtusk and stuff are likely to drop when they rotate out of standard.
So yes, while Legacy is more of an upfront cost, things are unlikely to fluctuate much and there are many more open styles of play and deck construction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
This isn't Death and Taxes. I don't know what to call this, Bant Control maybe, but its not death and taxes. I just priced up a traditional legacy DnT list and assuming you don't have any cards, it would run you about 800$, with Karakas being the culprit at about half the cost.
The list you just posted costs about $600 assuming you don't have any of the cards. Sure its about $200 cheaper, but its unlikely it holds its value as well because Jace, Tamiyo, Thragtusk and stuff are likely to drop when they rotate out of standard.
So yes, while Legacy is more of an upfront cost, things are unlikely to fluctuate much and there are many more open styles of play and deck construction.
He wasn't saying this was death and taxes. He was showing an example of a standard deck.
As for modern / legacy myths and facts, lets get a few things straight here.
Legacy is not a turn 2-3 format, but unless you're playing FOW and buttloads of disruption, it WILL be a turn 2-3 format against a large portion of decks. Henceforth, it becomes a battle of FOW decks vs. Hatebear decks. Vs Unfair decks. Take that as you will, but the amount of "legitimately competitive" decks in legacy is a lot less than a lot of legacy proponents would have you believe.
As for Modern, there are a lot of Viable tier 2 decks, but it does seem like Jund occupies a large barrier to entry these days, and if you're playing a deck based off playing permanents, you should be prepared to lose to Jund since it's the most efficient deck perhaps in the game at dealing with "permanents" that aren't lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find me online - I'm on Cockatrice * Tag - Badd B - Or on MTGO - Tag - Cbus05
Most of the people who put up resistance in my area are diehard Legacy guys. THey have large collections of cards that they don't want to see the value drop out of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
People who say Modern is too expensive are just regurgitating silly statements. Modern is too expensive as compared to.... what exactly? Standard staples makes standard expensive, EDH staples can make EDH expensive, legacy is a big fat duh, and then there is modern, and it is...
...Bottom line, anything is what you put into it. Is modern expensive? Sure, sometimes. Is EDH expensive? You betcha, it can definitely be expensive. Legacy? You know there are guys walking around with decks worth two or three month payments on your mortgage or rent.
Magic in general is at times an expensive hobby. Saying "that format is too expensive" is not a valid argument to saying that it sucks or is no good. Just my thoughts about the whole "Modern is too expensive" thing.
Show me a prison deck in modern. Show me a pure control deck in modern. Show me metagame decks.
Diversity isn't what you think it is. 50 different archetypes of aggro, midrange, tempo with three combo decks in the mix does not generate diversity when you can attack the metagame in mostly the same way. It's boring and repetitive.
I am mostly in the "I don't like the metagame" group, but mostly, I think the format is inherently flawed. Wizards should have made it masques forward, and that would allow for much more variation and strategies. As it is, it feels like it is just standard decks with a few tweaks. It lacks the feel of combining pieces from a million different sets to make something awesome. It feels, frankly, the opposite of diverse. And since it is going to have a negative impact on legacy, which for many people is their favorite format, you can bet there will be resistance. Furthermore, for an eternal format, modern feels sooooo unpowered... It's really not that interesting. I spent ages to find a modern deck I could enjoy.
Ah, but this is the problem here. Adding more variety to an already varied environment that could adapt is ok. Adding more variety to a boring environment is much better. Modern needs to feel less like a museum of standard decks and more like a real eternal format! The banlist is a pretty good place to start.
Because it goes against the principle of why people like eternal formats and wizards doesn't realize it. It's like... they are aiming in a direction and the target they are aiming to shoot is 47 degrees (number totally made up on the spot) to the right.
Modern picks up the weak spots of eternal formats and the weak points of standard instead of capitalizing on both the strong points. It's an utter and complete failure. Even this upcoming modern masters, it will most likely be better used in legacy than in modern...
Just some questions specificaly for you...
Does RUG Delver and American Delver happen to attack the individual games in the same way? If so, then how do they attack it in the same way? What about the way they attack the meta game?
Does modern Eggs and modern Storm both fold equally hard to Jund Charm?
Does the introduction of Goblin Electromancer change much in modern UR Storm?
I think a lot of it comes from the fact that there was a wide margin of what people wanted from the new format, and WotC has tried to please everyone by shooting in the middle.
1) There is a portion of people that like legacy but see the limited size it can grow to, and people that would like legacy but write it off for price reasons. Those people want something as close to legacy as possible that can be supported to keep prices and availability at a place that keeps people coming into and playing the format. To please these people most, we should do masques forward, or do all sets and start the banlist at legacy bans + reserve list and work from there to get a balanced format.
2) There is a portion of people that liked Old Extended, but recognize that the rotation wasn't making much sense any more, and that were frustrated because they couldn't find other players because of some balance issues the format had. A portion of this group had been playing Extended for a few years, and might remember Extended with sets before Mirrodin, and have some favorite cards that were lost just because of the rotation. Its hard to say where the best fit for these people is, but I think Gavin Vehry's OverExtended is probably closest.
3) There is a portion of people that want a format that is halfway between standard and legacy in power level. Unfortunately you can't really get to that point by just setting the sets that are available. You need bans, and probably more than other groups are comfortable with. I think Modern is pretty close to this, but again, it would need more bans.
4) There is a portion that doesn't even think about modern, but that WotC may be considering: people that get fed up with Standard from time to time. Standard is the largest format in magic. It has the most people playing. Its also one of the most volatile formats possible. To make blocks interesting, WotC often takes risks that they know will alienate some of their player base to a degree. They hope those people will just kind of blow it off and wait for better, but WotC probably recognizes that this is the place where they lose the most people from the game. A lot of these people come back when the block they find offensive has cycled out, but that can be years of lost revenue. It would be very beneficial for WotC if there was another format that had a large enough card pool to be less volatile and to allow people to play the standard decks they did enjoy and has a low barrier to entry. This can keep these people playing some type of magic and buying some amount of product, and sooner or later standard will be enticing to them again for them to spend some more money. The sets for this are actually pretty inconsequential, but it requires much more aggressive banning than any of the others and it is a very careful dance between keeping things that people hate playing against out, while still keeping in what people like.
People in group 1 dislike that there isn't enough power in Modern, and that things that we could reprint without the offending reserve list (Force of Will, Wasteland) should be reprinted to make modern more legacy like.
People in group 2 generally agree that the format could use a little more power, but generally do not want the format to become another legacy so do not want reprints like Force/Wasteland. These people are generally happy with Modern, or at least feel they would be if the format would get a bit more in balance. They hope largely that balance can be gained by unbanning some things and WotC printing targeted new cards. They might wish we had another block or two from time to time, but don't push that hard for it.
People in group 3 are happy enough, but lament that the balance issues are because modern is "too fast".
People in group 4 are either playing standard, or they have got fed up and quit magic. Any quitters may have looked into Legacy and/or Modern before they quit, but decided that it was too combo-centric and/or cost too much to get into.
As for who is complaining about modern.
Players in group 1 are playing legacy and speak very vocally about how bad modern is, because it is not at all what they though needed to be done.
Players in groups 2&3 complain about particular issues, but then go out and play modern anyway.
Some players in group 4 may give modern a shot, but they probably complain pretty vocally shortly into the process that some aspect of the format is awful (too much combo, etc). They may still continue to play Modern anyway just because they think its better than current standard, and they don't want to stop playing entirely. These complaints are usually passionate but short lived. They may still dislike that element but they don't find it worth fighting for them, as modern is just a holding tank for them anyway.
Wotc has shot modern somewhere between 2&3.
They could unban and expand the available sets to make a format that appeals to 1&2, but cuts off 3&4 more. Only 3 probably cares enough to complain though, and they may even still play.
They could ban a chunk of cards and appeal to 3&4, and keep 2 reasonably satisfied if it actually balanced the format. But utterly piss off 1.
Or they can stay the course and try to find a balance between 2&3, but it is proving difficult to balance the format in that case.
I am not convinced they have decided which way to go yet. For now they seem to be staying the course, but I think they are coming to realize that finding a balance might be harder than they expected.
They do seem to be taking several steps towards lowering the barrier to entry, which will be useful for them regardless of which way they end up going.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I support WotC's goal of shaping Modern in favor of diversity.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Modern will convert a portion of Legacy players when they see Legacy tournament support fading. These people will promptly offload their legacy staples and become loyal Modern fans. The remaining portion of Legacy players will slowly see their format go the way of Vintage. Over time their interest in MTG will die with their favourite format.
However most of the player base for modern will come from the standard crowd and the new players. It only takes a couple of years of Standard to emass a good number of Modern staples till it spills over into Modern. People will play both formats: 1 deck for current standard, 2-3 decks for Modern.
The thing that irks me about modern is, as has been said by several people before me, it competes with legacy and is being pushed by Wizards against Legacy. I don't care about the value of my cards, I just want to play the format that appears to me to be the most diverse and interesting. I have tried standard and am not a huge fan. I have admittedly played only a small sample of modern matches and was not impressed, the format seems dilluted to me. The thing that bothers me most about modern is the extensive and (largely) untested ban list. I don't hate modern exactly I just wish it wasn't being pushed by Wizards to leave a format like legacy to rot.
@Badd-Your analysis of the legacy metagame is not accurate. There are far more decks that are viable in legacy than you represent, and what you say about FoW vs. hatebears vs. unfair is brutally misleading, considering that using those three "strategies" alone, one can come up with dozens of different decks. Furthermore, those three archetypes do not serve to fully describe the legacy metagame. In addition you cite viable tier two decks as a plus for modern, however, I'd argue that there are far more viable "tier 2" strategies in legacy than there are in modern.
People who say Modern is too expensive are just regurgitating silly statements. Modern is too expensive as compared to.... what exactly? Standard staples makes standard expensive, EDH staples can make EDH expensive, legacy is a big fat duh, and then there is modern, and it is...
...Bottom line, anything is what you put into it. Is modern expensive? Sure, sometimes. Is EDH expensive? You betcha, it can definitely be expensive. Legacy? You know there are guys walking around with decks worth two or three month payments on your mortgage or rent.
Magic in general is at times an expensive hobby. Saying "that format is too expensive" is not a valid argument to saying that it sucks or is no good. Just my thoughts about the whole "Modern is too expensive" thing.
Modern is expensive because it has very little support. In my area there are monthly legacy and 10 proxy vintage tournaments. Weekly EDH events. FNM is always standard or draft, and thats not incuding standard tournaments that happen every so often.
Every other format of playing magic has more support than modern. Modern is an expensive format to enter when the only time there are events is a rare PTQ or something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
The thing that irks me about modern is, as has been said by several people before me, it competes with legacy and is being pushed by Wizards against Legacy. I don't care about the value of my cards, I just want to play the format that appears to me to be the most diverse and interesting. I have tried standard and am not a huge fan. I have admittedly played only a small sample of modern matches and was not impressed, the format seems dilluted to me. The thing that bothers me most about modern is the extensive and (largely) untested ban list. I don't hate modern exactly I just wish it wasn't being pushed by Wizards to leave a format like legacy to rot.
@Badd-Your analysis of the legacy metagame is not accurate. There are far more decks that are viable in legacy than you represent, and what you say about FoW vs. hatebears vs. unfair is brutally misleading, considering that using those three "strategies" alone, one can come up with dozens of different decks. Furthermore, those three archetypes do not serve to fully describe the legacy metagame. In addition you cite viable tier two decks as a plus for modern, however, I'd argue that there are far more viable "tier 2" strategies in legacy than there are in modern.
Except those tier 2 strategies almost never win anything in Legacy. There are a lot of tier 2 decks that have impacted the meta in modern. As an example, Aggro Loam won GP Lincoln earlier in the winter (definitive tier 2 deck), and Mono Blue Faeries placed at the top quite a few times in top 8's around the same time. Just recently, Eggs, which most would agree at least until this point was a tier 2 deck took down PT Seattle. Tokens won a GP in Japan about 4 months back, and has hardly done anything since. That being said, you obviously expect more strategies in legacy considering it has more than double the card pool. That doesn't however mean that all of those strategies are viable for winning a tournament.
There are a LOT of strong tier 2 decks in legacy, but 90% of the decks that actually win a tournament are a group of about 10 staple archetypes, many of which overlap in many of the same cards and strategies. Legacy deck choices are heavily restricted by "power" cards such as Show and Tell, and land denial due to wasteland and stifle followed by free counterspells. The presence of Show and Tell in legacy basically requires any other combo deck to have a faster goldfish, since it's about as resilient and reliable as any pure combo card in any format can be, and can be played consistently on turn 3 (Essentially a 1 card combo for 3 mana that can be backed up by FOW, Daze, and Misdirection).
For green-based aggro, you're either playing some sort of thresh deck, or a green sun's zenith deck if you're actually trying to win a tournament.
For control, you have tops, Forces, Jaces, and brainstorms with a smattering of counterbalances and mystics thrown in for good measure.
I know that there are a lot of other archetypes in Legacy, and I probably was making a bit of an overstatement, but it's important to realize that most of the tier 2 decks are simply old favorites of the format that are no longer viable, or are only good against a small cross-section of the format.
Modern is a tough format, I think people know that and make exuses.
Ahaha... I like your attitude!
I agree with a previous poster: it's only people that are threatened by Modern one way or the other (loss of collection value, loss of perceived superiority status, loss of familiar environment) are opposed to Modern.
The answer is easy.
Many have put loads of money on legacy cards and want to keep playing that format. They don't have the monetary problem since they already have the cards. Modern popularity is a threat since they risk not having anyone to play against.
Others might not want to play modern because they can't play their legacy pet decks.
Modern is often compared to Legacy.
Its Wizard's answer to the "reserved list", when the real answer to the reserved list is to abolish it.
Modern has the same feel as Extended, the other Constructed, non-eternal format. It lives between Legacy and Standard. Modern is perceived to be a cost effective alternative to Legacy. But its not, its just as expensive. The same decks that are cheap to build for modern are just as cheap to build for Legacy.
Modern is expensive because it has very little support. In my area there are monthly legacy and 10 proxy vintage tournaments. Weekly EDH events. FNM is always standard or draft, and thats not incuding standard tournaments that happen every so often.
Every other format of playing magic has more support than modern. Modern is an expensive format to enter when the only time there are events is a rare PTQ or something.
In Georgia I know of five stores that have Monthly/Weekly modern tournaments that have anywhere between 10-40 people every time. Of those five only three of them run Legacy and those tournies never have more than 30 people. Its all just about where you live. Not really a valid criticism. What you are saying is a statement about where you live, not the format.
But... MTGO Daily events for modern fire at least 4 times a day. Exactly how many times do legacy daily events fire each day?
That bolded part is just you blatantly playing a semantic game (which even by your own standards is expensive only based off where you live... If we use you standard then Legacy is more expensive where I live just based on the number of tournaments). However... If we're not talkin out of our ass and instead use the word "expensive" as it was meant to be used (refering to monetary value of cards) then it becomes clear that Legacy is much more expensive indeed. Lets compare staples...
Most expensive dual land in Legacy... 80-100$
Most expensive shock in Modern... 25-30$
Most expensive staple counterspell in Legacy... 50-75$
Most expensive staple counterspell in Modern... 17-25$
Lets compare the go to budget decks of each format...
You literaly have to ignore basic undeniable facts or you must bend words and play semantic games to make the statement the "Modern is equally/more expensive than modern"
This is what make me raise my eyebrow. Say its a diversity issue, sure thats fair. Legacy does have more diversity, but just because legacy has more diversity doesn't mean modern lacks diversity (check multiple top 8's to see what I mean). Just because legacy has more diversity than modern doesn't make modern an undiverse format anymore than a guy owning 20milion dollars means that a guy that has 15million dollar is poor.
To criticize something on grounds that are completely contrary to the most obviouse realities (that modern isn't really an expensive non-rotating format compared to legacy) shows that you have some non-rational (maybe even sentinmental, personal, or emotional) reason to bash it.
This thread is quite funny. On the one hand you have a bunch of modern fans sounding quite condescending saying that people who play legacy hate on modern because they are card hoarding and don't want their collections to devalue. On the other hand you have the few legacy players attempting to explain why they like legacy and dislike modern. I don't hate modern I live in New Zealand where both modern and legacy are quite small formats and legacy is the larger of the two. Most people will keep a modern deck mothballed somewhere for the annual PTQ but they will play legacy on a weekly basis for fun, why? Because it's more fun.
Modern feels like a format that is being pushed by WotC which just makes it seem to me at least like it's your mother attemtping to feed you cod liver oil because it's good for you, the format isn't gaining ground with players because it's a fun format to play it's gaining ground because if you want to play in all the PTQ's or local GP's in a year you need to have a modern deck somewhere. Don't get me wrong though I don't hate on modern I think if people sat down and decided to fix the format to make it fun it could be done.
The last thing I really don't get about this thread and WotC's approach to modern and legacy in gerenal is why people are trying to compete them against each other. If legacy dies people aren't going to shift from playing legacy to modern because the format is way way to similar to standard which we play legacy to get away from in the first place. You aren't going to go to a SCG open and play 10 rounds of standard on the saturday and then follow it up by playing 8 rounds of standard 2.0 on the sunday.
WotC has ample ability to have modern and legacy exist in the harmony they just aparently don't want them to. Be honest what was more fun to watch worlds of a couple of years ago where everyone was playing the best 3 formats or worlds from this year where someone was playing block at the expense of legacy.
When Modern was first announced as being from Masques foward, I was SO excited. I play Legacy (my primary format) and I was excited to drop Legacy and move to Modern. I still would have had:
I love blue control but despise Force of Will. I so wanted to play with so many of the Masques/Invasion older cards. PLus at time there would have been Preordain/Ponder as well.
But Modern didn't develop this way. Blue control really isnt an option, nor hard control or even Prison. That really hindered me from wanting to play the format.
Even if they unbanned Preordain only I'd play Modern. But no good cantrips? Really? I mean, you have to consider that as a Blue Control Player or Prison player, and no options for these archtypes to be compettitve, that just makes me not want to play it. And, I really did want to play Modern too and leave Legacy. But until Preordain gets unbanned, or Jace, probably not going to play Modern. Casual Modern, sure. Vested Modern, no.
In Georgia I know of five stores that have Monthly/Weekly modern tournaments that have anywhere between 10-40 people every time. Of those five only three of them run Legacy and those tournies never have more than 30 people. Its all just about where you live. Not really a valid criticism. What you are saying is a statement about where you live, not the format.
But... MTGO Daily events for modern fire at least 4 times a day. Exactly how many times do legacy daily events fire each day?
That bolded part is just you blatantly playing a semantic game (which even by your own standards is expensive only based off where you live... If we use you standard then Legacy is more expensive where I live just based on the number of tournaments). However... If we're not talkin out of our ass and instead use the word "expensive" as it was meant to be used (refering to monetary value of cards) then it becomes clear that Legacy is much more expensive indeed. Lets compare staples...
Most expensive dual land in Legacy... 80-100$
Most expensive shock in Modern... 25-30$
Most expensive staple counterspell in Legacy... 50-75$
Most expensive staple counterspell in Modern... 17-25$
Lets compare the go to budget decks of each format...
You literaly have to ignore basic undeniable facts or you must bend words and play semantic games to make the statement the "Modern is equally/more expensive than modern"
This is what make me raise my eyebrow. Say its a diversity issue, sure thats fair. Legacy does have more diversity, but just because legacy has more diversity doesn't mean modern lacks diversity (check multiple top 8's to see what I mean). Just because legacy has more diversity than modern doesn't make modern an undiverse format anymore than a guy owning 20milion dollars means that a guy that has 15million dollar is poor.
To criticize something on grounds that are completely contrary to the most obviouse realities (that modern isn't really an expensive non-rotating format compared to legacy) shows that you have some non-rational (maybe even sentinmental, personal, or emotional) reason to bash it.
You forgot the still rising price of wasteland that everyone is required to have to play legacy.
Why do these threads keep getting made :confused:, most simply come off as a large circle jerk of modern players going "Legacy is doomed, play modern"...I don't think that was intended, but yeah..
I wouldn't say people hate modern, so much as they are indifferent to it and don't care for how wizards has handled it, as one player I saw put it "apparently Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Wild Nacatl and Sensei's Divining Top are all on the same power level" (I don't agree with it mind), I'll be honest, the initial bannings turned me away from the format, some of them were stupefying to me (Mental Misstep, really?), given 2-3 years, once wizards has gotten modern where they want it (which they haven't, and they've said it will take a while), I think more people will be willing to play it.
Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home. - Arsene Wenger
Anything else that can be said on the matter one way or the other is tantamount to trying convincing someone that they enjoy the taste of urine. Expensive urine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And I feel this is the case with getting some people into modern or even accepting its existence. I'm not talking about people who just say "I just don't like modern". Preferences are preferences and that's cool. I'm talking about the people who say that modern is "not diverse". They would have to ignore a whole year's worth of very many diverse top 8's to make that statement, they would have to ignore basic facts. Same with "its too expensive", they would have to ignore Storm, Twin, Affinity, and a crap ton of other viable decks that all fall well below the cost of the majority of standard decks.
The question is... Why the resistance? Not "why don't they like it"? That's a different but closely related question. When I ask "why the resistance"? I am asking why, more than any other format, modern draws so much derision despite proving itself to be a diverse and cost-effective format.
The only true criticism of the format that seems valid is "there is no traditional control". But hey, every single format has problems.
Also, about the banlist... Even legacy players have cards that they think should come off the banlist. So that can't explain the derision. Even legacy has cards that seem and maybe even are on the ban list for silly reasons (Mind Twist is banned in a format which has possible non-god hand turn 2 storm wins?).
But back to the original question... There is a difference between saying you don't like something and bashing it. I don't like tea, but im not gonna bash it. So why is Modern the format with the largest amount of weird, almost frantic and emotionally driven, hate towards it?
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Its Wizard's answer to the "reserved list", when the real answer to the reserved list is to abolish it.
Modern has the same feel as Extended, the other Constructed, non-eternal format. It lives between Legacy and Standard.
Modern is perceived to be a cost effective alternative to Legacy. But its not, its just as expensive. The same decks that are cheap to build for modern are just as cheap to build for Legacy.
I find the most vocal against Modern are the first ones in line to sign up for tournaments when they happen. Take the talking with a grain of salt.
@ Hagalaz, I feel for you when Legacy is done and over. Which is going to happen.
I totally agree. My friends and I were trying to figure out what format to play, and all of those concerns came up.
My favorite is "Modern is too expensive". From what I've seen, modern is CONSIDERABLY cheaper than standard and legacy too (obv). Yes, I know that you CAN make a very expensive deck in modern, but you don't have to. I've been playing D&T with tons of success and a lot of fun for about $120 (I already had a few of the cards). Since standard is a lot more narrow, most decks will need eight shocks (as those are the only good lands availible), and base their strategy around 8-16 format staples that usually run a high price.
Ex:
3 Restoration Angel
4 Thragtusk
3 Garruk, Primal Hunter
4 Jace, Architect of Thought
2 Tamiyo, the Moon Sage
2 Azorius Charm
2 Detention Sphere
4 Farseek
1 Oblivion Ring
1 Sphinx's Revelation
2 Supreme Verdict
4 Terminus
1 Ghost Quarter
4 Glacial Fortress
4 Hallowed Fountain
4 Hinterland Harbor
2 Island
2 Sunpetal Grove
4 Temple Garden
1st place list from Brooklyn 5k. Eight fetches, ten medium priced lands, 4 ten dollar terminus, 2 thirty dollar tamiyo, four forty dollar jace, four twenthfive dollar thragtusk, three twelve dollar restoration angel. That's pricey. And the problem is, if you want to be competitive, its going to have to be that pricey (exemption for RDW).
Oh, and people who say that standard is more diverse than modern are dead wrong. Standard has 3 types of midrange and two types of control end of story.
P.S. you're the first person other than myself who I've seen say "crapton"
This isn't Death and Taxes. I don't know what to call this, Bant Control maybe, but its not death and taxes. I just priced up a traditional legacy DnT list and assuming you don't have any cards, it would run you about 800$, with Karakas being the culprit at about half the cost.
The list you just posted costs about $600 assuming you don't have any of the cards. Sure its about $200 cheaper, but its unlikely it holds its value as well because Jace, Tamiyo, Thragtusk and stuff are likely to drop when they rotate out of standard.
So yes, while Legacy is more of an upfront cost, things are unlikely to fluctuate much and there are many more open styles of play and deck construction.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
He wasn't saying this was death and taxes. He was showing an example of a standard deck.
As for modern / legacy myths and facts, lets get a few things straight here.
Legacy is not a turn 2-3 format, but unless you're playing FOW and buttloads of disruption, it WILL be a turn 2-3 format against a large portion of decks. Henceforth, it becomes a battle of FOW decks vs. Hatebear decks. Vs Unfair decks. Take that as you will, but the amount of "legitimately competitive" decks in legacy is a lot less than a lot of legacy proponents would have you believe.
As for Modern, there are a lot of Viable tier 2 decks, but it does seem like Jund occupies a large barrier to entry these days, and if you're playing a deck based off playing permanents, you should be prepared to lose to Jund since it's the most efficient deck perhaps in the game at dealing with "permanents" that aren't lands.
Ahhhhhh, that makes more sense.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
...Bottom line, anything is what you put into it. Is modern expensive? Sure, sometimes. Is EDH expensive? You betcha, it can definitely be expensive. Legacy? You know there are guys walking around with decks worth two or three month payments on your mortgage or rent.
Magic in general is at times an expensive hobby. Saying "that format is too expensive" is not a valid argument to saying that it sucks or is no good. Just my thoughts about the whole "Modern is too expensive" thing.
Does RUG Delver and American Delver happen to attack the individual games in the same way? If so, then how do they attack it in the same way? What about the way they attack the meta game?
Does modern Eggs and modern Storm both fold equally hard to Jund Charm?
Does the introduction of Goblin Electromancer change much in modern UR Storm?
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
1) There is a portion of people that like legacy but see the limited size it can grow to, and people that would like legacy but write it off for price reasons. Those people want something as close to legacy as possible that can be supported to keep prices and availability at a place that keeps people coming into and playing the format. To please these people most, we should do masques forward, or do all sets and start the banlist at legacy bans + reserve list and work from there to get a balanced format.
2) There is a portion of people that liked Old Extended, but recognize that the rotation wasn't making much sense any more, and that were frustrated because they couldn't find other players because of some balance issues the format had. A portion of this group had been playing Extended for a few years, and might remember Extended with sets before Mirrodin, and have some favorite cards that were lost just because of the rotation. Its hard to say where the best fit for these people is, but I think Gavin Vehry's OverExtended is probably closest.
3) There is a portion of people that want a format that is halfway between standard and legacy in power level. Unfortunately you can't really get to that point by just setting the sets that are available. You need bans, and probably more than other groups are comfortable with. I think Modern is pretty close to this, but again, it would need more bans.
4) There is a portion that doesn't even think about modern, but that WotC may be considering: people that get fed up with Standard from time to time. Standard is the largest format in magic. It has the most people playing. Its also one of the most volatile formats possible. To make blocks interesting, WotC often takes risks that they know will alienate some of their player base to a degree. They hope those people will just kind of blow it off and wait for better, but WotC probably recognizes that this is the place where they lose the most people from the game. A lot of these people come back when the block they find offensive has cycled out, but that can be years of lost revenue. It would be very beneficial for WotC if there was another format that had a large enough card pool to be less volatile and to allow people to play the standard decks they did enjoy and has a low barrier to entry. This can keep these people playing some type of magic and buying some amount of product, and sooner or later standard will be enticing to them again for them to spend some more money. The sets for this are actually pretty inconsequential, but it requires much more aggressive banning than any of the others and it is a very careful dance between keeping things that people hate playing against out, while still keeping in what people like.
People in group 1 dislike that there isn't enough power in Modern, and that things that we could reprint without the offending reserve list (Force of Will, Wasteland) should be reprinted to make modern more legacy like.
People in group 2 generally agree that the format could use a little more power, but generally do not want the format to become another legacy so do not want reprints like Force/Wasteland. These people are generally happy with Modern, or at least feel they would be if the format would get a bit more in balance. They hope largely that balance can be gained by unbanning some things and WotC printing targeted new cards. They might wish we had another block or two from time to time, but don't push that hard for it.
People in group 3 are happy enough, but lament that the balance issues are because modern is "too fast".
People in group 4 are either playing standard, or they have got fed up and quit magic. Any quitters may have looked into Legacy and/or Modern before they quit, but decided that it was too combo-centric and/or cost too much to get into.
As for who is complaining about modern.
Players in group 1 are playing legacy and speak very vocally about how bad modern is, because it is not at all what they though needed to be done.
Players in groups 2&3 complain about particular issues, but then go out and play modern anyway.
Some players in group 4 may give modern a shot, but they probably complain pretty vocally shortly into the process that some aspect of the format is awful (too much combo, etc). They may still continue to play Modern anyway just because they think its better than current standard, and they don't want to stop playing entirely. These complaints are usually passionate but short lived. They may still dislike that element but they don't find it worth fighting for them, as modern is just a holding tank for them anyway.
Wotc has shot modern somewhere between 2&3.
They could unban and expand the available sets to make a format that appeals to 1&2, but cuts off 3&4 more. Only 3 probably cares enough to complain though, and they may even still play.
They could ban a chunk of cards and appeal to 3&4, and keep 2 reasonably satisfied if it actually balanced the format. But utterly piss off 1.
Or they can stay the course and try to find a balance between 2&3, but it is proving difficult to balance the format in that case.
I am not convinced they have decided which way to go yet. For now they seem to be staying the course, but I think they are coming to realize that finding a balance might be harder than they expected.
They do seem to be taking several steps towards lowering the barrier to entry, which will be useful for them regardless of which way they end up going.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog
Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
However most of the player base for modern will come from the standard crowd and the new players. It only takes a couple of years of Standard to emass a good number of Modern staples till it spills over into Modern. People will play both formats: 1 deck for current standard, 2-3 decks for Modern.
Cardsphere MTG Draft Simulator
Cardsphere Blog - Original Content
@Badd-Your analysis of the legacy metagame is not accurate. There are far more decks that are viable in legacy than you represent, and what you say about FoW vs. hatebears vs. unfair is brutally misleading, considering that using those three "strategies" alone, one can come up with dozens of different decks. Furthermore, those three archetypes do not serve to fully describe the legacy metagame. In addition you cite viable tier two decks as a plus for modern, however, I'd argue that there are far more viable "tier 2" strategies in legacy than there are in modern.
Modern is expensive because it has very little support. In my area there are monthly legacy and 10 proxy vintage tournaments. Weekly EDH events. FNM is always standard or draft, and thats not incuding standard tournaments that happen every so often.
Every other format of playing magic has more support than modern. Modern is an expensive format to enter when the only time there are events is a rare PTQ or something.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Except those tier 2 strategies almost never win anything in Legacy. There are a lot of tier 2 decks that have impacted the meta in modern. As an example, Aggro Loam won GP Lincoln earlier in the winter (definitive tier 2 deck), and Mono Blue Faeries placed at the top quite a few times in top 8's around the same time. Just recently, Eggs, which most would agree at least until this point was a tier 2 deck took down PT Seattle. Tokens won a GP in Japan about 4 months back, and has hardly done anything since. That being said, you obviously expect more strategies in legacy considering it has more than double the card pool. That doesn't however mean that all of those strategies are viable for winning a tournament.
There are a LOT of strong tier 2 decks in legacy, but 90% of the decks that actually win a tournament are a group of about 10 staple archetypes, many of which overlap in many of the same cards and strategies. Legacy deck choices are heavily restricted by "power" cards such as Show and Tell, and land denial due to wasteland and stifle followed by free counterspells. The presence of Show and Tell in legacy basically requires any other combo deck to have a faster goldfish, since it's about as resilient and reliable as any pure combo card in any format can be, and can be played consistently on turn 3 (Essentially a 1 card combo for 3 mana that can be backed up by FOW, Daze, and Misdirection).
For green-based aggro, you're either playing some sort of thresh deck, or a green sun's zenith deck if you're actually trying to win a tournament.
For control, you have tops, Forces, Jaces, and brainstorms with a smattering of counterbalances and mystics thrown in for good measure.
I know that there are a lot of other archetypes in Legacy, and I probably was making a bit of an overstatement, but it's important to realize that most of the tier 2 decks are simply old favorites of the format that are no longer viable, or are only good against a small cross-section of the format.
Ahaha... I like your attitude!
I agree with a previous poster: it's only people that are threatened by Modern one way or the other (loss of collection value, loss of perceived superiority status, loss of familiar environment) are opposed to Modern.
Cardsphere MTG Draft Simulator
Cardsphere Blog - Original Content
Many have put loads of money on legacy cards and want to keep playing that format. They don't have the monetary problem since they already have the cards. Modern popularity is a threat since they risk not having anyone to play against.
Others might not want to play modern because they can't play their legacy pet decks.
Hahaha good one. Try. Again. Please.
But... MTGO Daily events for modern fire at least 4 times a day. Exactly how many times do legacy daily events fire each day?
That bolded part is just you blatantly playing a semantic game (which even by your own standards is expensive only based off where you live... If we use you standard then Legacy is more expensive where I live just based on the number of tournaments). However... If we're not talkin out of our ass and instead use the word "expensive" as it was meant to be used (refering to monetary value of cards) then it becomes clear that Legacy is much more expensive indeed. Lets compare staples...
Most expensive dual land in Legacy... 80-100$
Most expensive shock in Modern... 25-30$
Most expensive staple counterspell in Legacy... 50-75$
Most expensive staple counterspell in Modern... 17-25$
Lets compare the go to budget decks of each format...
Mono-red optomized legacy burn expensive cards: Magma Jet (maybe) - 4-6$, Goblin Guide - 4-6$, Sulfiric Vortex 2-4$, Chain Lightning 6-9$
Mono-red optomized modern burn expensive cards: Magma Jet (maybe) - 4-6$, Goblin Guide - 4-6$.
You literaly have to ignore basic undeniable facts or you must bend words and play semantic games to make the statement the "Modern is equally/more expensive than modern"
This is what make me raise my eyebrow. Say its a diversity issue, sure thats fair. Legacy does have more diversity, but just because legacy has more diversity doesn't mean modern lacks diversity (check multiple top 8's to see what I mean). Just because legacy has more diversity than modern doesn't make modern an undiverse format anymore than a guy owning 20milion dollars means that a guy that has 15million dollar is poor.
To criticize something on grounds that are completely contrary to the most obviouse realities (that modern isn't really an expensive non-rotating format compared to legacy) shows that you have some non-rational (maybe even sentinmental, personal, or emotional) reason to bash it.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Modern feels like a format that is being pushed by WotC which just makes it seem to me at least like it's your mother attemtping to feed you cod liver oil because it's good for you, the format isn't gaining ground with players because it's a fun format to play it's gaining ground because if you want to play in all the PTQ's or local GP's in a year you need to have a modern deck somewhere. Don't get me wrong though I don't hate on modern I think if people sat down and decided to fix the format to make it fun it could be done.
The last thing I really don't get about this thread and WotC's approach to modern and legacy in gerenal is why people are trying to compete them against each other. If legacy dies people aren't going to shift from playing legacy to modern because the format is way way to similar to standard which we play legacy to get away from in the first place. You aren't going to go to a SCG open and play 10 rounds of standard on the saturday and then follow it up by playing 8 rounds of standard 2.0 on the sunday.
WotC has ample ability to have modern and legacy exist in the harmony they just aparently don't want them to. Be honest what was more fun to watch worlds of a couple of years ago where everyone was playing the best 3 formats or worlds from this year where someone was playing block at the expense of legacy.
Edit: goblins is a tempo deck not an aggro deck.
1. Brainstorm
2. Counterspell
3. Fact or Fiction
4. Vedalken Shackles
I love blue control but despise Force of Will. I so wanted to play with so many of the Masques/Invasion older cards. PLus at time there would have been Preordain/Ponder as well.
But Modern didn't develop this way. Blue control really isnt an option, nor hard control or even Prison. That really hindered me from wanting to play the format.
Even if they unbanned Preordain only I'd play Modern. But no good cantrips? Really? I mean, you have to consider that as a Blue Control Player or Prison player, and no options for these archtypes to be compettitve, that just makes me not want to play it. And, I really did want to play Modern too and leave Legacy. But until Preordain gets unbanned, or Jace, probably not going to play Modern. Casual Modern, sure. Vested Modern, no.
You forgot the still rising price of wasteland that everyone is required to have to play legacy.
I wouldn't say people hate modern, so much as they are indifferent to it and don't care for how wizards has handled it, as one player I saw put it "apparently Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Wild Nacatl and Sensei's Divining Top are all on the same power level" (I don't agree with it mind), I'll be honest, the initial bannings turned me away from the format, some of them were stupefying to me (Mental Misstep, really?), given 2-3 years, once wizards has gotten modern where they want it (which they haven't, and they've said it will take a while), I think more people will be willing to play it.
Anything else that can be said on the matter one way or the other is tantamount to trying convincing someone that they enjoy the taste of urine. Expensive urine.