I will be civil here, there's actual information to process.
It's good to note that you don't believe civility is a common courtesy that should be extended to everyone on these forums. At least I can test out the blocking feature on the forums because who needs someone constantly chiming in with you guys are spoilt and dumb all the time!
-----
Shmanka thank you for actually talking with forsythe, providing some information, and helping to clear things up. I hope you got paid or something since you've done a better job explaining things than the people at wizards who are paid to do this sort of thing. As well as the higherups who I'm sure make some very large salaries.
It's pretty ridiculous that a company like WOTC needs to rely on something like this to make a point.
Also its interesting to note that Wizards can correctly identify what most people don't like about modern, they're just apparently incapable of fixing it. Wizards has apparently started designing with modern in mind, but we've seen nothing to very little helping bring about more decks for the archetypes that are struggling. There's only 1 control deck that consistently puts up results, and only 1 aggro deck. I've no faith we will see stuff to help this in Khans, but hopefully I'm wrong.
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.
Whats wrong with people not considering Affinity a top tier deck?
The deck puts up top 8s like crazy. If that is not a top deck then I seriously question your definition about what it means to be one. The existence of brutal hate cards don't seem to stop that deck.
Pod is combo. The mere inclusion of Pod itself makes the deck a combo, it can combo out without pod if you get lucky on the draw and mana. It's midrange game _is_ good, but I would not count it as a true midrange deck because it is better in it's current form than it would be if you replaced the combo cards with non-combo options, and there isn't a non-combo variation that is competitive with it.
BG/x is controlish, given it's heavy and potent removal, like Abrupt Decay, it's use of discard, like LotV and TS, it's use of Bob for draw, and finks and scooze for life and resiliency, and pumped up Goyf or Schooze, among a few other things, as finishers.
I'm pretty sure Twin is everything WotC sees as wrong with the format right now, since being a 'value' based deck means that it doesn't fit coherently in combo or tempo or aggro or whatnot, and it is top tier despite that, hinting that some of it's ingredients might be too strong, or that there isn't enough support in the colors involved to make non-'value' based decks that are T1.
Affinity is a combo deck, IMO. It certainly _plays like_ an aggro deck on the offensive once it puts itself together, but it builds it's power like a combo deck, with lots of pieces interacting with each other and reliant on each other, but relatively weak or useless on their own. The interdependency of it's pieces is what makes it essentially a combo deck. Combo doesn't have to 'combo out' to count as a combo deck, it just has to rely on the way it's pieces interact.
Fish is the closest thing I'd consider to aggro in the 'Proven' section of these Modern boards, except it's actually a tempo deck.
Things I'd consider aggro include Zoo, some versions of RDW, Stompy, and Goblins... and that is about it. And that is of noteworthy stuff I can think of. Maybe I'm being overly restrictive with my definitions, but IMO, when defining what a deck counts as, combo, tempo and control elements trump aggro or midrange elements.
I will be civil here, there's actual information to process.
It's good to note that you don't believe civility is a common courtesy that should be extended to everyone on these forums. At least I can test out the blocking feature on the forums because who needs someone constantly chiming in with you guys are spoilt and dumb all the time!
I do my best to match the quality of my posts to the quality of the thread itself.
Pod is combo. The mere inclusion of Pod itself makes the deck a combo, it can combo out without pod if you get lucky on the draw and mana. It's midrange game _is_ good, but I would not count it as a true midrange deck because it is better in it's current form than it would be if you replaced the combo cards with non-combo options, and there isn't a non-combo variation that is competitive with it.
If it wins more with the midrange game than the combo game, it is a midrange deck. It can't be a combo deck when it rarely wins with the combo. And Pod in it of itself isn't a combo piece. It is only a combo if it involves multiple specific cards. Birthing Pod is a value generator, just like Dark Confidant. It is not a combo piece.
BG/x is controlish, given it's heavy and potent removal, like Abrupt Decay, it's use of discard, like LotV and TS, it's use of Bob for draw, and finks and scooze for life and resiliency, and pumped up Goyf or Schooze, among a few other things, as finishers.
BGx is the quintessential Midrange deck. That's all there is to it.
Affinity is a combo deck, IMO. It certainly _plays like_ an aggro deck on the offensive once it puts itself together, but it builds it's power like a combo deck, with lots of pieces interacting with each other and reliant on each other, but relatively weak or useless on their own. The interdependency of it's pieces is what makes it essentially a combo deck. Combo doesn't have to 'combo out' to count as a combo deck, it just has to rely on the way it's pieces interact.
No, that is synergy. Just like Merfolk is synergy. After all, Merfolk plays a bunch of cards that are weak on their own but are good when they interac with each other. If there isn't a specific Combo that is used as a primary win-con, how can it be called a Combo deck?
Fish is the closest thing I'd consider to aggro in the 'Proven' section of these Modern boards, except it's actually a tempo deck.
How? It plays very little interaction with the opponent outside of Spreading Seas and Cursecatcher and most of its creatures don't give tempo advantage any more than any other deck's creatures.
Things I'd consider aggro include Zoo, some versions of RDW, Stompy, and Goblins... and that is about it. And that is of noteworthy stuff I can think of.[/quote]
Really? Burn doesn't count as an aggro deck? Or Bogles? Or Infect? How would you classify those? They certainly have no specific combos, tempo advantage, midrange gameplans, or control endgames.
Maybe I'm being overly restrictive with my definitions, but IMO, when defining what a deck counts as, combo, tempo and control elements trump aggro or midrange elements.
Pod is combo. The mere inclusion of Pod itself makes the deck a combo, it can combo out without pod if you get lucky on the draw and mana. It's midrange game _is_ good, but I would not count it as a true midrange deck because it is better in it's current form than it would be if you replaced the combo cards with non-combo options, and there isn't a non-combo variation that is competitive with it.
Just the inclusion of Pod in a deck does not make it combo, You many need to update your terminology with the rest of the magic population on what combo is.
A few decks have actually eschewed the combo from time to time, they may not be the most numerous but they have been there.
Affinity is an Aggro deck that can play like combo, not a combo deck that plays like aggro
Big company, different areas of said business. The right hand is not communicating with the left hand and this time got an unexpected slap.
Its really not that uncommon in the business world.
I realize this, but it's different when every decision has a profound effect on most (and some times all) of your customer base that constantly leaves us wondering what the hell is going on.
Wotc: We have a new online client that everyone hates and has even more bugs that we haven't bothered to fix than the last one. We know you'll like it!
Community: wtf are you thinking?
Wtc: DRS is obviously broken and too god.
Community: Jund is annoying, but wtf are you thinking?
Wotc: standard is where the big boys play and since it gets solved a month after a new set is released we don't want anybody else to see that outside of the pro tour. Modern and block has no business under the lights.
Community: wtf are you thinking?
Things like that are the reason I find it a little annoying that we don't get more like this from them. They have a platform to talk to all of us, they have a captive audience, what's preventing them from being a little more open with us outside of generic non-commital answers? It doesn't take much, just be HONEST with us and give us more than the typical publicity-speak. Hell if Aaron did this like twice a year and would just completely level with us and be like "look guys, here's how it really is" I think the community as a whole would be far less likely to get crazy over any changes they make.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And on that day, Garfield said unto the world "Go ye forth and durdle!"
But break down the types. How many aggro decks are there? are there more then 1? How many control decks are there? combo? mid range?
Having a bunch of decks is one thing, having diversity between types is quite another.
that comes down to deciphering how an aggressive deck survives in an eternal format.
affinity and bogles are often called combo instead of aggro, but it's very difficult for an aggressive deck to exist in some manner without combo elements to it.
yes, this list is combo-heavy, if you considered all of the doubled up archetypes as strictly combo.
pod (melira) is a midrange aggressive deck with a heavy combo element to it. any competent pod player will tell you that the deck wins on aggressive attacks over combo most of the time. it classifies as midrange-aggro as much as it classifies as classifies as combo.
affinity is an aggro deck that relies on combo strategies to get it's damage across.
bogles is an aggro deck the relies on combo synergies to get it's damage across.
RUG twin is a midrange-agressive-tempo deck with a built in combo kill.
control is the only highly lacking archetype, and even then it still has 2 dedicated control lists.
midrange is just fine.
aggro is just fine. if you want to play creatures and turn them sideways, there are 3-4 competent decks that allow you to do that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard:
Nothing Modern:
Cruel Control, UR Delver, RUG midrange, Akroma's Elfmorial EDH:
Animar, Chainer, Derevi the Stonehewer Mystic, Nekusar
aggro is just fine. if you want to play creatures and turn them sideways, there are 3-4 competent decks that allow you to do that.
You are the first person I have ever heard say that about the Modern meta game. I am not even going to go into how only 1 of the 'aggro' decks you mention are tier 1. I am going to go out on a limb and say most wouldnt agree with your take on the meta, and according to what AF said neither does Wotc.
aggro is just fine. if you want to play creatures and turn them sideways, there are 3-4 competent decks that allow you to do that.
You are the first person I have ever heard say that about the Modern meta game. I am not even going to go into how only 1 of the 'aggro' decks you mention are tier 1. I am going to go out on a limb and say most wouldnt agree with your take on the meta, and according to what AF said neither does Wotc.
i honestly don't think you can expect more than one clearly tier 1 aggro deck in an eternal format without something ridiculously broken like punishing nacatl.
you do have 2 tier 1.5 complementary decks that can very well out-meta the format, and Ried's performance with bogles at worlds last year shows that.
the problem with aggro decks is your deck loses to itself by not drawing enough action and in an eternal format, having a list of cards that compile together and do that efficiently so that the over/under on that variance is positive enough, while still being able to go under midrange decks is quite low.
it shows even in standard formats where enough competent midrange and control decks are viable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard:
Nothing Modern:
Cruel Control, UR Delver, RUG midrange, Akroma's Elfmorial EDH:
Animar, Chainer, Derevi the Stonehewer Mystic, Nekusar
I completely agree. Others seem to be over-estimating the number of tier 1 decks and also perhaps using outdated info on the modern metagame.
Only 4 decks are tier 1. twin, pod, rock/jund, and affinity. I am definning tier one as decks with at least 10% of the metagame. The decks that see enough play to require significant sideboard space from every other deck. A recent SCG article by adrian sullivan noted how the modern metagame has largely coalesced around the status quo best strategies.
Even with just those 4, rock/jund puts up far more than pod, which puts up slightly more than twin & affinity. This is likely because affinity and twin are easier to hate out post board. Tier 1.5 would be like burn, UWR, scapeshift, GR Tron, and maybe one or two others.
Everythig else is tier 2 at best. Even if tier 1.5 in included in tier 1 and each archetype is broken down into each variation, aggro and control are both still lacking. For example, separating twin into tarmo-twin UWR twin, and UR twin (or kiki, melira, and angel pod) still does not yield a single aggo or control deck; they are all either combo or tempo/midrange w/ combo element. breaking down UWR will actually lead to less control decks since half the UWR decks are midrange/tempo w/ Geist. Separating GB/x decks into Jund (heavy R), jund (splash red), GB Rock, Obliterator Rock, Junk (GB rock w/ lingering souls)... all of these are midrange-attrition strategies. What WotC would call aggro-control. Again, not a singe aggro or control deck.
aggro is just fine. if you want to play creatures and turn them sideways, there are 3-4 competent decks that allow you to do that.
You are the first person I have ever heard say that about the Modern meta game. I am not even going to go into how only 1 of the 'aggro' decks you mention are tier 1. I am going to go out on a limb and say most wouldnt agree with your take on the meta, and according to what AF said neither does Wotc.
i honestly don't think you can expect more than one clearly tier 1 aggro deck in an eternal format without something ridiculously broken like punishing nacatl.
you do have 2 tier 1.5 complementary decks that can very well out-meta the format, and Ried's performance with bogles at worlds last year shows that.
the problem with aggro decks is your deck loses to itself by not drawing enough action and in an eternal format, having a list of cards that compile together and do that efficiently so that the over/under on that variance is positive enough, while still being able to go under midrange decks is quite low.
it shows even in standard formats where enough competent midrange and control decks are viable.
I am going to say if you are using 1 deck that was a meta choice (was set up very well for that meta), ran by a solid pro and thats the only solid finish you can point to, your argument would be lacking.
Anyway, according ot what AF said, they want multiple decks from each type in the top tier, and according to Wotc there is not.
Alright. Heres my two cents. I thought about it for a while... and if they made a promise, they were taking modern off the menu for ONLY a year, to push power into the modern pool and to let the format devolup naturally... I wouldnt mind. As they havent said those two things to me, I do mind. Alot.
But, I find out of all this that they are unhappy about the viable archetypes (note: he said top as in tier) this tickles me alot. If we really stretch here we have this break down:
Control:
American Control
Blue Moon*
Midrange:
Rock Decks
Pod
Hatebears*
Aggro
Zoo*
RDW/Burn
Affinity
Infect
Combo
Twin
Storm*
Scapeshift
Tempo:
UR Delver*
And thats it. Again, really streching. The ones I * are probably 1.5 or less.
Second off... I added this to the second post. Reposting for visibility
Lantern here. Your info will stay, we ain't ganna close it. I think it clarifies a lot of points regarding the modern format as a whole. I'll give you my personal thanks for getting this info and sharing it.
Disappointed about JtMS, pretty much agree with all the other things on the banned discussion. Definitely SFM and GSZ are cards that need to remain banned (GSZ might be OK if Dryad Arbor were banned instead). JtMS would solve the 'there are almost no control decks' issue.
On the format - it's Standard that is horribly stale right now. Modern is a bit too combo heavy, but not problematically so. A couple of new printings that are universally playable and hose Twin and Pod but don't destroy them would be a good thing. It's also a bit too midrange heavy which is closing the space for aggro.
To me the format feels like it is 40% midrange, 30% combo, 15% aggro, 15% control, which is not ideal but is not a crisis either. It's a LOT better than Standard in this regard.
I see your comment, I agree with you're assessment overall, but lets look at it as if wizards had achieved their goal by seeing tier 1.5/2 archetypes and adding a card or two or redundancy to bump them up. I put my * in front of decks I see as reasonable choices to flesh out the meta. Does the format look good now, do people just like Jund, are people playing midrange because they aren't playing legacy format in fear of combo on purpose, or want to play the closest thing to survival of the fittest possible? Are people not skilled enough to put up numbers doing well with 4c gifts/faeries/storm on average for them ever to put up significant numbers until the deck gets broken by a card that puts everyone on the deck?
Control:
American Control
Blue Moon*
*4 color gifts
*Wafo-tapa/Cruel Control
Well, the comments about Ux being too strong seem out of place - there's one Tier 1 deck and a few more tier 1.5-2 decks, but it seems about on par with BGx for me, and definetily makes me fear for Tiago's life. Still, I will only believe that this isn't WOTC trying to squirm its way out of a backlash when I see some more commitment to Modern in Organized Play. They're probably gonna have an annoucement saying "we're not giving up on modern!" soon, but will probably try to keep the 4 standard pts.
Alright. Heres my two cents. I thought about it for a while... and if they made a promise, they were taking modern off the menu for ONLY a year, to push power into the modern pool and to let the format devolup naturally... I wouldnt mind. As they havent said those two things to me, I do mind. Alot.
But, I find out of all this that they are unhappy about the viable archetypes (note: he said top as in tier) this tickles me alot. If we really stretch here we have this break down:
Control:
American Control
Blue Moon*
Midrange:
Rock Decks
Pod
Hatebears*
Aggro
Zoo*
RDW/Burn
Affinity
Infect
Combo
Twin
Storm*
Scapeshift
Tempo:
UR Delver*
And thats it. Again, really streching. The ones I * are probably 1.5 or less.
Second off... I added this to the second post. Reposting for visibility
Lantern here. Your info will stay, we ain't ganna close it. I think it clarifies a lot of points regarding the modern format as a whole. I'll give you my personal thanks for getting this info and sharing it.
Disappointed about JtMS, pretty much agree with all the other things on the banned discussion. Definitely SFM and GSZ are cards that need to remain banned (GSZ might be OK if Dryad Arbor were banned instead). JtMS would solve the 'there are almost no control decks' issue.
It also would make them all stupidly expensive.
On the format - it's Standard that is horribly stale right now. Modern is a bit too combo heavy, but not problematically so. A couple of new printings that are universally playable and hose Twin and Pod but don't destroy them would be a good thing. It's also a bit too midrange heavy which is closing the space for aggro.
To me the format feels like it is 40% midrange, 30% combo, 15% aggro, 15% control, which is not ideal but is not a crisis either. It's a LOT better than Standard in this regard.
I see your comment, I agree with you're assessment overall, but lets look at it as if wizards had achieved their goal by seeing tier 1.5/2 archetypes and adding a card or two or redundancy to bump them up. I put my * in front of decks I see as reasonable choices to flesh out the meta. Does the format look good now, do people just like Jund, are people playing midrange because they aren't playing legacy format in fear of combo on purpose, or want to play the closest thing to survival of the fittest possible? Are people not skilled enough to put up numbers doing well with 4c gifts/faeries/storm on average for them ever to put up significant numbers until the deck gets broken by a card that puts everyone on the deck?
Control:
American Control
Blue Moon*
*4 color gifts
*Wafo-tapa/Cruel Control
If moderns is stale is because of standard. Theros block did almost nothing to modern because every interesting card was too overcosted do be of any use in modern.
There are really a lot of interesting cards wasted in theros that would be modern playable if they were 1CMC cheaper or had 1 more power and toughness.
While modern reached a decent level of diversity, it's development is being heavly hindered by standard. An whole block and we had not even 5 cards that are actually playable.
While the rule of thumb for Wizards dev team is "cut what is too good for standard" (one example is reprinting Liliana Vess instead of Liliana of the Veil on M15), modern will go nowhere.
If wizards want innovation and new decks to rise in modern, they need to give us decent new cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's good to note that you don't believe civility is a common courtesy that should be extended to everyone on these forums. At least I can test out the blocking feature on the forums because who needs someone constantly chiming in with you guys are spoilt and dumb all the time!
-----
Shmanka thank you for actually talking with forsythe, providing some information, and helping to clear things up. I hope you got paid or something since you've done a better job explaining things than the people at wizards who are paid to do this sort of thing. As well as the higherups who I'm sure make some very large salaries.
It's pretty ridiculous that a company like WOTC needs to rely on something like this to make a point.
Also its interesting to note that Wizards can correctly identify what most people don't like about modern, they're just apparently incapable of fixing it. Wizards has apparently started designing with modern in mind, but we've seen nothing to very little helping bring about more decks for the archetypes that are struggling. There's only 1 control deck that consistently puts up results, and only 1 aggro deck. I've no faith we will see stuff to help this in Khans, but hopefully I'm wrong.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Yes, but just like Standard, only about a quarter of the cards are actually usable.
The deck puts up top 8s like crazy. If that is not a top deck then I seriously question your definition about what it means to be one. The existence of brutal hate cards don't seem to stop that deck.
BG/x is controlish, given it's heavy and potent removal, like Abrupt Decay, it's use of discard, like LotV and TS, it's use of Bob for draw, and finks and scooze for life and resiliency, and pumped up Goyf or Schooze, among a few other things, as finishers.
I'm pretty sure Twin is everything WotC sees as wrong with the format right now, since being a 'value' based deck means that it doesn't fit coherently in combo or tempo or aggro or whatnot, and it is top tier despite that, hinting that some of it's ingredients might be too strong, or that there isn't enough support in the colors involved to make non-'value' based decks that are T1.
Affinity is a combo deck, IMO. It certainly _plays like_ an aggro deck on the offensive once it puts itself together, but it builds it's power like a combo deck, with lots of pieces interacting with each other and reliant on each other, but relatively weak or useless on their own. The interdependency of it's pieces is what makes it essentially a combo deck. Combo doesn't have to 'combo out' to count as a combo deck, it just has to rely on the way it's pieces interact.
Fish is the closest thing I'd consider to aggro in the 'Proven' section of these Modern boards, except it's actually a tempo deck.
Things I'd consider aggro include Zoo, some versions of RDW, Stompy, and Goblins... and that is about it. And that is of noteworthy stuff I can think of. Maybe I'm being overly restrictive with my definitions, but IMO, when defining what a deck counts as, combo, tempo and control elements trump aggro or midrange elements.
I do my best to match the quality of my posts to the quality of the thread itself.
Big company, different areas of said business. The right hand is not communicating with the left hand and this time got an unexpected slap.
Its really not that uncommon in the business world.
If it wins more with the midrange game than the combo game, it is a midrange deck. It can't be a combo deck when it rarely wins with the combo. And Pod in it of itself isn't a combo piece. It is only a combo if it involves multiple specific cards. Birthing Pod is a value generator, just like Dark Confidant. It is not a combo piece.
BGx is the quintessential Midrange deck. That's all there is to it.
No, that is synergy. Just like Merfolk is synergy. After all, Merfolk plays a bunch of cards that are weak on their own but are good when they interac with each other. If there isn't a specific Combo that is used as a primary win-con, how can it be called a Combo deck?
How? It plays very little interaction with the opponent outside of Spreading Seas and Cursecatcher and most of its creatures don't give tempo advantage any more than any other deck's creatures.
Things I'd consider aggro include Zoo, some versions of RDW, Stompy, and Goblins... and that is about it. And that is of noteworthy stuff I can think of.[/quote]
Really? Burn doesn't count as an aggro deck? Or Bogles? Or Infect? How would you classify those? They certainly have no specific combos, tempo advantage, midrange gameplans, or control endgames.
Why not just count them equally?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
The format has a lot of aggro control and combo, not much control and aggro.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Just the inclusion of Pod in a deck does not make it combo, You many need to update your terminology with the rest of the magic population on what combo is.
A few decks have actually eschewed the combo from time to time, they may not be the most numerous but they have been there.
Affinity is an Aggro deck that can play like combo, not a combo deck that plays like aggro
Agreed.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I realize this, but it's different when every decision has a profound effect on most (and some times all) of your customer base that constantly leaves us wondering what the hell is going on.
Wotc: We have a new online client that everyone hates and has even more bugs that we haven't bothered to fix than the last one. We know you'll like it!
Community: wtf are you thinking?
Wtc: DRS is obviously broken and too god.
Community: Jund is annoying, but wtf are you thinking?
Wotc: standard is where the big boys play and since it gets solved a month after a new set is released we don't want anybody else to see that outside of the pro tour. Modern and block has no business under the lights.
Community: wtf are you thinking?
Things like that are the reason I find it a little annoying that we don't get more like this from them. They have a platform to talk to all of us, they have a captive audience, what's preventing them from being a little more open with us outside of generic non-commital answers? It doesn't take much, just be HONEST with us and give us more than the typical publicity-speak. Hell if Aaron did this like twice a year and would just completely level with us and be like "look guys, here's how it really is" I think the community as a whole would be far less likely to get crazy over any changes they make.
that comes down to deciphering how an aggressive deck survives in an eternal format.
affinity and bogles are often called combo instead of aggro, but it's very difficult for an aggressive deck to exist in some manner without combo elements to it.
yes, this list is combo-heavy, if you considered all of the doubled up archetypes as strictly combo.
pod (melira) is a midrange aggressive deck with a heavy combo element to it. any competent pod player will tell you that the deck wins on aggressive attacks over combo most of the time. it classifies as midrange-aggro as much as it classifies as classifies as combo.
affinity is an aggro deck that relies on combo strategies to get it's damage across.
bogles is an aggro deck the relies on combo synergies to get it's damage across.
RUG twin is a midrange-agressive-tempo deck with a built in combo kill.
control is the only highly lacking archetype, and even then it still has 2 dedicated control lists.
midrange is just fine.
aggro is just fine. if you want to play creatures and turn them sideways, there are 3-4 competent decks that allow you to do that.
Nothing
Modern:
Cruel Control, UR Delver, RUG midrange, Akroma's Elfmorial
EDH:
Animar, Chainer, Derevi the Stonehewer Mystic, Nekusar
You are the first person I have ever heard say that about the Modern meta game. I am not even going to go into how only 1 of the 'aggro' decks you mention are tier 1. I am going to go out on a limb and say most wouldnt agree with your take on the meta, and according to what AF said neither does Wotc.
http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2cgw3r/twitter_mtgaaron_modern_isnt_a_great_pt_format/cjfcxhn
i honestly don't think you can expect more than one clearly tier 1 aggro deck in an eternal format without something ridiculously broken like punishing nacatl.
you do have 2 tier 1.5 complementary decks that can very well out-meta the format, and Ried's performance with bogles at worlds last year shows that.
the problem with aggro decks is your deck loses to itself by not drawing enough action and in an eternal format, having a list of cards that compile together and do that efficiently so that the over/under on that variance is positive enough, while still being able to go under midrange decks is quite low.
it shows even in standard formats where enough competent midrange and control decks are viable.
Nothing
Modern:
Cruel Control, UR Delver, RUG midrange, Akroma's Elfmorial
EDH:
Animar, Chainer, Derevi the Stonehewer Mystic, Nekusar
Only 4 decks are tier 1. twin, pod, rock/jund, and affinity. I am definning tier one as decks with at least 10% of the metagame. The decks that see enough play to require significant sideboard space from every other deck. A recent SCG article by adrian sullivan noted how the modern metagame has largely coalesced around the status quo best strategies.
Even with just those 4, rock/jund puts up far more than pod, which puts up slightly more than twin & affinity. This is likely because affinity and twin are easier to hate out post board. Tier 1.5 would be like burn, UWR, scapeshift, GR Tron, and maybe one or two others.
Everythig else is tier 2 at best. Even if tier 1.5 in included in tier 1 and each archetype is broken down into each variation, aggro and control are both still lacking. For example, separating twin into tarmo-twin UWR twin, and UR twin (or kiki, melira, and angel pod) still does not yield a single aggo or control deck; they are all either combo or tempo/midrange w/ combo element. breaking down UWR will actually lead to less control decks since half the UWR decks are midrange/tempo w/ Geist. Separating GB/x decks into Jund (heavy R), jund (splash red), GB Rock, Obliterator Rock, Junk (GB rock w/ lingering souls)... all of these are midrange-attrition strategies. What WotC would call aggro-control. Again, not a singe aggro or control deck.
I am going to say if you are using 1 deck that was a meta choice (was set up very well for that meta), ran by a solid pro and thats the only solid finish you can point to, your argument would be lacking.
Anyway, according ot what AF said, they want multiple decks from each type in the top tier, and according to Wotc there is not.
But, I find out of all this that they are unhappy about the viable archetypes (note: he said top as in tier) this tickles me alot. If we really stretch here we have this break down:
Control:
American Control
Blue Moon*
Midrange:
Rock Decks
Pod
Hatebears*
Aggro
Zoo*
RDW/Burn
Affinity
Infect
Combo
Twin
Storm*
Scapeshift
Tempo:
UR Delver*
And thats it. Again, really streching. The ones I * are probably 1.5 or less.
Second off... I added this to the second post. Reposting for visibility
:
On the format - it's Standard that is horribly stale right now. Modern is a bit too combo heavy, but not problematically so. A couple of new printings that are universally playable and hose Twin and Pod but don't destroy them would be a good thing. It's also a bit too midrange heavy which is closing the space for aggro.
To me the format feels like it is 40% midrange, 30% combo, 15% aggro, 15% control, which is not ideal but is not a crisis either. It's a LOT better than Standard in this regard.
Control:
American Control
Blue Moon*
*4 color gifts
*Wafo-tapa/Cruel Control
Midrange:
Jund
*Junk/Rock
Pod
Hatebears*
Aggro
Zoo*
RDW/Burn
Affinity
Infect
*merfolk
*Humans
Combo
Twin
Storm*
Scapeshift
*amulet combo
*ad nauseum combo
Tempo:
UR Delver*
*UB fairies
*NinjaBear
I think modern is at its most fun in the 1.5/tier 2 range.
I'm a hate-bears player, and while the deck isn't bad, I honestly think its closer to tier 2 than 1.5, dependent on local meta.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
It also would make them all stupidly expensive.
Agreed
No one is going to ever break Ninja/Bear. UR Delver is just better in almost every way.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
There are really a lot of interesting cards wasted in theros that would be modern playable if they were 1CMC cheaper or had 1 more power and toughness.
While modern reached a decent level of diversity, it's development is being heavly hindered by standard. An whole block and we had not even 5 cards that are actually playable.
While the rule of thumb for Wizards dev team is "cut what is too good for standard" (one example is reprinting Liliana Vess instead of Liliana of the Veil on M15), modern will go nowhere.
If wizards want innovation and new decks to rise in modern, they need to give us decent new cards.