I really don't think it's fair to put griselbrand reanimator on par with bloom's resilience. Not saying that bloom need s ban or anything, but it clearly is on a different level.
Fair.
But Griselbrand is the definition of a glass cannon deck which makes the deck fine. You can just go Boom! turn 0 Leyline of the Void or turn 1 Grafdigger's Cage/Relic of Progenitus and the deck won't be able to function anymore until the hate as been dealt with.
The only hate card that is capable of doing the same to Amulet Bloom is Blood Moon and that one costs three mana.
Only Living End plays Leyline, and only because it doesn't mess up Cascade.
Reanimator has Through the Breach to bypass grave hate. The deck can kill on turn 3 through grave hate with Pentad Prism. Amulet can't beat a Moon unless it already has Seal of Primordium on the field, or it drew its one basic Forest and Seal/Nature's Claim.
What I wanted to say is that there are enough tools that literally every deck can play that would put a wrench in Reanimators plan if it would ever become a deck that is good enough to prepare for.
If graveyard strategies take off everybody can have grave hate in the sideboard. If Amulet takes off not everybody can have Blood Moon in the sideboard though since most decks cannot even utilize it at all.
That's the difference here.
Maybe it's just my desire to converse with people who like Modern and play and brew in it with passion. Sometimes this feels like Im a football fan who joined a forum about football only for the tennis crowd to show up and say how much football sucks and how much more skill tennis takes and if you disagree you must obviously be a child. They both use balls but that doesn't make them comparable or means that one should get closer to the other. Ridiculous if you think about it.
Following your analogy, you'd have to acknowledge that there's only one tennis stadium in the world. The last seats for it were built 20 years ago, after which the sports gods promised they'd never build a seat for it again. Around 2009-2011, the stadium is becoming far too packed, and gigantic lines are forming out the doors. The people in these lines beg for a new tennis stadium, and the sports gods go "oh here, here's a football stadium." The football stadium is magical, it can continue to grow because seats can be added. The people waiting in the lines at the tennis stadium go to the football stadium, asking why the sports gods, instead of giving them the tennis stadium they were actually asking for, gave a stadium for a different sport and also refused to build a tennis stadium, even if merely as an addition. The usher at the football stadium says "lawl go back to the tennis stadium." It is 2015. A small fraction of the people waiting in lines at the tennis stadium have gotten in. Seats doesn't open frequently. Another group from that line have decided that they'll go with football. But another part of that group? Another part of the group in that line has just stopped watching sports altogether.
Annnnnnd that changes nothing about how galerion is absolutely right and how the people trying to change modern into legacy lite because it's more accessible are harmful morons at BEST.
Annnnnnd that changes nothing about how galerion is absolutely right and how the people trying to change modern into legacy lite because it's more accessible are harmful morons at BEST.
Are they morons because they disagree with you? Are you always right 100% of the time and everyone else is always wrong 100% of the time and anyone who even dares to think otherwise has a mental defect? That's an extremely arrogant and dangerous position to take, for what its worth.
I'm getting a very strong echo chamber/hugbox vibe from this topic as of late.
No they are morons because they are tennis fans arguing in a football forum. Jees, follow the analogy...lol.
He's not saying they are right or wrong he's saying they are arguing for the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I really don't think it's fair to put griselbrand reanimator on par with bloom's resilience. Not saying that bloom need s ban or anything, but it clearly is on a different level.
I've played both decks. I believe that Grixis Reanimator is much better and resilient than people give it credit for. Still, I realize that it is in no way close to as resilient as Bloom Titan.
Bloom Titan has game vs. anything not named Twin and quick draws from Bloom Titan can beat Twin if they don't have the Spell Snare, Remand, Dispel, Negate, or whatever else on turns 2 and 3.
(Basically, I am agreeing with what you said.) But I am not in favor of anything getting banned right now, nor do I believe it is needed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
No they are morons because they are tennis fans arguing in a football forum. Jees, follow the analogy...lol.
He's not saying they are right or wrong he's saying they are arguing for the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Except that the "football" stadium doesn't inherently need to be a football stadium that you see today. In this world, the lines between different sports are blurred and features of the sports don't always remain the same. It, like many other stadiums in this world, can change over time. Those people are only "harmful morons" if your opinion is different than their opinion on which direction you'd like the sport to move.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a perfect format that can be all things to all people. Most people are pretty happy with Modern right now and its direction, something suggested in tournament attendance and the sheer number of Modern events. I also think Wizards is partially to blame for miscommunicating the format's mission and mismanaging expectations, but to some extent, responsibility shifts back to us to be more realistic.
I agree with this.
I think Modern does some things well. It's reasonably accessible. It has a power level higher than Standard. Its price point isn't unreasonable for the average Standard player (unless you dive straight into a $2000 deck).
I also think Modern does some things poorly. The ban list, while not arbitrary, is pretty heavy-handed; the ban list creates fear in the playerbase, and intentionally hinders "unfun" strategies rather than oppressive ones. Modern requires all top-tier decks to have creatures; WotC wants the format to be "interactive", so they've narrowed their design space in recent years.
But all things considered, WotC has finally gotten Modern to stand on its own two feet. Standard still exists. Legacy still exists. And Modern has its own identity.
Im honest here this right there is the thing that annoys me the most about Modern. The "I want Legacy lite" crowd. They keep talking about it like it is some golden cow and every format should inspire to be like it. The majority of people call BS on those statements.
I would be so happy if Wizards would finally come out and officially say how it is but of course as a business a buyer is a buyer no matter if he is actually part of the desired target audience or not.
I understand that you don't like Legacy, but you're wrong here. The hallmark of Legacy isn't just power level; it's a diversity of strategies. If you want to play a creatureless combo deck, you can do that. If you want to play a prison deck, you can do that. If you want to play a "fair" creature deck, you can do that. It caters to everybody, and that's what makes it great.
The typical Modern-ban-list-thread response is that it doesn't cater to people who like playing "broken" things. That's not a good position to have, because it's equivalent to saying you "don't like playing against" certain cards and strategies. Your own player preferences shouldn't preclude other players from playing the Magic that they like.
Which brings us the thing that you mentioned. Wizards is not solely to blame for this.
The format is now almost 4 years old . Why is this still a topic? Shouldn't everyone have gotten the memo already? Do we have to spend another 5 years reading posts in that vein?
I agree with the spirit of this sentiment. Modern isn't going anywhere, and at this point, it's pretty clear where WotC is going with it. No one should be surprised when something oppressive gets banned, and no one should expect powerful creatureless strategies to be playable anytime soon.
Maybe it's just my desire to converse with people who like Modern and play and brew in it with passion. Sometimes this feels like Im a football fan who joined a forum about football only for the tennis crowd to show up and say how much football sucks and how much more skill tennis takes and if you disagree you must obviously be a child. They both use balls but that doesn't make them comparable or means that one should get closer to the other. Ridiculous if you think about it.
Bad analogies are bad, and I don't even know where to start, so I'm not going to bother.
Modern is growing, and brewing is popular. The Legacy players are annoyed (and rightfully so), because their format is gradually losing its organized play support. WotC essentially looked at Legacy players and told them to either switch to Modern or get lost. So those Legacy players show up in the Modern forum, hoping to like the format, but ultimately lamenting how the format isn't as powerful/diverse/fun as Legacy.
Honestly, the best way for you (Galerion) to get your forum back, is to convince WotC to start supporting Legacy again. WotC will never do that, but if Legacy were supported, then the Modern subforum wouldn't be filled with Legacy players. In the meantime, you're going to have to get used to the idea that Modern is the competitive, non-rotating format of choice, with reprinted staples and organized play support, and that Legacy players are going to be along for the ride.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
So why does galerion have to change from enjoying the status quo to accommodate a subset of players who already have a format that caters to their preferences...? I think a step was skipped here in the explanation. I don't see why the format should care to legacy lite players at all, and not have them change instead if they want to join the modern community.
So why does galerion have to change from enjoying the status quo to accommodate a subset of players who already have a format that caters to their preferences...? I think a step was skipped here in the explanation. I don't see why the format should care to legacy lite players at all, and not have them change instead if they want to join the modern community.
This isn't what I'm arguing though. I'm noticing a strong tendency for people to adopt an attitude of "If you don't love absolutely everything about x, just quit forever" which is incredibly unhealthy (No one would ever invest their time into anything ever in the history of man if people took that attitude). You can like something 80% of the way but think "you know, it could be even better", but that's not good enough and you still have to quit magic forever because apparently no one is ever allowed to argue with the likes of you (according to the arguments you've made, you've made it clear that you intend on taking the position that you're objectively right 100% of the time). That's an incredibly dangerous position to take.
I don't think I'm objectively right all the time. I do think you are objectively wrong though. 99% of your arguments aren't why this or that is actually safe and should be unbanned, but rather that they should change the entire direction of the format. THATS what I take objection with. If you were making arguments that what you desire is well within the prescribed outlines of the format by wizards, then I would be far more understanding.
So why does galerion have to change from enjoying the status quo to accommodate a subset of players who already have a format that caters to their preferences...? I think a step was skipped here in the explanation.
I don't see why the format should care to legacy lite players at all, and not have them change instead if they want to join the modern community.
It shouldn't. But this was WotC's fault for pulling organized play support from Legacy. Legacy players really like Magic, and that's why they play Legacy. With the creation of Modern, WotC has told those players to jump on the Modern bandwagon, or leave. Again, they like Magic, so they don't want to give up the game. Instead, they come here and complain about how Modern isn't Legacy.
Modern doesn't need to change, and it won't change. But the complaints are the result of a disenfranchised part of the playerbase, and that was WotC's fault. Part of the "distinct formats" idea entails that the formats coexist, not that one gets marginalized.
To be clear, WotC isn't going to support Legacy anytime soon. They've made their decision and they're going to stick to it. But players like you and Galerion know exactly why the Legacy players are in here complaining about Modern. If you guys think that the Modern community is made worse by the influx of Legacy players complaining about it, then the solution is to champion WotC supporting both formats. The solution isn't you guys telling former Legacy players to deal with it; it shows a complete lack of empathy for a group of people that you could easily be a part of someday, if there were ever a movement away from Modern.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
"I question Spell Snare based on the success of the decks that have been employing it. To my knowledge, the only deck that runs Snare that has any success is Twin, but Twin is so unlike any of the other decks that use it, I'm inclined to call that an outlier rather than the rule (That is to say, Snare isn't the reason for Twin being good).
I'm very results oriented (If the goal of magic is to win, then winning is the only result that has any relevance at all, so only the decks that win can be relevant, in so far as that line of thinking works). As far as I'm concerned, if a strategy isn't putting up results, then there's a reason for that (I consider it to be bad). Control not putting up results? Its not viable then. Burn is? Then it's just better than Control. Of course, people will disagree with that, but that's always how I've approached magic."
Remember this gem? It's comments like this that i object a lot to. It's pure bad judgement of cards, and an extremely narrow view on what does and does not make a good deck (based on NUMEROUS other comments on viability, particularly surrounding attacking the meta game and grixis delver) but I think this is the most cut and dry absolutely wrong statement I would point to.
Why I'm not saying im objectively right all the time is because my opinion has shifted back and forth on numerous cards such as BBE and AV.
Let me put it this way. I've had a lot of success playing decks that aren't running Spell Snare (Junk, Burn, etc.) The only deck I've played that ever did anything while also running Spell Snare was Twin.
UWR Control? Couldn't do anything with it. I struggled to so much as win a single match with that deck. Any other deck that had it? No success at all. Going back to something tier 1? I don't lose very often.
With that in mind, how can I not come to the conclusion that I did? It just makes logical sense to me.
Let me put it this way. I've had a lot of success playing decks that aren't running Spell Snare (Junk, Burn, etc.) The only deck I've played that ever did anything while also running Spell Snare was Twin.
UWR Control? Couldn't do anything with it. I struggled to so much as win a single match with that deck. Any other deck that had it? No success at all. Going back to something tier 1? I don't lose very often.
With that in mind, how can I not come to the conclusion that I did? It just makes logical sense to me.
By not being stubbornly results oriented, and recognizing that the card has performed admirably when supported by a strong shell, suggesting that the issue is with the rest of the decks, not spell snare (Examples: Twin and Delver with cruise)
I don't think we should continue this conversation though, as I would rather not receive a warning.
i think that People are overextimating legacy here: maybe teoretically it is the format with more decks diversity but not all decks are equally playable try to win with an aggro deck(no delver is not an aggro deck)...aggro is dead in that format
It's obvious that one strategy is likely to be competitive over another. However, Legacy does indeed have a large number of strategies.
Tempo: RUG Delver, Sultai Delver, 4c Delver is also putting up a splash. Some Stoneblade lists fall into this camp.
Aggro: Dredge, Merfolk, Infect
Combo: Omnitell, ANT
Combo-Aggro: Elves
Combo-Control: Thopter Depths
Aggro-Control: Death and Taxes
These are all pretty viable decks and can be played at any Legacy tournament. I do think it's more diverse than Modern strategy wise, though color/card selection is an argument for another day and another thread.
i think that People are overextimating legacy here: maybe teoretically it is the format with more decks diversity but not all decks are equally playable try to win with an aggro deck(no delver is not an aggro deck)...aggro is dead in that format
It's obvious that one strategy is likely to be competitive over another. However, Legacy does indeed have a large number of strategies.
Tempo: RUG Delver, Sultai Delver, 4c Delver is also putting up a splash. Some Stoneblade lists fall into this camp.
Aggro: Dredge, Merfolk, Infect
Combo: Omnitell, ANT
Combo-Aggro: Elves
Combo-Control: Thopter Depths
Aggro-Control: Death and Taxes
These are all pretty viable decks and can be played at any Legacy tournament. I do think it's more diverse than Modern strategy wise, though color/card selection is an argument for another day and another thread.
How in the world can Dredge be classified as "aggro"? It's a combo deck through and through.
Calling Infect aggro seems a stretch as well (it's sort of like an aggro deck, but aggro is about swarming the board rather than casting one threat and throwing a bunch of pump spells on it). Really, the only aggro deck that still sort of exists in Legacy is Merfolk, and it's really not any better than mediocre. True aggro has been fairly dead in Legacy for quite a while.
How in the world can Dredge be classified as "aggro"? It's a combo deck through and through.
You make zombies and beat down with Ichorids. How is that not aggro?
it's sort of like an aggro deck, but aggro is about swarming the board rather than casting one threat and throwing a bunch of pump spells on it
Aggro is not swarming the board (though that can be), it's about being aggressive and killing your opponent with cheap spells/creatures. Otherwise Burn wouldn't be considered an aggro deck.
Really, the only aggro deck that still sort of exists in Legacy is Merfolk, and it's really not any better than mediocre.
Burn also exists, though I didn't mention it. DnT also can do a very good aggro impression.
No they are morons because they are tennis fans arguing in a football forum. Jees, follow the analogy...lol.
He's not saying they are right or wrong he's saying they are arguing for the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Except that the "football" stadium doesn't inherently need to be a football stadium that you see today. In this world, the lines between different sports are blurred and features of the sports don't always remain the same. It, like many other stadiums in this world, can change over time. Those people are only "harmful morons" if your opinion is different than their opinion on which direction you'd like the sport to move.
In the analogy you should keep campaigning for a magical tennis stadium. You shouldn't tell the football fans "We want a tennis stadium so you can't have a football stadium". What you have been leaving out in the analogy is that there are no other football stadiums either. The Modern players like Modern. If it becomes Legacy-Lite, it will no longer be Modern and there won't be any format for the "football fans". So why should your lack of an "appropriately sized stadium" mean that none of the people who like "football" can have fun?
How in the world can Dredge be classified as "aggro"? It's a combo deck through and through.
You make zombies and beat down with Ichorids. How is that not aggro?
The entire deck revolves around a few select cards that it is digging into its library every turn to find, devotes its entire deck to abusing, and can't do anything without. It is not aggro anymore than Splinter Twin is aggro because you make Deceiver Exarchs and beat down with (infinite) Pestermites.
What I wanted to say is that there are enough tools that literally every deck can play that would put a wrench in Reanimators plan if it would ever become a deck that is good enough to prepare for.
If graveyard strategies take off everybody can have grave hate in the sideboard. If Amulet takes off not everybody can have Blood Moon in the sideboard though since most decks cannot even utilize it at all.
That's the difference here.
Are they morons because they disagree with you? Are you always right 100% of the time and everyone else is always wrong 100% of the time and anyone who even dares to think otherwise has a mental defect? That's an extremely arrogant and dangerous position to take, for what its worth.
I'm getting a very strong echo chamber/hugbox vibe from this topic as of late.
He's not saying they are right or wrong he's saying they are arguing for the wrong thing in the wrong place.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I've played both decks. I believe that Grixis Reanimator is much better and resilient than people give it credit for. Still, I realize that it is in no way close to as resilient as Bloom Titan.
Bloom Titan has game vs. anything not named Twin and quick draws from Bloom Titan can beat Twin if they don't have the Spell Snare, Remand, Dispel, Negate, or whatever else on turns 2 and 3.
(Basically, I am agreeing with what you said.) But I am not in favor of anything getting banned right now, nor do I believe it is needed.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I agree with this.
I think Modern does some things well. It's reasonably accessible. It has a power level higher than Standard. Its price point isn't unreasonable for the average Standard player (unless you dive straight into a $2000 deck).
I also think Modern does some things poorly. The ban list, while not arbitrary, is pretty heavy-handed; the ban list creates fear in the playerbase, and intentionally hinders "unfun" strategies rather than oppressive ones. Modern requires all top-tier decks to have creatures; WotC wants the format to be "interactive", so they've narrowed their design space in recent years.
But all things considered, WotC has finally gotten Modern to stand on its own two feet. Standard still exists. Legacy still exists. And Modern has its own identity.
I understand that you don't like Legacy, but you're wrong here. The hallmark of Legacy isn't just power level; it's a diversity of strategies. If you want to play a creatureless combo deck, you can do that. If you want to play a prison deck, you can do that. If you want to play a "fair" creature deck, you can do that. It caters to everybody, and that's what makes it great.
The typical Modern-ban-list-thread response is that it doesn't cater to people who like playing "broken" things. That's not a good position to have, because it's equivalent to saying you "don't like playing against" certain cards and strategies. Your own player preferences shouldn't preclude other players from playing the Magic that they like.
I agree with the spirit of this sentiment. Modern isn't going anywhere, and at this point, it's pretty clear where WotC is going with it. No one should be surprised when something oppressive gets banned, and no one should expect powerful creatureless strategies to be playable anytime soon.
Bad analogies are bad, and I don't even know where to start, so I'm not going to bother.
Modern is growing, and brewing is popular. The Legacy players are annoyed (and rightfully so), because their format is gradually losing its organized play support. WotC essentially looked at Legacy players and told them to either switch to Modern or get lost. So those Legacy players show up in the Modern forum, hoping to like the format, but ultimately lamenting how the format isn't as powerful/diverse/fun as Legacy.
Honestly, the best way for you (Galerion) to get your forum back, is to convince WotC to start supporting Legacy again. WotC will never do that, but if Legacy were supported, then the Modern subforum wouldn't be filled with Legacy players. In the meantime, you're going to have to get used to the idea that Modern is the competitive, non-rotating format of choice, with reprinted staples and organized play support, and that Legacy players are going to be along for the ride.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
Modern : Huh?
EDH : UBGW Thrasios / Tymna Combo UBGW // GRW Mayael Big Stuff GRW // GU Edric Timewalkers GU
This isn't what I'm arguing though. I'm noticing a strong tendency for people to adopt an attitude of "If you don't love absolutely everything about x, just quit forever" which is incredibly unhealthy (No one would ever invest their time into anything ever in the history of man if people took that attitude). You can like something 80% of the way but think "you know, it could be even better", but that's not good enough and you still have to quit magic forever because apparently no one is ever allowed to argue with the likes of you (according to the arguments you've made, you've made it clear that you intend on taking the position that you're objectively right 100% of the time). That's an incredibly dangerous position to take.
It was skipped because I never suggested it.
It shouldn't. But this was WotC's fault for pulling organized play support from Legacy. Legacy players really like Magic, and that's why they play Legacy. With the creation of Modern, WotC has told those players to jump on the Modern bandwagon, or leave. Again, they like Magic, so they don't want to give up the game. Instead, they come here and complain about how Modern isn't Legacy.
Modern doesn't need to change, and it won't change. But the complaints are the result of a disenfranchised part of the playerbase, and that was WotC's fault. Part of the "distinct formats" idea entails that the formats coexist, not that one gets marginalized.
To be clear, WotC isn't going to support Legacy anytime soon. They've made their decision and they're going to stick to it. But players like you and Galerion know exactly why the Legacy players are in here complaining about Modern. If you guys think that the Modern community is made worse by the influx of Legacy players complaining about it, then the solution is to champion WotC supporting both formats. The solution isn't you guys telling former Legacy players to deal with it; it shows a complete lack of empathy for a group of people that you could easily be a part of someday, if there were ever a movement away from Modern.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
What you're saying now and what you've said in the past seem to conflict with this.
Remind me what specifically I argued for that you consider dangerous and unhealthy.
I'm very results oriented (If the goal of magic is to win, then winning is the only result that has any relevance at all, so only the decks that win can be relevant, in so far as that line of thinking works). As far as I'm concerned, if a strategy isn't putting up results, then there's a reason for that (I consider it to be bad). Control not putting up results? Its not viable then. Burn is? Then it's just better than Control. Of course, people will disagree with that, but that's always how I've approached magic."
Remember this gem? It's comments like this that i object a lot to. It's pure bad judgement of cards, and an extremely narrow view on what does and does not make a good deck (based on NUMEROUS other comments on viability, particularly surrounding attacking the meta game and grixis delver) but I think this is the most cut and dry absolutely wrong statement I would point to.
Why I'm not saying im objectively right all the time is because my opinion has shifted back and forth on numerous cards such as BBE and AV.
UWR Control? Couldn't do anything with it. I struggled to so much as win a single match with that deck. Any other deck that had it? No success at all. Going back to something tier 1? I don't lose very often.
With that in mind, how can I not come to the conclusion that I did? It just makes logical sense to me.
By not being stubbornly results oriented, and recognizing that the card has performed admirably when supported by a strong shell, suggesting that the issue is with the rest of the decks, not spell snare (Examples: Twin and Delver with cruise)
I don't think we should continue this conversation though, as I would rather not receive a warning.
It's obvious that one strategy is likely to be competitive over another. However, Legacy does indeed have a large number of strategies.
These are all pretty viable decks and can be played at any Legacy tournament. I do think it's more diverse than Modern strategy wise, though color/card selection is an argument for another day and another thread.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Calling Infect aggro seems a stretch as well (it's sort of like an aggro deck, but aggro is about swarming the board rather than casting one threat and throwing a bunch of pump spells on it). Really, the only aggro deck that still sort of exists in Legacy is Merfolk, and it's really not any better than mediocre. True aggro has been fairly dead in Legacy for quite a while.
You make zombies and beat down with Ichorids. How is that not aggro?
Aggro is not swarming the board (though that can be), it's about being aggressive and killing your opponent with cheap spells/creatures. Otherwise Burn wouldn't be considered an aggro deck.
Burn also exists, though I didn't mention it. DnT also can do a very good aggro impression.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
|
|
Big Johnny.
In the analogy you should keep campaigning for a magical tennis stadium. You shouldn't tell the football fans "We want a tennis stadium so you can't have a football stadium". What you have been leaving out in the analogy is that there are no other football stadiums either. The Modern players like Modern. If it becomes Legacy-Lite, it will no longer be Modern and there won't be any format for the "football fans". So why should your lack of an "appropriately sized stadium" mean that none of the people who like "football" can have fun?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Fair. I do agree that Dredge is, at its heart, a combo deck. However, it plays out like an aggro deck a lot of the time.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
The entire deck revolves around a few select cards that it is digging into its library every turn to find, devotes its entire deck to abusing, and can't do anything without. It is not aggro anymore than Splinter Twin is aggro because you make Deceiver Exarchs and beat down with (infinite) Pestermites.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.