I don't want to be rude, and people say this before they are very rude, so I'll try not to be too harsh while at it.
We're all a bunch of dogs barking at cars and we're not barking at the same car or even on the same lane, specially right now.
We come from a lazy and overly conservative Pro Tour with a pseudo-meta generated by WotC finally banning the format's shadow ruler. Thanks go to Delver's utter ridiculousness for laying the spotlight on how OP Pod was. Now we have an unressolved meta ripe for innovation with Mardu and Sultai mirdange showing promise, more combos being found out by the day now that the multi-purpose industrial toolbox is gone and they can afford to be cute, plus the Burn/Affinity/Infect aggrocombo trifecta coverin each other's ass so that the "dumb non interactive aggro one trick pony" archetype actually contends and contends very seriously. This should gift us a lot of variety and innovation yet people insist on flocking to Junk variants and make it look like a problem just because it's popular, and then we're caught in the middle between people complaining that there's too much Junk and people complaining because Junk isn't unbeatable...
The first problem is that Junk is not Pod or even close, and a subset of people can't seem to accept this. Junk is a very resilent deck that can adapt to different metagames, but can't adapt to all metagames as seen on Da Rosa's whine about him being unable to sideboard against everything. Some people don't like that rogue decks actually have a very real chance of defeating Tier 1s in Modern, that there no longer is any deck with no weaknesses and that you need to sideboard broader rather than sharper. These people want Pod back and I think they should go play Standard if they want to auto-pilod Midrange Answers: The Deck. (Though to be fair to T2 players, that ***** just doens't happen, I don't know where these people who hate to lose so much they need an unbeatable deck come from)
Then we have a subset of people who can't accept the format so long as draw-go control is not Tier 1. Well this hurts me because I do love playing draw-go but that strategy just can't win when you have a gargantuan variety of questions, even if all your answers are top notch.
Draw-go Augustin IV, Wydwen and Clique are dead and have been dead for a while in Duel Commander. UWR Miracles is a couple good 3+cmc spells away from breaking, and there's no other true reactive-style control deck in Legacy. So then, what makes us think one could be made in Modern?
Draw-go is a T2 strategy because by the end of the season they have accumulated enough redundant removal, discard and counters to combat the average deck's ammount of threats. This can't be done in Modern where high-impact threats start turn 1, climax on turn 4, and even if disrupted most any combo/aggro deck can kill you in turn 5 still. Trying to run this strategy on such an enviroment is playing russian roulette, and we all know how that ends.
Reactive counter-based control would require a critical mass of very powerful counterspells to be printed in close succession, which would make T2 miserable. On the other hand, give Hatebears Mother of Runes (Which I don't advocate) and we have a deck that can lock you out of the game.
Control players will have to live with a different kind of control that achieves opponent neutralizing in ways other than counterspells and drawing more counterspells, if they want it to be represented at all.
And then we have a subset of people who like the format as it is, even with it's constant change and akwardness, because it lets them rotate between their decks as one gets better or worse and rewards hate-building, meta study and innovation.
In the end Modern is the akward middle child between big bro Legacy wanting it to be strong, versatile and reliable and lil bro Standard wanting it to be accessible, fair and simple. With the added strife of mommy WotC taking it's toys away because the ****er keeps shoving the little pieces up it's nose.
This is one of the best posts that I have seen on this forums and Im serious with that.
Well done.
I still think PV's post is better, especially when he responded to your callout about format ignorance.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post, moderns biggest problem is that people flock to one deck and make it look like said deck needs to have something banned. I really don't know how we go about fixing this problem though apart from chugging along wit our non-conforming decks and still placing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander: UBG Tasigur, the lab enabler UR Planeswalker Control UBRW Breya's personal box of combos BRW Vampire beats, by Dre 1 Karn, where all lands are command towers UBR Inalla's Venser lock UBRGW Atog Atog contraption tribal WUB Xur's second chance UGW Derivi, bird tribal R Brother's Yamazaki BRG Prosh, the scourge of multiplayer GW Capt. Sisay's Deck Dumping Service UB All Your Spells do Belong to Me UG Tapioca Pearl BG Meren's grinder
I don't want to be rude, and people say this before they are very rude, so I'll try not to be too harsh while at it.
We're all a bunch of dogs barking at cars and we're not barking at the same car or even on the same lane, specially right now.
We come from a lazy and overly conservative Pro Tour with a pseudo-meta generated by WotC finally banning the format's shadow ruler. Thanks go to Delver's utter ridiculousness for laying the spotlight on how OP Pod was. Now we have an unressolved meta ripe for innovation with Mardu and Sultai mirdange showing promise, more combos being found out by the day now that the multi-purpose industrial toolbox is gone and they can afford to be cute, plus the Burn/Affinity/Infect aggrocombo trifecta coverin each other's ass so that the "dumb non interactive aggro one trick pony" archetype actually contends and contends very seriously. This should gift us a lot of variety and innovation yet people insist on flocking to Junk variants and make it look like a problem just because it's popular, and then we're caught in the middle between people complaining that there's too much Junk and people complaining because Junk isn't unbeatable...
The first problem is that Junk is not Pod or even close, and a subset of people can't seem to accept this. Junk is a very resilent deck that can adapt to different metagames, but can't adapt to all metagames as seen on Da Rosa's whine about him being unable to sideboard against everything. Some people don't like that rogue decks actually have a very real chance of defeating Tier 1s in Modern, that there no longer is any deck with no weaknesses and that you need to sideboard broader rather than sharper. These people want Pod back and I think they should go play Standard if they want to auto-pilod Midrange Answers: The Deck. (Though to be fair to T2 players, that ***** just doens't happen, I don't know where these people who hate to lose so much they need an unbeatable deck come from)
Then we have a subset of people who can't accept the format so long as draw-go control is not Tier 1. Well this hurts me because I do love playing draw-go but that strategy just can't win when you have a gargantuan variety of questions, even if all your answers are top notch.
Draw-go Augustin IV, Wydwen and Clique are dead and have been dead for a while in Duel Commander. UWR Miracles is a couple good 3+cmc spells away from breaking, and there's no other true reactive-style control deck in Legacy. So then, what makes us think one could be made in Modern?
Draw-go is a T2 strategy because by the end of the season they have accumulated enough redundant removal, discard and counters to combat the average deck's ammount of threats. This can't be done in Modern where high-impact threats start turn 1, climax on turn 4, and even if disrupted most any combo/aggro deck can kill you in turn 5 still. Trying to run this strategy on such an enviroment is playing russian roulette, and we all know how that ends.
Reactive counter-based control would require a critical mass of very powerful counterspells to be printed in close succession, which would make T2 miserable. On the other hand, give Hatebears Mother of Runes (Which I don't advocate) and we have a deck that can lock you out of the game.
Control players will have to live with a different kind of control that achieves opponent neutralizing in ways other than counterspells and drawing more counterspells, if they want it to be represented at all.
And then we have a subset of people who like the format as it is, even with it's constant change and akwardness, because it lets them rotate between their decks as one gets better or worse and rewards hate-building, meta study and innovation.
In the end Modern is the akward middle child between big bro Legacy wanting it to be strong, versatile and reliable and lil bro Standard wanting it to be accessible, fair and simple. With the added strife of mommy WotC taking it's toys away because the ****er keeps shoving the little pieces up it's nose.
This is one of the best posts that I have seen on this forums and Im serious with that.
Well done.
I still think PV's post is better, especially when he responded to your callout about format ignorance.
Also, the fact that you think I don't understand anything about Modern is laughable. I've been playing Magic as a full time Job for 10 years; there are very few people in the world who understand more than me about any facet of Magic, and I highly doubt you're one of them.
I have a ton of respect for you as a player, it's just that I'd rather WoTC listen to people who are personally invested in the format, and I don't think that's you.
I don't want to be rude, and people say this before they are very rude, so I'll try not to be too harsh while at it.
We're all a bunch of dogs barking at cars and we're not barking at the same car or even on the same lane, specially right now.
We come from a lazy and overly conservative Pro Tour with a pseudo-meta generated by WotC finally banning the format's shadow ruler. Thanks go to Delver's utter ridiculousness for laying the spotlight on how OP Pod was. Now we have an unressolved meta ripe for innovation with Mardu and Sultai mirdange showing promise, more combos being found out by the day now that the multi-purpose industrial toolbox is gone and they can afford to be cute, plus the Burn/Affinity/Infect aggrocombo trifecta coverin each other's ass so that the "dumb non interactive aggro one trick pony" archetype actually contends and contends very seriously. This should gift us a lot of variety and innovation yet people insist on flocking to Junk variants and make it look like a problem just because it's popular, and then we're caught in the middle between people complaining that there's too much Junk and people complaining because Junk isn't unbeatable...
The first problem is that Junk is not Pod or even close, and a subset of people can't seem to accept this. Junk is a very resilent deck that can adapt to different metagames, but can't adapt to all metagames as seen on Da Rosa's whine about him being unable to sideboard against everything. Some people don't like that rogue decks actually have a very real chance of defeating Tier 1s in Modern, that there no longer is any deck with no weaknesses and that you need to sideboard broader rather than sharper. These people want Pod back and I think they should go play Standard if they want to auto-pilod Midrange Answers: The Deck. (Though to be fair to T2 players, that ***** just doens't happen, I don't know where these people who hate to lose so much they need an unbeatable deck come from)
Then we have a subset of people who can't accept the format so long as draw-go control is not Tier 1. Well this hurts me because I do love playing draw-go but that strategy just can't win when you have a gargantuan variety of questions, even if all your answers are top notch.
Draw-go Augustin IV, Wydwen and Clique are dead and have been dead for a while in Duel Commander. UWR Miracles is a couple good 3+cmc spells away from breaking, and there's no other true reactive-style control deck in Legacy. So then, what makes us think one could be made in Modern?
Draw-go is a T2 strategy because by the end of the season they have accumulated enough redundant removal, discard and counters to combat the average deck's ammount of threats. This can't be done in Modern where high-impact threats start turn 1, climax on turn 4, and even if disrupted most any combo/aggro deck can kill you in turn 5 still. Trying to run this strategy on such an enviroment is playing russian roulette, and we all know how that ends.
Reactive counter-based control would require a critical mass of very powerful counterspells to be printed in close succession, which would make T2 miserable. On the other hand, give Hatebears Mother of Runes (Which I don't advocate) and we have a deck that can lock you out of the game.
Control players will have to live with a different kind of control that achieves opponent neutralizing in ways other than counterspells and drawing more counterspells, if they want it to be represented at all.
And then we have a subset of people who like the format as it is, even with it's constant change and akwardness, because it lets them rotate between their decks as one gets better or worse and rewards hate-building, meta study and innovation.
In the end Modern is the akward middle child between big bro Legacy wanting it to be strong, versatile and reliable and lil bro Standard wanting it to be accessible, fair and simple. With the added strife of mommy WotC taking it's toys away because the ****er keeps shoving the little pieces up it's nose.
I don't want to be rude, and people say this before they are very rude, so I'll try not to be too harsh while at it.
We're all a bunch of dogs barking at cars and we're not barking at the same car or even on the same lane, specially right now.
We come from a lazy and overly conservative Pro Tour with a pseudo-meta generated by WotC finally banning the format's shadow ruler. Thanks go to Delver's utter ridiculousness for laying the spotlight on how OP Pod was. Now we have an unressolved meta ripe for innovation with Mardu and Sultai mirdange showing promise, more combos being found out by the day now that the multi-purpose industrial toolbox is gone and they can afford to be cute, plus the Burn/Affinity/Infect aggrocombo trifecta coverin each other's ass so that the "dumb non interactive aggro one trick pony" archetype actually contends and contends very seriously. This should gift us a lot of variety and innovation yet people insist on flocking to Junk variants and make it look like a problem just because it's popular, and then we're caught in the middle between people complaining that there's too much Junk and people complaining because Junk isn't unbeatable...
The first problem is that Junk is not Pod or even close, and a subset of people can't seem to accept this. Junk is a very resilent deck that can adapt to different metagames, but can't adapt to all metagames as seen on Da Rosa's whine about him being unable to sideboard against everything. Some people don't like that rogue decks actually have a very real chance of defeating Tier 1s in Modern, that there no longer is any deck with no weaknesses and that you need to sideboard broader rather than sharper. These people want Pod back and I think they should go play Standard if they want to auto-pilod Midrange Answers: The Deck. (Though to be fair to T2 players, that ***** just doens't happen, I don't know where these people who hate to lose so much they need an unbeatable deck come from)
Then we have a subset of people who can't accept the format so long as draw-go control is not Tier 1. Well this hurts me because I do love playing draw-go but that strategy just can't win when you have a gargantuan variety of questions, even if all your answers are top notch.
Draw-go Augustin IV, Wydwen and Clique are dead and have been dead for a while in Duel Commander. UWR Miracles is a couple good 3+cmc spells away from breaking, and there's no other true reactive-style control deck in Legacy. So then, what makes us think one could be made in Modern?
Draw-go is a T2 strategy because by the end of the season they have accumulated enough redundant removal, discard and counters to combat the average deck's ammount of threats. This can't be done in Modern where high-impact threats start turn 1, climax on turn 4, and even if disrupted most any combo/aggro deck can kill you in turn 5 still. Trying to run this strategy on such an enviroment is playing russian roulette, and we all know how that ends.
Reactive counter-based control would require a critical mass of very powerful counterspells to be printed in close succession, which would make T2 miserable. On the other hand, give Hatebears Mother of Runes (Which I don't advocate) and we have a deck that can lock you out of the game.
Control players will have to live with a different kind of control that achieves opponent neutralizing in ways other than counterspells and drawing more counterspells, if they want it to be represented at all.
And then we have a subset of people who like the format as it is, even with it's constant change and akwardness, because it lets them rotate between their decks as one gets better or worse and rewards hate-building, meta study and innovation.
In the end Modern is the akward middle child between big bro Legacy wanting it to be strong, versatile and reliable and lil bro Standard wanting it to be accessible, fair and simple. With the added strife of mommy WotC taking it's toys away because the ****er keeps shoving the little pieces up it's nose.
The stars have alined! Sirius_B and myself have the same thoughts and feelings about Modern.
We're all a bunch of dogs barking at cars and we're not barking at the same car or even on the same lane, specially right now.
If you are referring to the general challenge with trying to unify opinions, then I agree. When everyone all clamors for their own personal view, Wizards doesn't hear any individual suggestion. They just hear, as you say, a pack of barking dogs. "Huh, look at all those barking dogs!" they say. "They must want something!" Now, if we were all pointing at the same car/in the same lane and barking, Wizards could probably figure out that we had some consensus about what we are barking at and maybe would do something. That is, as I understand, the purpose of a poll such as this.
But if your comment is just a jab at the process of soliciting opinions period, then I disagree. There is a way to move from 5000 people voicing 20 opinions to 5000 people voicing 1-2 opinions, and this is the sort of survey (however limited) that can help get us there. With "more unbans" and "modern-specific feeder products" emerging as clear frontrunners, that gives both us and anyone reading this, as well as anyone reading anything produced by us, some direction.
We come from a lazy and overly conservative Pro Tour with a pseudo-meta generated by WotC finally banning the format's shadow ruler. Thanks go to Delver's utter ridiculousness for laying the spotlight on how OP Pod was. Now we have an unressolved meta ripe for innovation with Mardu and Sultai mirdange showing promise, more combos being found out by the day now that the multi-purpose industrial toolbox is gone and they can afford to be cute, plus the Burn/Affinity/Infect aggrocombo trifecta coverin each other's ass so that the "dumb non interactive aggro one trick pony" archetype actually contends and contends very seriously. This should gift us a lot of variety and innovation yet people insist on flocking to Junk variants and make it look like a problem just because it's popular, and then we're caught in the middle between people complaining that there's too much Junk and people complaining because Junk isn't unbeatable...
This is where your argument starts to get into trouble. No one cares about how theoretically ripe for innovation the format is. They care about how diverse its actual events are. There is this belief that just because a deck is super popular, that doesn't make it the best deck. In some respects, that belief is correct: A tier 1 monster is definitely in a position to be metagamed heavily against, and that can make it weak. But in many other respects, this belief is very misguided. If a deck consistently makes up some very large percent of the metagame, it doesn't really matter that other decks are rising to combat that deck, particularly if that deck's metagame percentage remains high. That is the situation we see today. It is also the situation we saw during the late 2012/early 2013 days of Jund, and the situation we saw again in the late 2013/early 2014 days of BGx DRS midrange. When a format revolves around a single deck, whether or not that deck is "beatable", it's a problem. When all innovation happens with sole respect to that deck (e.g. Abzan Liege), that's also a problem. That is the situation we have here. You see a metagame of Junk, an aggro trifecta, and combo decks. But a more critical look at that sees a metagame that is really just Junk and linear decks that can race/ignore Junk. That's not diversity or innovation. That's a problem.
Now, if your argument is actually "Wait and see until after GPV this weekend", then that's a different story. I actually agree with that argument, even if I believe that we can get a jump on GPV by starting to talk about it now; that event is unlikely to be much more diverse than PT FRF. But hey, maybe we do see a very diverse GPV which forces us to reconsider our discontent. Even so, I don't read your argument here as the "Wait and see" argument. I read this as the "there's nothing wrong" argument. There IS something wrong with the PT and there IS something wrong with a metagame that is just Junk and decks that race/ignore Junk. The question just becomes, is that "something" going to transfer outside of PT-land.
The first problem is that Junk is not Pod or even close, and a subset of people can't seem to accept this. Junk is a very resilent deck that can adapt to different metagames, but can't adapt to all metagames as seen on Da Rosa's whine about him being unable to sideboard against everything. Some people don't like that rogue decks actually have a very real chance of defeating Tier 1s in Modern, that there no longer is any deck with no weaknesses and that you need to sideboard broader rather than sharper. These people want Pod back and I think they should go play Standard if they want to auto-pilod Midrange Answers: The Deck. (Though to be fair to T2 players, that ***** just doens't happen, I don't know where these people who hate to lose so much they need an unbeatable deck come from)
Then we have a subset of people who can't accept the format so long as draw-go control is not Tier 1. Well this hurts me because I do love playing draw-go but that strategy just can't win when you have a gargantuan variety of questions, even if all your answers are top notch.
Draw-go Augustin IV, Wydwen and Clique are dead and have been dead for a while in Duel Commander. UWR Miracles is a couple good 3+cmc spells away from breaking, and there's no other true reactive-style control deck in Legacy. So then, what makes us think one could be made in Modern?
Draw-go is a T2 strategy because by the end of the season they have accumulated enough redundant removal, discard and counters to combat the average deck's ammount of threats. This can't be done in Modern where high-impact threats start turn 1, climax on turn 4, and even if disrupted most any combo/aggro deck can kill you in turn 5 still. Trying to run this strategy on such an enviroment is playing russian roulette, and we all know how that ends.
Reactive counter-based control would require a critical mass of very powerful counterspells to be printed in close succession, which would make T2 miserable. On the other hand, give Hatebears Mother of Runes (Which I don't advocate) and we have a deck that can lock you out of the game.
Control players will have to live with a different kind of control that achieves opponent neutralizing in ways other than counterspells and drawing more counterspells, if they want it to be represented at all.
And then we have a subset of people who like the format as it is, even with it's constant change and akwardness, because it lets them rotate between their decks as one gets better or worse and rewards hate-building, meta study and innovation.
The analysis runs into further difficulty in these paragraphs. You break down Modern into three categories of people. I assume this isn't an all-inclusive description of the three groups, but these are the three groups you are focusing on:
1. People who want a deck that can beat/favorably matchup against everything (i.e. those that think Junk is Pod or think Junk should be Pod)
2. People who demand draw-go strategies despite the fact that they might not be viable at all.
3. People who like Modern's variability because they want to rotate between decks.
I think we can all agree that those three groups of players exist. I also think we can all agree that these three groups of players have different degrees to which they are justified or not justified. For instance, those in group 3 seem pretty reasonable to me and I can't find much fault with them. Those in group 2 have a legitimate complaint but are also living in an antiquated metagame. Those in group 1 don't really deserve a deck that's 50/50 against a complex field, but maybe do deserve a deck that has SOME degree of game against all decks (such as a 45/55 deck). Unfortunately, these groupings do not include a lot of players. That's fine insofar as no one expects you to exhaustively list all groups of Modern players. But it's not fine in that your argument is based on three groups of players and should be based on more of them. Take, for example, the following:
4. People who want to be able to always play one archetype in Modern
5. People who want to be able to always play one color in Modern
6. People who want to be able to always play one deck in Modern
I'm NOT arguing that any one group is important than another. I am simply stating that these are all groups. It is impossible for either you, me, or anyone else to prove that one group should be the most important; my suspicion is that they are all about equally important, except perhaps for Group 1 in your post. But all of these groups exist regardless of their importance.
The problem with Modern, and with your analysis, is that both the format and your argument ignores groups 4, 5, and 6. This is particularly problematic in a format that is billed as a non-rotating "replacement" (of sorts; we don't need to get into that) to Legacy. And if that's what it is, and that is what it was sold as, then players need to be able to invest in a deck, color, or playstyle without fear of being noncompetitive, or without fear of a ban. Right now, neither of those are true. Many people are afraid that their tier 1 deck will eat a crippling banning. Many more people are dissatisfied because they can't take their preferred deck or archetype to a tournament that is so overwhemlingly defined by one deck. Those are the people who the format, and Wizards, are alienating, and they are at least as large/important as those in the other 3 groups.
Of course, some of you might read this and point out that groups 4, 5, and 6 have unreasonable expectations of the format. I encourage you to consider something. We turn back to the very first promise of a Modern format and how Wizards advertised it. As Tom LaPille said in his inaugural article on the topic, "As I said, many of you have called for a non-rotating format that doesn't have the card availability problems of Legacy. We propose Modern as that format." This is supposed to be a non-rotating format without Legacy card availability problems. He does not say "In this format you can only play certain strategies/colors/decks." He does not say "Invest at your own peril; bans are coming!". He just promised a format that would fix some problems with Legacy. Should there have been clearer communication about what Modern does and what it is about? Absolutely! I think most players, myself included, comb Wizards sites like Bible scholars looking for that one kernel of truth about Modern, and that is indicative of a larger problem with the Wizards communication strategy. But given the communication they gave, the players in groups 4, 5, and 6 are absolutely within reason to want what they want, certainly as much as those in any other grouping we can construct. A related counterargument is that Legacy isn't like this either, but that's also not quite true. Legacy has a much greater range of viable decks than Modern, and (most importantly) none of those decks are in danger of bans. The format is much more internally regulated than Modern, which inspires much more confidence in Legacy investments.
So in the end, the fundamental problem with Modern is as follows (again, GPV might undermine this assessment, but most pros and players don't think that is likely to happen):
1. Modern is supposed to be a non-rotating format like Legacy but without card availability issues.
2. Many players interpreted this to mean that they could invest in decks/colors/archetypes in Modern like they did in Legacy.
3. Due to bans and metagames, this is not the case; a tier 1 deck may be banned out of the blue and other decks/strategies just aren't remotely viable right now.
There are a few ways Wizards can fix this. If it turns out that the groups 4, 5, and 6 players have unreasonable expectations, then Wizards needs to make that clear. This returns to the point about better communication. But if Wizards believes those expectations are reasonable (which we have every reason to believe; AF has mentioned he wants multiple viable archetypes viable at tier 1), then they need to act to fulfill those expectations and not manage the format in such a way that frustrates/angers/disappoints people in those categories.
PV, Lax, and other authors are all articulating this sentiment in different ways. It's an underlying theme that many Modern players have, and it's important that Wizards knows about it. Is it common to all players? Absolutely not! There are many players who are happy with the format and may even be unhappy if it changed from its current state. But is it common to enough players that Wizards should look into it and address it in some way, either through action or intentional, well-communicated inaction? Definitely. The sheer volume of comments here, on reddit, and in the articles themselves attest to that point.
Now, in order to answer the question "How to fix Modern?", we'll need to calm the hell down and wait to see what is broken. Why are we assuming that 30% Junk meta is a fact? How can we look at the first big Modern tournament since bannings and assume it's broken? Some people are way overreacting here. Some are even calling for a Thoughtseize ban. Like, seriously? By taking a quick look at the last two SCG Modern IQ Top 8s i can see just a single Junk deck in 8th place last weekend. And the Indianapolis one didn't even had a Junk deck in the top 16 but had a UWR control in 3rd. How is Junk "unbeatable"? And how is this format broken? Can't we wait for at least this weekend's GP?
I would like to second Ktkenshinx's point about the importance of communication. If there is any one thing that dissatisfied Modern players should rally around (As Sirius_B suggested), it's for greater transparency in the decision-making process for the format. As many people have pointed out, bans hurt confidence in Modern as an "investment". If nothing else, at least some kind of unified statement of what Modern should be beyond "multiple Tier 1 decks" and "no Turn 3 combo kills". Even those statements are fuzzy- Affinity and Infect use synergy to regularly kill on turn 3, but those decks haven't received any bans since the format's inception.
Ideally, I would like a quarterly or semiannual "State of Modern" article from Wizards that outlines how Wizards is currently viewing the format.
With that said, I will mention one caveat- there is a good reason for a certain amount of opacity from Wizard's ban committee; we don't want a situation where top players are staying away from decks because Wizards is considering whether a card should be banned. We also don't want Wizards to stifle innovation by "solving" the format for us through these statements. What I mean by that is, for instance, if Wizards announces in their Modern mission statement that they never want a draw-go style deck to be Tier 1, then nobody is ever going to try to brew one up because they've been told from on high that that archetype doesn't fly in Modern.
So our "State of Modern" should probably include a few broad statements of intent (such as "We want Modern to consist primarily of proactive decks"), perhaps some sort of watch list for fearful prospective buyers (This would have definitely eased the pain of the Pod banning, for instance), and a quick overview of the format's health according to Wizard's standards, which we may not know line by line, but at least have a general sense of.
As a final point- if miracles were to happen and we ever were to have a unified voice over an issue, it should be for something broader, like more transparency or better communication, rather than over specific problems or cards. Statements such as "I want X card printed" or "I want X card unbanned" can unfortunately be dismissed as people asking for more toys, regardless of how reasonable and well thought-out the arguments are. Saying "I would like a better idea about what this format is about before I decide to play it" just sounds more, for lack of a better word, mature. Much harder to dismiss that sort of argument as whining.
I don't want to be rude, and people say this before they are very rude, so I'll try not to be too harsh while at it.
We're all a bunch of dogs barking at cars and we're not barking at the same car or even on the same lane, specially right now.
We come from a lazy and overly conservative Pro Tour with a pseudo-meta generated by WotC finally banning the format's shadow ruler. Thanks go to Delver's utter ridiculousness for laying the spotlight on how OP Pod was. Now we have an unressolved meta ripe for innovation with Mardu and Sultai mirdange showing promise, more combos being found out by the day now that the multi-purpose industrial toolbox is gone and they can afford to be cute, plus the Burn/Affinity/Infect aggrocombo trifecta coverin each other's ass so that the "dumb non interactive aggro one trick pony" archetype actually contends and contends very seriously. This should gift us a lot of variety and innovation yet people insist on flocking to Junk variants and make it look like a problem just because it's popular, and then we're caught in the middle between people complaining that there's too much Junk and people complaining because Junk isn't unbeatable...
The first problem is that Junk is not Pod or even close, and a subset of people can't seem to accept this. Junk is a very resilent deck that can adapt to different metagames, but can't adapt to all metagames as seen on Da Rosa's whine about him being unable to sideboard against everything. Some people don't like that rogue decks actually have a very real chance of defeating Tier 1s in Modern, that there no longer is any deck with no weaknesses and that you need to sideboard broader rather than sharper. These people want Pod back and I think they should go play Standard if they want to auto-pilod Midrange Answers: The Deck. (Though to be fair to T2 players, that ***** just doens't happen, I don't know where these people who hate to lose so much they need an unbeatable deck come from)
Then we have a subset of people who can't accept the format so long as draw-go control is not Tier 1. Well this hurts me because I do love playing draw-go but that strategy just can't win when you have a gargantuan variety of questions, even if all your answers are top notch.
Draw-go Augustin IV, Wydwen and Clique are dead and have been dead for a while in Duel Commander. UWR Miracles is a couple good 3+cmc spells away from breaking, and there's no other true reactive-style control deck in Legacy. So then, what makes us think one could be made in Modern?
Draw-go is a T2 strategy because by the end of the season they have accumulated enough redundant removal, discard and counters to combat the average deck's ammount of threats. This can't be done in Modern where high-impact threats start turn 1, climax on turn 4, and even if disrupted most any combo/aggro deck can kill you in turn 5 still. Trying to run this strategy on such an enviroment is playing russian roulette, and we all know how that ends.
Reactive counter-based control would require a critical mass of very powerful counterspells to be printed in close succession, which would make T2 miserable. On the other hand, give Hatebears Mother of Runes (Which I don't advocate) and we have a deck that can lock you out of the game.
Control players will have to live with a different kind of control that achieves opponent neutralizing in ways other than counterspells and drawing more counterspells, if they want it to be represented at all.
And then we have a subset of people who like the format as it is, even with it's constant change and akwardness, because it lets them rotate between their decks as one gets better or worse and rewards hate-building, meta study and innovation.
In the end Modern is the akward middle child between big bro Legacy wanting it to be strong, versatile and reliable and lil bro Standard wanting it to be accessible, fair and simple. With the added strife of mommy WotC taking it's toys away because the ****er keeps shoving the little pieces up it's nose.
This is one of the best posts that I have seen on this forums and Im serious with that.
Well done.
I still think PV's post is better, especially when he responded to your callout about format ignorance.
Also, the fact that you think I don't understand anything about Modern is laughable. I've been playing Magic as a full time Job for 10 years; there are very few people in the world who understand more than me about any facet of Magic, and I highly doubt you're one of them.
I have a ton of respect for you as a player, it's just that I'd rather WoTC listen to people who are personally invested in the format, and I don't think that's you.
All that needs to be said.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format, also, what about having AV around would kill what you like about Modern? That's right, nothing.
I don't want to be rude, and people say this before they are very rude, so I'll try not to be too harsh while at it.
We're all a bunch of dogs barking at cars and we're not barking at the same car or even on the same lane, specially right now.
We come from a lazy and overly conservative Pro Tour with a pseudo-meta generated by WotC finally banning the format's shadow ruler. Thanks go to Delver's utter ridiculousness for laying the spotlight on how OP Pod was. Now we have an unressolved meta ripe for innovation with Mardu and Sultai mirdange showing promise, more combos being found out by the day now that the multi-purpose industrial toolbox is gone and they can afford to be cute, plus the Burn/Affinity/Infect aggrocombo trifecta coverin each other's ass so that the "dumb non interactive aggro one trick pony" archetype actually contends and contends very seriously. This should gift us a lot of variety and innovation yet people insist on flocking to Junk variants and make it look like a problem just because it's popular, and then we're caught in the middle between people complaining that there's too much Junk and people complaining because Junk isn't unbeatable...
The first problem is that Junk is not Pod or even close, and a subset of people can't seem to accept this. Junk is a very resilent deck that can adapt to different metagames, but can't adapt to all metagames as seen on Da Rosa's whine about him being unable to sideboard against everything. Some people don't like that rogue decks actually have a very real chance of defeating Tier 1s in Modern, that there no longer is any deck with no weaknesses and that you need to sideboard broader rather than sharper. These people want Pod back and I think they should go play Standard if they want to auto-pilod Midrange Answers: The Deck. (Though to be fair to T2 players, that ***** just doens't happen, I don't know where these people who hate to lose so much they need an unbeatable deck come from)
Then we have a subset of people who can't accept the format so long as draw-go control is not Tier 1. Well this hurts me because I do love playing draw-go but that strategy just can't win when you have a gargantuan variety of questions, even if all your answers are top notch.
Draw-go Augustin IV, Wydwen and Clique are dead and have been dead for a while in Duel Commander. UWR Miracles is a couple good 3+cmc spells away from breaking, and there's no other true reactive-style control deck in Legacy. So then, what makes us think one could be made in Modern?
Draw-go is a T2 strategy because by the end of the season they have accumulated enough redundant removal, discard and counters to combat the average deck's ammount of threats. This can't be done in Modern where high-impact threats start turn 1, climax on turn 4, and even if disrupted most any combo/aggro deck can kill you in turn 5 still. Trying to run this strategy on such an enviroment is playing russian roulette, and we all know how that ends.
Reactive counter-based control would require a critical mass of very powerful counterspells to be printed in close succession, which would make T2 miserable. On the other hand, give Hatebears Mother of Runes (Which I don't advocate) and we have a deck that can lock you out of the game.
Control players will have to live with a different kind of control that achieves opponent neutralizing in ways other than counterspells and drawing more counterspells, if they want it to be represented at all.
And then we have a subset of people who like the format as it is, even with it's constant change and akwardness, because it lets them rotate between their decks as one gets better or worse and rewards hate-building, meta study and innovation.
In the end Modern is the akward middle child between big bro Legacy wanting it to be strong, versatile and reliable and lil bro Standard wanting it to be accessible, fair and simple. With the added strife of mommy WotC taking it's toys away because the ****er keeps shoving the little pieces up it's nose.
This is one of the best posts that I have seen on this forums and Im serious with that.
Well done.
I still think PV's post is better, especially when he responded to your callout about format ignorance.
Also, the fact that you think I don't understand anything about Modern is laughable. I've been playing Magic as a full time Job for 10 years; there are very few people in the world who understand more than me about any facet of Magic, and I highly doubt you're one of them.
I have a ton of respect for you as a player, it's just that I'd rather WoTC listen to people who are personally invested in the format, and I don't think that's you.
All that needs to be said.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format, also, what about having AV around would kill what you like about Modern? That's right, nothing.
Who said that I have anything against AV?
Maybe you should actually watch who you are talking to and scroll down on my signature.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format,
I dont buy it. He probably plays Modern less then most of the people on these boards. The fact he 'has' to play a few times a year does not make him more invested then the grinder or local player playing much more then he is.
also, what about having AV around would kill what you like about Modern?
Without knowing what it would do to the format, I can not say either way. I would rather not start playing the unban roulette game hoping they dont unban the wrong card and screw the format up. Its safer and easier to leave AV on the list and move on.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format,
I dont buy it. He probably plays Modern less then most of the people on these boards. The fact he 'has' to play a few times a year does not make him more invested then the grinder or local player playing much more then he is.
Depends what you consider invested. Others may play it more, but if its his lively hood and his main source of income, whether he plays more or less is moot, its actually much more important to know the format and be able to do well to him than anyone that plays it for fun every week.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format,
I dont buy it. He probably plays Modern less then most of the people on these boards. The fact he 'has' to play a few times a year does not make him more invested then the grinder or local player playing much more then he is.
Depends what you consider invested. Others may play it more, but if its his lively hood and his main source of income, whether he plays more or less is moot, its actually much more important to know the format and be able to do well to him than anyone that plays it for fun every week.
Well, when you get handed any deck you want to play from your sponsor and the number of events is tiny compared to the other formats you have to play, like I said, I dont buy it.
Also there are some pretty high stake Modern events around me. Saying some are playing for 'fun', is kind of a slap in the face to those that actually have to buy their decks and pay their way into events even if the prize is less then the pros get for being sponsored.
Well, when you get handed any deck you want to play from your sponsor and the number of events is tiny compared to the other formats you have to play, like I said, I dont buy it.
Also there are some pretty high stake Modern events around me. Saying some are playing for 'fun', is kind of a slap in the face to those that actually have to buy their decks and pay their way into events even if the prize is less then the pros get for being sponsored.
Its not a slap in the face it all. Obviously those people had to buy those decks (like myself, who owns and lends out modern decks for others to play it GP's across NA), and FNM is your practice for large events like PTQ's etc. Where do you think most pros began? Same place as you and I. You're ignoring the fact that the pros make their life on the events, so their stakes are higher than your "high stakes" modern events in your area. Do people that go to your events do solely that as a job? Probably not. So once again, they are most invested than you and I, and that's a fact that cannot be argued unless your job is also magic.
As to the handing decks, that I cannot comment on because I don't know how it works. Not all pro's get handed decks. I believe I've seen LSV on a few occasions on stream asking other friends if they have cards to borrow, and that they will buy missing pieces etc. Maybe some do get the decks handed to them, so in that case thats fair in saying they didn't have to buy it so that didn't cost them money, your right on that point. But if they don't place well with a free deck conistantly and thats their job, then they also cannot turn around and sell those cards to get out of magic or pay for every day stuff.
I do know a lot of pro like Kibler that have other jobs as well, which is great, and to those this does not apply obviously.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format,
I dont buy it. He probably plays Modern less then most of the people on these boards. The fact he 'has' to play a few times a year does not make him more invested then the grinder or local player playing much more then he is.
Depends what you consider invested. Others may play it more, but if its his lively hood and his main source of income, whether he plays more or less is moot, its actually much more important to know the format and be able to do well to him than anyone that plays it for fun every week.
Well, when you get handed any deck you want to play from your sponsor and the number of events is tiny compared to the other formats you have to play, like I said, I dont buy it.
Also there are some pretty high stake Modern events around me. Saying some are playing for 'fun', is kind of a slap in the face to those that actually have to buy their decks and pay their way into events even if the prize is less then the pros get for being sponsored.
You know what is really high stakes? Being on the PT or doing magic for a living. Getting loaned a deck if anything means you have more clarity on a competitive event as you are really tied to how good a format is vs. worried about what your cards are worth on the secondary market.
@Gal: And who I'm talking to? The person that likes to call some one out and subsequently not reply when they're called back out is what it seems.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format,
I dont buy it. He probably plays Modern less then most of the people on these boards. The fact he 'has' to play a few times a year does not make him more invested then the grinder or local player playing much more then he is.
Depends what you consider invested. Others may play it more, but if its his lively hood and his main source of income, whether he plays more or less is moot, its actually much more important to know the format and be able to do well to him than anyone that plays it for fun every week.
Well, when you get handed any deck you want to play from your sponsor and the number of events is tiny compared to the other formats you have to play, like I said, I dont buy it.
Also there are some pretty high stake Modern events around me. Saying some are playing for 'fun', is kind of a slap in the face to those that actually have to buy their decks and pay their way into events even if the prize is less then the pros get for being sponsored.
I really doubt that pros are just handed a deck by their sponsor, in fact it would be incredibly surprising. Pros are pros because often they specialize in a deck, which is easily seen when you see them playing in semi-stable formats. That deck isn't simply the most popular one.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
The only option that I really like is introducing a Modern legal supplemental set. More bans are not the answer. The format is already angry, and just banning your way through tier 1 decks is a surefire way to murder the format. I do like the idea of unbans, but I feel that extensive testing has to be done to determine whether a card is safe for the format or not. I feel like we clamor for unbans (unban Bloodbraid Elf, unban AV, etc) without knowing what they'll do to the format.
Now, am I saying that we shouldn't ask for unbans? No, no I'm not. I'm just not comfortable throwing my vote behind an action that might lead to some potentially awful consequences. This opinion will likely change as more testing with certain cards gets done, but until then I'm not going to vote for that as an option.
I also don't like going back to 7th Edition. It introduces a host of problem cards and will force Wizards to extend the banlist even further before it becomes legal (or force them to ban a lot of stuff after the *****storm arises when everyone starts playing broken cards).
I feel like Standard's power level can be raised in cycles, such as INN-RTR and cards from KTK. Consistently raising the powerlevel just forces them into an upward spiral (which they were kind of already in until Theros rolled around, and people complained about it the entire time).
Overall, a supplemental set is my choice. It
a. Introduces cards that can't see play in Standard that would probably be okay in Modern (things like Counterspell).
b. Forces Wizards to test with the cards which makes them playtest for Modern. In my opinion, that's the largest problem with Modern atm: Wizards keeps a tight reign on the format, but never tests for it. This means that potentially safe unbans get overlooked and potential problem cards get introduced into Standard. Testing solves both of those problems (not completely, of course. There's always cards that R&D will miss).
With "more unbans" and "modern-specific feeder products" emerging as clear frontrunners, that gives both us and anyone reading this, as well as anyone reading anything produced by us, some direction.
That's the ones I voted for, for the record.
And yes, shamefuly 4 and 5 are much less likely to receive support than 1 (by accident) and 3. Archetypes and colors evolve and change, are hated out of the meta and come back in a cycle of design. As an example of this, Legacy Burn went to ***** between the printing of Leyline of Sanctity/Batterskull and the printing of Eidolon of the Great Revel. Some players would have thrown a temper tantrum and left Legacy, some would stick to the deck either as a challenge or a side-deck and by the time EotGR and then Monastery Swiftspear came along, had all the meta experience to ace event after event because people forgot how to play against Burn, but passionate Burn players didn't forget how to play against the meta.
I believe the later is the people who WotC need to speak to, let them know "Ok, your deck got hated out but the nature of design dictates it will receive powerful cards in the future, don't throw the baby with the bathwater and be ready for your favorite archetype/color to make a comeback", or "This strategy will not be supported in the near future because it conflicts with the direction we want the game to move towards" as they sorta did with Draw-go telling us powerful counterspells and land destruction went out for cigarrettes.
White will get powerful cards, red may get powerful cards of the non-burn variety, blue will keep on eating everyone's pie and eventually have very powerful cards that aren't banned because they're supporting aggro or midrange rather than combo. So long as they don't keep giving BG all the tools (Though I can't help but feel this is some sort of karmic justice for all the years of green being absolutely unplayable and black getting punished with 12 years of uselessness after Black Summer), we will eventually have playable decks in all colors as it happened to Legacy. Let's not try to rewrite history and pretend there were green or white decks when Legacy started or that they didn't suffer their own post-Pod depression after the banning of Survival decks.
No. 6 is just ****ed tho, it's the people who want Pod unbanned so they don't have to play anything else ever, as "being able to always play one deck in Modern" implies the deck being always good, and I assume not the kind of "always good" that Affinity tags along with but the "I can be sure to top 8 with this" that Pod used to tag along with.
I really doubt that pros are just handed a deck by their sponsor, in fact it would be incredibly surprising. Pros are pros because often they specialize in a deck, which is easily seen when you see them playing in semi-stable formats. That deck isn't simply the most popular one.
Man you are out of touch. Not only do they get there decks handed to them, they can ask for cards to change up the deck and get entry fees paid for by the sponsor. Its actually cheap for the advertisement those sponsors get.
Quote from Godec »
You know what is really high stakes? Being on the PT or doing magic for a living. Getting loaned a deck if anything means you have more clarity on a competitive event as you are really tied to how good a format is vs. worried about what your cards are worth on the secondary market.
Like I said, how many Modern events do they play? Its not as big a deal as you want to make it. If a couple events are going to make you or break you, maybe you are not as good as you think you are.
Oh, and its a collectors game also, if you want to play a game where the pieces are worthless, go play chess.
Well, when you get handed any deck you want to play from your sponsor and the number of events is tiny compared to the other formats you have to play, like I said, I dont buy it.
Also there are some pretty high stake Modern events around me. Saying some are playing for 'fun', is kind of a slap in the face to those that actually have to buy their decks and pay their way into events even if the prize is less then the pros get for being sponsored.
Its not a slap in the face it all. Obviously those people had to buy those decks (like myself, who owns and lends out modern decks for others to play it GP's across NA), and FNM is your practice for large events like PTQ's etc. Where do you think most pros began? Same place as you and I. You're ignoring the fact that the pros make their life on the events, so their stakes are higher than your "high stakes" modern events in your area. Do people that go to your events do solely that as a job? Probably not. So once again, they are most invested than you and I, and that's a fact that cannot be argued unless your job is also magic.
As to the handing decks, that I cannot comment on because I don't know how it works. Not all pro's get handed decks. I believe I've seen LSV on a few occasions on stream asking other friends if they have cards to borrow, and that they will buy missing pieces etc. Maybe some do get the decks handed to them, so in that case thats fair in saying they didn't have to buy it so that didn't cost them money, your right on that point. But if they don't place well with a free deck conistantly and thats their job, then they also cannot turn around and sell those cards to get out of magic or pay for every day stuff.
I do know a lot of pro like Kibler that have other jobs as well, which is great, and to those this does not apply obviously.
For the record I was not talking about FNMs, but yes everyone starts some where, and the majority wont get past SCG 5Ks maybe cashing out a couple times a year if that. I am willing to bet most the pros make more money writing then they do actually playing the game. There are only so many prize spots and very few prize every event.
I really doubt that pros are just handed a deck by their sponsor, in fact it would be incredibly surprising. Pros are pros because often they specialize in a deck, which is easily seen when you see them playing in semi-stable formats. That deck isn't simply the most popular one.
Man you are out of touch. Not only do they get there decks handed to them, they can ask for cards to change up the deck and get entry fees paid for by the sponsor. Its actually cheap for the advertisement those sponsors get.
Quote from Godec »
You know what is really high stakes? Being on the PT or doing magic for a living. Getting loaned a deck if anything means you have more clarity on a competitive event as you are really tied to how good a format is vs. worried about what your cards are worth on the secondary market.
Like I said, how many Modern events do they play? Its not as big a deal as you want to make it. If a couple events are going to make you or break you, maybe you are not as good as you think you are.
Oh, and its a collectors game also, if you want to play a game where the pieces are worthless, go play chess.
I doubt unbanning a couple cards are going to make my cards worthless, but considering that facts are your nemesis while hyperbole your frequent friend I am not surprised. I'm pretty sure you've only been happy with Modern as long as BGx has been the top dog so of course you don't think it needs fixing, the rest of us are disinclined to think it should be the only interactive deck that is worth taking to a GP or Q'ing with it.
I really doubt that pros are just handed a deck by their sponsor, in fact it would be incredibly surprising. Pros are pros because often they specialize in a deck, which is easily seen when you see them playing in semi-stable formats. That deck isn't simply the most popular one.
Man you are out of touch. Not only do they get there decks handed to them, they can ask for cards to change up the deck and get entry fees paid for by the sponsor. Its actually cheap for the advertisement those sponsors get.
Quote from Godec »
You know what is really high stakes? Being on the PT or doing magic for a living. Getting loaned a deck if anything means you have more clarity on a competitive event as you are really tied to how good a format is vs. worried about what your cards are worth on the secondary market.
Like I said, how many Modern events do they play? Its not as big a deal as you want to make it. If a couple events are going to make you or break you, maybe you are not as good as you think you are.
Oh, and its a collectors game also, if you want to play a game where the pieces are worthless, go play chess.
I doubt unbanning a couple cards are going to make my cards worthless, but considering that facts are your nemesis while hyperbole your frequent friend I am not surprised. I'm pretty sure you've only been happy with Modern as long as BGx has been the top dog so of course you don't think it needs fixing, the rest of us are disinclined to think it should be the only interactive deck that is worth taking to a GP or Q'ing with it.
How little you know. I am not playing Junk, dont really care about the deck. All I have been trying ot get across is this witch hunt on Junk is all off of one PT. What happened to getting data?
You have no idea what unbanning those couple cards will do to the format. As I have said, it is easier and safer to ban then unban. Especially if they are not going to do any testing.
For the record my comment of "fun" was directly followed by every week. What takes place every week? FNM's, not major events in the same place, travel would have to be involved for every week. You took the "fun" concept and through it onto major tournaments, which I never stated. Pros travel all the time for big events, or practice on mtgo or with others quite often for many different formats from week to week, since pro tour events change. Not all pro's write, so I don't see how that matters. If it does matter, they wouldn't be writing if they weren't pros now would they?
It seems you just want to hate on PV or pros for no valid reason. They have thier views on it as do "casuals" and other people. They are just as invested as you and I, they play the game, and can have a voice if they so choose, if you can't see that, then thats on you, no sense arguing that any further.
I really like modern as it is right now the only things that would make it more fun for me would be:
1. Unban Bloodbraid Elf now that siege rhino is a thing there needs to be a reason to play Jund and not just Junk
2. Unban Stoneforge Mystic I really like playing Stoneblade also Esper Faeries anyone?
3. Ban Splinter Twin the deck is too good at playing fair and comboing it has way too much utility, if we had better disruption/counter introduced it would be fine though.
4. Introduce Mother of Runes into modern to enable a strong Death and Taxes style deck, could be too good with mystic though
5. Ban Become Immense, but print a strictly better giant growth (i.e. +3/+3 and trample/uncounterable/[Hexproof if this was the first spell you cast this turn].)
6. Reprint the hell out of any card that goes over $60 on the secondary market
I still think PV's post is better, especially when he responded to your callout about format ignorance.
UBG Tasigur, the lab enabler UR Planeswalker Control
UBRW Breya's personal box of combos BRW Vampire beats, by Dre
1 Karn, where all lands are command towers UBR Inalla's Venser lock
UBRGW Atog Atog contraption tribal WUB Xur's second chance
UGW Derivi, bird tribal R Brother's Yamazaki
BRG Prosh, the scourge of multiplayer GW Capt. Sisay's Deck Dumping Service
UB All Your Spells do Belong to Me UG Tapioca Pearl
BG Meren's grinder
All that needs to be said.
Quoting everything, great post
The stars have alined! Sirius_B and myself have the same thoughts and feelings about Modern.
Well said!
If you are referring to the general challenge with trying to unify opinions, then I agree. When everyone all clamors for their own personal view, Wizards doesn't hear any individual suggestion. They just hear, as you say, a pack of barking dogs. "Huh, look at all those barking dogs!" they say. "They must want something!" Now, if we were all pointing at the same car/in the same lane and barking, Wizards could probably figure out that we had some consensus about what we are barking at and maybe would do something. That is, as I understand, the purpose of a poll such as this.
But if your comment is just a jab at the process of soliciting opinions period, then I disagree. There is a way to move from 5000 people voicing 20 opinions to 5000 people voicing 1-2 opinions, and this is the sort of survey (however limited) that can help get us there. With "more unbans" and "modern-specific feeder products" emerging as clear frontrunners, that gives both us and anyone reading this, as well as anyone reading anything produced by us, some direction.
This is where your argument starts to get into trouble. No one cares about how theoretically ripe for innovation the format is. They care about how diverse its actual events are. There is this belief that just because a deck is super popular, that doesn't make it the best deck. In some respects, that belief is correct: A tier 1 monster is definitely in a position to be metagamed heavily against, and that can make it weak. But in many other respects, this belief is very misguided. If a deck consistently makes up some very large percent of the metagame, it doesn't really matter that other decks are rising to combat that deck, particularly if that deck's metagame percentage remains high. That is the situation we see today. It is also the situation we saw during the late 2012/early 2013 days of Jund, and the situation we saw again in the late 2013/early 2014 days of BGx DRS midrange. When a format revolves around a single deck, whether or not that deck is "beatable", it's a problem. When all innovation happens with sole respect to that deck (e.g. Abzan Liege), that's also a problem. That is the situation we have here. You see a metagame of Junk, an aggro trifecta, and combo decks. But a more critical look at that sees a metagame that is really just Junk and linear decks that can race/ignore Junk. That's not diversity or innovation. That's a problem.
Now, if your argument is actually "Wait and see until after GPV this weekend", then that's a different story. I actually agree with that argument, even if I believe that we can get a jump on GPV by starting to talk about it now; that event is unlikely to be much more diverse than PT FRF. But hey, maybe we do see a very diverse GPV which forces us to reconsider our discontent. Even so, I don't read your argument here as the "Wait and see" argument. I read this as the "there's nothing wrong" argument. There IS something wrong with the PT and there IS something wrong with a metagame that is just Junk and decks that race/ignore Junk. The question just becomes, is that "something" going to transfer outside of PT-land.
The analysis runs into further difficulty in these paragraphs. You break down Modern into three categories of people. I assume this isn't an all-inclusive description of the three groups, but these are the three groups you are focusing on:
1. People who want a deck that can beat/favorably matchup against everything (i.e. those that think Junk is Pod or think Junk should be Pod)
2. People who demand draw-go strategies despite the fact that they might not be viable at all.
3. People who like Modern's variability because they want to rotate between decks.
I think we can all agree that those three groups of players exist. I also think we can all agree that these three groups of players have different degrees to which they are justified or not justified. For instance, those in group 3 seem pretty reasonable to me and I can't find much fault with them. Those in group 2 have a legitimate complaint but are also living in an antiquated metagame. Those in group 1 don't really deserve a deck that's 50/50 against a complex field, but maybe do deserve a deck that has SOME degree of game against all decks (such as a 45/55 deck). Unfortunately, these groupings do not include a lot of players. That's fine insofar as no one expects you to exhaustively list all groups of Modern players. But it's not fine in that your argument is based on three groups of players and should be based on more of them. Take, for example, the following:
4. People who want to be able to always play one archetype in Modern
5. People who want to be able to always play one color in Modern
6. People who want to be able to always play one deck in Modern
I'm NOT arguing that any one group is important than another. I am simply stating that these are all groups. It is impossible for either you, me, or anyone else to prove that one group should be the most important; my suspicion is that they are all about equally important, except perhaps for Group 1 in your post. But all of these groups exist regardless of their importance.
The problem with Modern, and with your analysis, is that both the format and your argument ignores groups 4, 5, and 6. This is particularly problematic in a format that is billed as a non-rotating "replacement" (of sorts; we don't need to get into that) to Legacy. And if that's what it is, and that is what it was sold as, then players need to be able to invest in a deck, color, or playstyle without fear of being noncompetitive, or without fear of a ban. Right now, neither of those are true. Many people are afraid that their tier 1 deck will eat a crippling banning. Many more people are dissatisfied because they can't take their preferred deck or archetype to a tournament that is so overwhemlingly defined by one deck. Those are the people who the format, and Wizards, are alienating, and they are at least as large/important as those in the other 3 groups.
Of course, some of you might read this and point out that groups 4, 5, and 6 have unreasonable expectations of the format. I encourage you to consider something. We turn back to the very first promise of a Modern format and how Wizards advertised it. As Tom LaPille said in his inaugural article on the topic, "As I said, many of you have called for a non-rotating format that doesn't have the card availability problems of Legacy. We propose Modern as that format." This is supposed to be a non-rotating format without Legacy card availability problems. He does not say "In this format you can only play certain strategies/colors/decks." He does not say "Invest at your own peril; bans are coming!". He just promised a format that would fix some problems with Legacy. Should there have been clearer communication about what Modern does and what it is about? Absolutely! I think most players, myself included, comb Wizards sites like Bible scholars looking for that one kernel of truth about Modern, and that is indicative of a larger problem with the Wizards communication strategy. But given the communication they gave, the players in groups 4, 5, and 6 are absolutely within reason to want what they want, certainly as much as those in any other grouping we can construct. A related counterargument is that Legacy isn't like this either, but that's also not quite true. Legacy has a much greater range of viable decks than Modern, and (most importantly) none of those decks are in danger of bans. The format is much more internally regulated than Modern, which inspires much more confidence in Legacy investments.
So in the end, the fundamental problem with Modern is as follows (again, GPV might undermine this assessment, but most pros and players don't think that is likely to happen):
1. Modern is supposed to be a non-rotating format like Legacy but without card availability issues.
2. Many players interpreted this to mean that they could invest in decks/colors/archetypes in Modern like they did in Legacy.
3. Due to bans and metagames, this is not the case; a tier 1 deck may be banned out of the blue and other decks/strategies just aren't remotely viable right now.
There are a few ways Wizards can fix this. If it turns out that the groups 4, 5, and 6 players have unreasonable expectations, then Wizards needs to make that clear. This returns to the point about better communication. But if Wizards believes those expectations are reasonable (which we have every reason to believe; AF has mentioned he wants multiple viable archetypes viable at tier 1), then they need to act to fulfill those expectations and not manage the format in such a way that frustrates/angers/disappoints people in those categories.
PV, Lax, and other authors are all articulating this sentiment in different ways. It's an underlying theme that many Modern players have, and it's important that Wizards knows about it. Is it common to all players? Absolutely not! There are many players who are happy with the format and may even be unhappy if it changed from its current state. But is it common to enough players that Wizards should look into it and address it in some way, either through action or intentional, well-communicated inaction? Definitely. The sheer volume of comments here, on reddit, and in the articles themselves attest to that point.
Now, in order to answer the question "How to fix Modern?", we'll need to calm the hell down and wait to see what is broken. Why are we assuming that 30% Junk meta is a fact? How can we look at the first big Modern tournament since bannings and assume it's broken? Some people are way overreacting here. Some are even calling for a Thoughtseize ban. Like, seriously? By taking a quick look at the last two SCG Modern IQ Top 8s i can see just a single Junk deck in 8th place last weekend. And the Indianapolis one didn't even had a Junk deck in the top 16 but had a UWR control in 3rd. How is Junk "unbeatable"? And how is this format broken? Can't we wait for at least this weekend's GP?
Ideally, I would like a quarterly or semiannual "State of Modern" article from Wizards that outlines how Wizards is currently viewing the format.
With that said, I will mention one caveat- there is a good reason for a certain amount of opacity from Wizard's ban committee; we don't want a situation where top players are staying away from decks because Wizards is considering whether a card should be banned. We also don't want Wizards to stifle innovation by "solving" the format for us through these statements. What I mean by that is, for instance, if Wizards announces in their Modern mission statement that they never want a draw-go style deck to be Tier 1, then nobody is ever going to try to brew one up because they've been told from on high that that archetype doesn't fly in Modern.
So our "State of Modern" should probably include a few broad statements of intent (such as "We want Modern to consist primarily of proactive decks"), perhaps some sort of watch list for fearful prospective buyers (This would have definitely eased the pain of the Pod banning, for instance), and a quick overview of the format's health according to Wizard's standards, which we may not know line by line, but at least have a general sense of.
As a final point- if miracles were to happen and we ever were to have a unified voice over an issue, it should be for something broader, like more transparency or better communication, rather than over specific problems or cards. Statements such as "I want X card printed" or "I want X card unbanned" can unfortunately be dismissed as people asking for more toys, regardless of how reasonable and well thought-out the arguments are. Saying "I would like a better idea about what this format is about before I decide to play it" just sounds more, for lack of a better word, mature. Much harder to dismiss that sort of argument as whining.
Except that he's actually come here and explained Pros have a much bigger stake in a format, also, what about having AV around would kill what you like about Modern? That's right, nothing.
Who said that I have anything against AV?
Maybe you should actually watch who you are talking to and scroll down on my signature.
I dont buy it. He probably plays Modern less then most of the people on these boards. The fact he 'has' to play a few times a year does not make him more invested then the grinder or local player playing much more then he is.
Without knowing what it would do to the format, I can not say either way. I would rather not start playing the unban roulette game hoping they dont unban the wrong card and screw the format up. Its safer and easier to leave AV on the list and move on.
Depends what you consider invested. Others may play it more, but if its his lively hood and his main source of income, whether he plays more or less is moot, its actually much more important to know the format and be able to do well to him than anyone that plays it for fun every week.
Grand Arbiter
Omnath
Skittles
Well, when you get handed any deck you want to play from your sponsor and the number of events is tiny compared to the other formats you have to play, like I said, I dont buy it.
Also there are some pretty high stake Modern events around me. Saying some are playing for 'fun', is kind of a slap in the face to those that actually have to buy their decks and pay their way into events even if the prize is less then the pros get for being sponsored.
Its not a slap in the face it all. Obviously those people had to buy those decks (like myself, who owns and lends out modern decks for others to play it GP's across NA), and FNM is your practice for large events like PTQ's etc. Where do you think most pros began? Same place as you and I. You're ignoring the fact that the pros make their life on the events, so their stakes are higher than your "high stakes" modern events in your area. Do people that go to your events do solely that as a job? Probably not. So once again, they are most invested than you and I, and that's a fact that cannot be argued unless your job is also magic.
As to the handing decks, that I cannot comment on because I don't know how it works. Not all pro's get handed decks. I believe I've seen LSV on a few occasions on stream asking other friends if they have cards to borrow, and that they will buy missing pieces etc. Maybe some do get the decks handed to them, so in that case thats fair in saying they didn't have to buy it so that didn't cost them money, your right on that point. But if they don't place well with a free deck conistantly and thats their job, then they also cannot turn around and sell those cards to get out of magic or pay for every day stuff.
I do know a lot of pro like Kibler that have other jobs as well, which is great, and to those this does not apply obviously.
Grand Arbiter
Omnath
Skittles
You know what is really high stakes? Being on the PT or doing magic for a living. Getting loaned a deck if anything means you have more clarity on a competitive event as you are really tied to how good a format is vs. worried about what your cards are worth on the secondary market.
@Gal: And who I'm talking to? The person that likes to call some one out and subsequently not reply when they're called back out is what it seems.
I really doubt that pros are just handed a deck by their sponsor, in fact it would be incredibly surprising. Pros are pros because often they specialize in a deck, which is easily seen when you see them playing in semi-stable formats. That deck isn't simply the most popular one.
Now, am I saying that we shouldn't ask for unbans? No, no I'm not. I'm just not comfortable throwing my vote behind an action that might lead to some potentially awful consequences. This opinion will likely change as more testing with certain cards gets done, but until then I'm not going to vote for that as an option.
I also don't like going back to 7th Edition. It introduces a host of problem cards and will force Wizards to extend the banlist even further before it becomes legal (or force them to ban a lot of stuff after the *****storm arises when everyone starts playing broken cards).
I feel like Standard's power level can be raised in cycles, such as INN-RTR and cards from KTK. Consistently raising the powerlevel just forces them into an upward spiral (which they were kind of already in until Theros rolled around, and people complained about it the entire time).
Overall, a supplemental set is my choice. It
a. Introduces cards that can't see play in Standard that would probably be okay in Modern (things like Counterspell).
b. Forces Wizards to test with the cards which makes them playtest for Modern. In my opinion, that's the largest problem with Modern atm: Wizards keeps a tight reign on the format, but never tests for it. This means that potentially safe unbans get overlooked and potential problem cards get introduced into Standard. Testing solves both of those problems (not completely, of course. There's always cards that R&D will miss).
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
That's the ones I voted for, for the record.
And yes, shamefuly 4 and 5 are much less likely to receive support than 1 (by accident) and 3. Archetypes and colors evolve and change, are hated out of the meta and come back in a cycle of design. As an example of this, Legacy Burn went to ***** between the printing of Leyline of Sanctity/Batterskull and the printing of Eidolon of the Great Revel. Some players would have thrown a temper tantrum and left Legacy, some would stick to the deck either as a challenge or a side-deck and by the time EotGR and then Monastery Swiftspear came along, had all the meta experience to ace event after event because people forgot how to play against Burn, but passionate Burn players didn't forget how to play against the meta.
I believe the later is the people who WotC need to speak to, let them know "Ok, your deck got hated out but the nature of design dictates it will receive powerful cards in the future, don't throw the baby with the bathwater and be ready for your favorite archetype/color to make a comeback", or "This strategy will not be supported in the near future because it conflicts with the direction we want the game to move towards" as they sorta did with Draw-go telling us powerful counterspells and land destruction went out for cigarrettes.
White will get powerful cards, red may get powerful cards of the non-burn variety, blue will keep on eating everyone's pie and eventually have very powerful cards that aren't banned because they're supporting aggro or midrange rather than combo. So long as they don't keep giving BG all the tools (Though I can't help but feel this is some sort of karmic justice for all the years of green being absolutely unplayable and black getting punished with 12 years of uselessness after Black Summer), we will eventually have playable decks in all colors as it happened to Legacy. Let's not try to rewrite history and pretend there were green or white decks when Legacy started or that they didn't suffer their own post-Pod depression after the banning of Survival decks.
No. 6 is just ****ed tho, it's the people who want Pod unbanned so they don't have to play anything else ever, as "being able to always play one deck in Modern" implies the deck being always good, and I assume not the kind of "always good" that Affinity tags along with but the "I can be sure to top 8 with this" that Pod used to tag along with.
Man you are out of touch. Not only do they get there decks handed to them, they can ask for cards to change up the deck and get entry fees paid for by the sponsor. Its actually cheap for the advertisement those sponsors get.
Like I said, how many Modern events do they play? Its not as big a deal as you want to make it. If a couple events are going to make you or break you, maybe you are not as good as you think you are.
Oh, and its a collectors game also, if you want to play a game where the pieces are worthless, go play chess.
For the record I was not talking about FNMs, but yes everyone starts some where, and the majority wont get past SCG 5Ks maybe cashing out a couple times a year if that. I am willing to bet most the pros make more money writing then they do actually playing the game. There are only so many prize spots and very few prize every event.
I doubt unbanning a couple cards are going to make my cards worthless, but considering that facts are your nemesis while hyperbole your frequent friend I am not surprised. I'm pretty sure you've only been happy with Modern as long as BGx has been the top dog so of course you don't think it needs fixing, the rest of us are disinclined to think it should be the only interactive deck that is worth taking to a GP or Q'ing with it.
How little you know. I am not playing Junk, dont really care about the deck. All I have been trying ot get across is this witch hunt on Junk is all off of one PT. What happened to getting data?
You have no idea what unbanning those couple cards will do to the format. As I have said, it is easier and safer to ban then unban. Especially if they are not going to do any testing.
For the record my comment of "fun" was directly followed by every week. What takes place every week? FNM's, not major events in the same place, travel would have to be involved for every week. You took the "fun" concept and through it onto major tournaments, which I never stated. Pros travel all the time for big events, or practice on mtgo or with others quite often for many different formats from week to week, since pro tour events change. Not all pro's write, so I don't see how that matters. If it does matter, they wouldn't be writing if they weren't pros now would they?
It seems you just want to hate on PV or pros for no valid reason. They have thier views on it as do "casuals" and other people. They are just as invested as you and I, they play the game, and can have a voice if they so choose, if you can't see that, then thats on you, no sense arguing that any further.
Grand Arbiter
Omnath
Skittles
1. Unban Bloodbraid Elf now that siege rhino is a thing there needs to be a reason to play Jund and not just Junk
2. Unban Stoneforge Mystic I really like playing Stoneblade also Esper Faeries anyone?
3. Ban Splinter Twin the deck is too good at playing fair and comboing it has way too much utility, if we had better disruption/counter introduced it would be fine though.
4. Introduce Mother of Runes into modern to enable a strong Death and Taxes style deck, could be too good with mystic though
5. Ban Become Immense, but print a strictly better giant growth (i.e. +3/+3 and trample/uncounterable/[Hexproof if this was the first spell you cast this turn].)
6. Reprint the hell out of any card that goes over $60 on the secondary market
Standard
UB UB Midrange UB
Modern
GRWUBTribal Flames ZooGRWUB
RUGTemur DelverRUG
Legacy
UW Stoneblade UW
We do. It's called Thoughtseize. Twin is really bad against any deck packing Thoughtseize/Abrupt Decay and any sort of clock.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer