Most decks are not afraid to go 3+ colors because of the abundance of cards such as the fetchlands, shocklands, and filterlands. While it makes sense that a deck that may be a bit slower would be more inclined to go more colors, as they would have the time to become more consistent in their mana, I think it's a bit strange when you have the fastest deck there is, burn, also having no problems running 3+ colors.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
I'm not saying that any one deck needs to be banned or hosed. The question I'm posing is what type of environment would be created when effects that hose being greedy with your mana were more prevalent.
Burn decks having a large share of the meta is all the color policing we need. Greedy mana bases aren't free, they often effectively lower the starting life totals of the deck to an average of 17, and sometimes lower. That's 1 less lightning bolt effect needed for a kill. If a deck were stupid enough to shock itself twice against burn (which would probably be pretty common for 4 color decks and above), then that's all burn needs for an easy win.
Hell, even three color decks like BGW and BGR midrange both have painful enough mana bases that they can often have brought themselves to 15 or less life by turn 2, especially if they also pack Thoughtseize.
If burn ever ends up being less powerful/prevalent than it is now, then you'll probably see a rise of 4 and even 5 color decks. But as it is now, Burn is all the deterence those decks need.
While it makes sense that a deck that may be a bit slower would be more inclined to go more colors, as they would have the time to become more consistent in their mana, I think it's a bit strange when you have the fastest deck there is, burn, also having no problems running 3+ colors.
Why would it be? Fast decks get away with damaging themselves heavily with their lands because they can win before the life loss catches up to them.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
There's only 2 types of decks that are piles of good stuff: BGx (Jund, Abzan) and UW/UWR.
Back when allied fetchlands were confirmed for KTK, I didn't see any new "pile of good stuff" decks come out of it, nor did I see Esper/Grixis/Faeries get any better. You'd expect that 10 fetches would be an invitation to play the strongest cards in every color, but no such thing happened.
While it makes sense that a deck that may be a bit slower would be more inclined to go more colors, as they would have the time to become more consistent in their mana, I think it's a bit strange when you have the fastest deck there is, burn, also having no problems running 3+ colors.
Why would it be? Fast decks get away with damaging themselves heavily with their lands because they can win before the life loss catches up to them.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
There's only 2 types of decks that are piles of good stuff: BGx (Jund, Abzan) and UW/UWR.
Back when allied fetchlands were confirmed for KTK, I didn't see any new "pile of good stuff" decks come out of it, nor did I see Esper/Grixis/Faeries get any better. You'd expect that 10 fetches would be an invitation to play the strongest cards in every color, but no such thing happened.
To be fair, Esper and Grixis got significantly better. It just took a few months. I doubt that even with Monastery Mentor an Esper Mentor deck would have been possibly without allied fetchlands. Same goes for Grixis Delver.
I dont think it should be just a matter of policing cards, i think there needs to be more benefit to staying mono or dual colours. While you are right, it is super easy not to splash two colours, I think WotC needs to give incentives to stay mono colour.
Abilities like Devotion are a nice attempt to give players a reason/reward for staying mono-colour but it just isnt enough to balance out the benefits/rewards for splashing another colour or two. Starting at 15-17 life just is not enough of a punishment to balance out the the benefits you get from accessing another colour. People like to think that Burn getting a free bolt is enough to make people think twice about it, but that just isnt true. Even if Burn was 25% of the meta (which it is not) that means you are saving a few win %s against a match up you should see twice in an 8 round tournament. I am sure that splashing a second or three colour gives you access to cards that increase your win % against the field by more than the few % you lose to burn.
I would like to see something like Back to Basics (though not exactly that card) added to the format to encourage/reward mono-colour decks.
Some mono color decks will have a problem as long as cards like Choke and Flashfires exist. If they banned those sort of cards, and added some more incentives to go mono-color, and some more nonbasic hate along the later in this post lines, and had From the Ashes reprinted to enter Modern, I could see mono-color decks being encouraged and 3+ color decks discouraged more.
SiegesWW Enchantment
When Sieges enters the battlefield, name a non-basic land.
Lands with that name on the battlefield are called Besieged Earth instead have no abilities except: "t: Add 1 to your mana pool, this land does not untap during your next untap step."
Flooded Cities1U Enchantment
When Flooded Cities enters the battlefield, name a non-basic land.
Lands with that name on the battlefield are Islands instead.
Drain The Earth1BB Sorcery
Destroy target land. The land's controller loses one life and you gain one life. If the destroyed land is a non-basic land, they lose life equal to the number of copies of that land they still control, and you gain that amount of life.
Massive MudflowRR Sorcery
Destroy target nonbasic land, it's controller takes 2 damage and may search their library for a basic land, reveal it, and put it onto the battlefield tapped. If they do, they then shuffle their library.
Nature Overcomes1G Enchantment - Aura
Enchant nonbasic land.
Hexproof.
When Nature Overcomes enters the battlefield, gain 4 life.
Enchanted land is a Forest.
Metamorphic Impulse Land t: Add 1 to your mana pool. 1, t, Exile Metamorphic Impulse: Exile target nonbasic land you don't control. You and the player that controlled the exiled land may then search your libraries for a basic land, reveal it, and put it into the battlefield tapped. Shuffle each searched library.
Most decks are not afraid to go 3+ colors because of the abundance of cards such as the fetchlands, shocklands, and filterlands. While it makes sense that a deck that may be a bit slower would be more inclined to go more colors, as they would have the time to become more consistent in their mana, I think it's a bit strange when you have the fastest deck there is, burn, also having no problems running 3+ colors.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
I'm not saying that any one deck needs to be banned or hosed. The question I'm posing is what type of environment would be created when effects that hose being greedy with your mana were more prevalent.
There is no deck like that currently in modern though. Also philosophy or fire decks have been since the dawn of magic. You are willing to sacrifice life to kill your opponent faster. Every deck in modern worth note is currently a synergy deck or a combo deck or both. Realistically if you hose colors more combo decks would rise to the top. Still I am not sure what sort of hate your looking for. The format already has choke, blood moon, sowing salt, ghost quarter, molten rain, and tectonic edge. Non-basic hate abounds. Finally what do you mean by improve modern? Deck diversity is at an all time high. It would be nice if more mono-color decks did better but that is hardly the end of the world. This entire post just seems like people complaining about expensive mana bases.
Most decks are not afraid to go 3+ colors because of the abundance of cards such as the fetchlands, shocklands, and filterlands. While it makes sense that a deck that may be a bit slower would be more inclined to go more colors, as they would have the time to become more consistent in their mana, I think it's a bit strange when you have the fastest deck there is, burn, also having no problems running 3+ colors.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
I'm not saying that any one deck needs to be banned or hosed. The question I'm posing is what type of environment would be created when effects that hose being greedy with your mana were more prevalent.
There is no deck like that currently in modern though. Also philosophy or fire decks have been since the dawn of magic. You are willing to sacrifice life to kill your opponent faster. Every deck in modern worth note is currently a synergy deck or a combo deck or both. Realistically if you hose colors more combo decks would rise to the top. Still I am not sure what sort of hate your looking for. The format already has choke, blood moon, sowing salt, ghost quarter, molten rain, and tectonic edge. Non-basic hate abounds. Finally what do you mean by improve modern? Deck diversity is at an all time high. It would be nice if more mono-color decks did better but that is hardly the end of the world. This entire post just seems like people complaining about expensive mana bases.
Maybe I am misreading you here, but the bolded part literally makes no sense. There are a ton of tier 1/2 decks that splash 3 colours and are just a pile of good cards; Jund, Abzan, Grixis Delver, RUG twin, Naya Burn/Aggro etc etc. No one said anything about price (I own a set of every shock/fetch and most of the fastlands, so the cost is fine with me) and I think I have a justifiable complaint. I for one did not say we need bans for the manabase; I do think it would be nice if mono-colours were rewarded more though. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see more and more viable decks in a format; the more playstyles and deck types available to people means more people playing the format and that makes it better for everyone.
As to the "non-basic" hate you listed; all the spells are Red (except Choke), require 3+ mana or require your opponent to have 4+ lands. GQ is actually card disadvantage for you; since most decks run at least a few basics. People need to stop looking at very specific, sideboard only cards and saying that X type of card is available and viable in the format. Only the lands (of the cards you listed) are maindeck worth and again; that is only because fetchs and shocks allow even 3 colour decks to run 2-3 colourless lands; which if you think about it, is actually insane.
My very objective vote goes towards a resounding "no". I think cards that cripple players' mana bases are just not fun, nor do they make for interesting games. I hate Blood Moon (not just because it's good against my decks) and my impression is that people generally do unless they can afford to not care about it. Burn does all the necessary policing right now, and a better way to encourage mono/two color decks is to reward that instead of hating out 3+ color decks.
What's the problem with multicolor decks anyway? How would less multicolorness supposedly make the format better?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Some mono color decks will have a problem as long as cards like Choke and Flashfires exist. If they banned those sort of cards, and added some more incentives to go mono-color, and some more nonbasic hate along the later in this post lines, and had From the Ashes reprinted to enter Modern, I could see mono-color decks being encouraged and 3+ color decks discouraged more.
Not just Those few but namely Iona, Shield of Emeria, its a death for mono coloured decks straight up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard : What is Stand-tart
Modern : Huh?
EDH : UBGW Thrasios / Tymna Combo UBGW // GRW Mayael Big Stuff GRW // GU Edric Timewalkers GU
Some mono color decks will have a problem as long as cards like Choke and Flashfires exist. If they banned those sort of cards, and added some more incentives to go mono-color, and some more nonbasic hate along the later in this post lines, and had From the Ashes reprinted to enter Modern, I could see mono-color decks being encouraged and 3+ color decks discouraged more.
Not just Those few but namely Iona, Shield of Emeria, its a death for mono coloured decks straight up.
They'll usually have to feed her to the graveyard or something first though, or some other way of cheating her out, given that mana cost, although her being potentially seen in main deck does indeed make her more of a threat that way. It'll usually take more than one spell going off to get her out, on top of facing things like graveyard based hate for Gifts/Rites methods of casting her, while Flashfires and the like would only require a single successful spell, so I'm not sure she is as likely to hate out mono-colored decks if they start turning up more.
My very objective vote goes towards a resounding "no". I think cards that cripple players' mana bases are just not fun, nor do they make for interesting games. I hate Blood Moon (not just because it's good against my decks) and my impression is that people generally do unless they can afford to not care about it. Burn does all the necessary policing right now, and a better way to encourage mono/two color decks is to reward that instead of hating out 3+ color decks.
What's the problem with multicolor decks anyway? How would less multicolorness supposedly make the format better?
The "problem" is that maintaining a greedy manabase is a necessity, not a luxury for having a competitive deck in modern. Anything less than an incredibly greedy manabase that's trying to play a "fair" game of magic is inherently bad. You can play a nongreedy manabase, but only if you're not at all willing to interact with your opponent.
Burn existing does not seem to push people away from these, so with that in mind I'm more likely to believe that Burn doesn't police them hard enough.
In legacy, mono-colored decks have the advantage of being wasteland proof, and that's most of it. Wasteland wouldn't "break" modern, but it would change it in a way that many people (WotC included) consider unacceptable. (and even with wasteland, people play 3 color decks all the time)
However, stifle is a card that punishes fetchlands, a necessity in 3-4 color, but as the hate bears deck demonstrates, are unnecessary in two color. Cards that punish fetching punish 3-4 colors, but not two color, something worth considering.
All this being said, I wouldn't want modern to become a wasteland/stifle/whatever policed format where everyone is playing 1-2 colors instead of 2-3 colors, for the simple reason that mono-colored decks tend to be more linear than multicolor, at least from my experience.
These are not just "pile of good cards" decks. The Delver deck only runs cheap, efficient kill spells or counterspells to protect its creatures. It's a very defined game plan packed with synergistic plays (i.e. Thought Scour fueling Delve). RUG Twin only adds "good cards" in the sense that it now plays Goyf to further the beat down plan, which still meshes with the overall game plan of Twin fairly well (tempo, keep your opponent off guard while you beat down).
Burn is the least of the just "pile of good cards" decks. Sure, it technically plays the best cards for what it's trying to do, but every deck does that. Each card is VERY specific in what it does and how it works with the rest of the deck.
These are not just "pile of good cards" decks. The Delver deck only runs cheap, efficient kill spells or counterspells to protect its creatures. It's a very defined game plan packed with synergistic plays (i.e. Thought Scour fueling Delve). RUG Twin only adds "good cards" in the sense that it now plays Goyf to further the beat down plan, which still meshes with the overall game plan of Twin fairly well (tempo, keep your opponent off guard while you beat down).
Burn is the least of the just "pile of good cards" decks. Sure, it technically plays the best cards for what it's trying to do, but every deck does that. Each card is VERY specific in what it does and how it works with the rest of the deck.
This. I feel that maybe the people complaining about goodstuff decks in modern don't know enough about the decks they're complaining about. Even the ones you left out from your quote, Jund and Junk, the decks that are most often described as "just a pile of good cards", have loads of synergy and a very specific game plan.
Also, there are tons of T1/T2 mono/two color decks, and many of them aren't non-interactive. So three color decks are viable, so what? I still fail to see the problem. Is this just another thinly veiled budget complaint from players who don't want to pay for fetches and shocks, and thus childishly don't want others to be able to play them either? That's the only way I'm able to make sense of this topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Most decks are not afraid to go 3+ colors because of the abundance of cards such as the fetchlands, shocklands, and filterlands. While it makes sense that a deck that may be a bit slower would be more inclined to go more colors, as they would have the time to become more consistent in their mana, I think it's a bit strange when you have the fastest deck there is, burn, also having no problems running 3+ colors.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
I'm not saying that any one deck needs to be banned or hosed. The question I'm posing is what type of environment would be created when effects that hose being greedy with your mana were more prevalent.
There is no deck like that currently in modern though. Also philosophy or fire decks have been since the dawn of magic. You are willing to sacrifice life to kill your opponent faster. Every deck in modern worth note is currently a synergy deck or a combo deck or both. Realistically if you hose colors more combo decks would rise to the top. Still I am not sure what sort of hate your looking for. The format already has choke, blood moon, sowing salt, ghost quarter, molten rain, and tectonic edge. Non-basic hate abounds. Finally what do you mean by improve modern? Deck diversity is at an all time high. It would be nice if more mono-color decks did better but that is hardly the end of the world. This entire post just seems like people complaining about expensive mana bases.
Maybe I am misreading you here, but the bolded part literally makes no sense. There are a ton of tier 1/2 decks that splash 3 colours and are just a pile of good cards; Jund, Abzan, Grixis Delver, RUG twin, Naya Burn/Aggro etc etc. No one said anything about price (I own a set of every shock/fetch and most of the fastlands, so the cost is fine with me) and I think I have a justifiable complaint. I for one did not say we need bans for the manabase; I do think it would be nice if mono-colours were rewarded more though. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see more and more viable decks in a format; the more playstyles and deck types available to people means more people playing the format and that makes it better for everyone.
As to the "non-basic" hate you listed; all the spells are Red (except Choke), require 3+ mana or require your opponent to have 4+ lands. GQ is actually card disadvantage for you; since most decks run at least a few basics. People need to stop looking at very specific, sideboard only cards and saying that X type of card is available and viable in the format. Only the lands (of the cards you listed) are maindeck worth and again; that is only because fetchs and shocks allow even 3 colour decks to run 2-3 colourless lands; which if you think about it, is actually insane.
You really do not understand synergy at all. Burn by it's very nature is a pile of cards that do the same thing. All the burn spells deal damage. All the creatures have haste, have powerful triggers/activated abilities that deal damage, and get more use out of cast burn spells. RUG twin is a tempo deck with potential to finish with a combo. They use tarmogoyf because it is the best tempo creature in the game. It also gives them more sideboard cards to play into their tempo plan by going green. Jund and abzan really on powerful interactions and card quality to win. You make it seem like discard and removal have zero interaction with scooze or tarmogoyf. Delver by it's very nature requires you to have a large number of spells. The high numbers or spells feeds delver flips and pyro mancer tokens or tasigur. Then it used all the spells to protect it's dudes and hinder you to win. Also how is running colorless lands absurd in a 3 color deck? Again the entire premise of your argument is subjective or just plain wrong. Also, it should be noted that mono color decks are more popular now that elves is an actual thing. You have merfolk and elves that reward you for playing mono color. Merfolk is actually a very good deck and elves is more than capable of taking games. Also rewarding having something with another card or effect, is something that is extremely easy to break. You only need to look at a card like Gaea's Cradle to see how broken that can be. Your asking Wizards to break the game in half just to have more basics, that is a terrible idea. Also acting like mono color decks don't play cards cause they are good is beyond absurd. One merely needs to look at death and taxes decks from legacy to see how a properly built mono-colored deck is built. Are we going to call them absurd or playing stoneforge mystic and vial. Are they not merely playing the best cards?
So three color decks are viable, so what? I still fail to see the problem. Is this just another thinly veiled budget complaint from players who don't want to pay for fetches and shocks, and thus childishly don't want others to be able to play them either? That's the only way I'm able to make sense of this topic.
I have read this thread since it started and Im really asking myself that question too.
So three color decks are viable, so what? I still fail to see the problem. Is this just another thinly veiled budget complaint from players who don't want to pay for fetches and shocks, and thus childishly don't want others to be able to play them either? That's the only way I'm able to make sense of this topic.
I have read this thread since it started and Im really asking myself that question too.
Eh, I've already got my shocks, and my Tarkir fetches, and I see the argument here. I think 3 color decks should be a bit more risky, and monocolor decks should be a bit more beneficial, not exactly for budget reasons, but for more thematic reasons, so that mono-color Vorthosy focus can be more competitive. I'd love to have it so that there is at least a T2 deck for each mono-color without relying on artifacts, nonbasic lands, or things you can cheat the colors on like Dismember, ones that won't be easily hated out by Choke and the like filling up sideboards if they occasionally drift into T1 with metagame shifts. I'd love to see a higher percentage of mana bases in Modern be basics, due to nonbasics being punished slightly more by things from a wider variety of decks. Not so much that 3 color decks are hated out of T1, but that we'll usually have no more than one 3 color deck in tier 1. I'd also kinda like for it to be possible for that 3 color deck to not always be a BGx deck of some sort, perhaps being Jeskai, Esper, Temur, Naya, etc. on occasion.
So three color decks are viable, so what? I still fail to see the problem. Is this just another thinly veiled budget complaint from players who don't want to pay for fetches and shocks, and thus childishly don't want others to be able to play them either? That's the only way I'm able to make sense of this topic.
I have read this thread since it started and Im really asking myself that question too.
While I have nothing against 3-color decks, I think it would be nice if more 2-color decks were viable.
there's something that would improve modern though: really powerful color intensive cards
Like a very powerful red card that costs RRR? Now there's a more elegant solution: Push decks that go deep into one color instead of punishing decks that play colorful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
You mean things like Cryptic Command and Liliana of the Veil? 3 color decks play them regularly, on curve, with the help of filterlands and Urborg. I'm not sure more of that would push people into playing mono-colored decks. I mean, even Seismic Assault is played in a 3 color deck with Liliana of the Veil.
My very objective vote goes towards a resounding "no". I think cards that cripple players' mana bases are just not fun, nor do they make for interesting games. I hate Blood Moon (not just because it's good against my decks) and my impression is that people generally do unless they can afford to not care about it. Burn does all the necessary policing right now, and a better way to encourage mono/two color decks is to reward that instead of hating out 3+ color decks.
What's the problem with multicolor decks anyway? How would less multicolorness supposedly make the format better?
The "problem" is that maintaining a greedy manabase is a necessity, not a luxury for having a competitive deck in modern. Anything less than an incredibly greedy manabase that's trying to play a "fair" game of magic is inherently bad. You can play a nongreedy manabase, but only if you're not at all willing to interact with your opponent.
Burn existing does not seem to push people away from these, so with that in mind I'm more likely to believe that Burn doesn't police them hard enough.
so why do you say that you HAVE to run 3 colors?
You're arguing against arguments I haven't made. Stop that.
I've made plenty of 2 color decks in the past and the most common thing I've noticed is that you just don't have enough tools to carve out any kind of niche in the metagame. The most common thing I hear is "There's just no reason to not run x, y, z". Will it win a FNM? Sure. But that's not good enough unless you're just satisfied with that (which I'm not). In my eyes, the only way for any 1-2 color deck to successfully exist is to hate on greedier manabases.
That is why you have to run 3 colors. If you're playing a RB deck, you lack big bodies that green offers so you need to run green because RBG is just strictly better than RB. If you're playing UB, you need to add White because UWB is just strictly better than UB, and so on and so forth. If you're playing a WB deck, you need to either find a way to hate on other manabases, or just bite the bullet and go WBG and become Junk, because you're strictly worse than it without that hate.
Of course, all of these examples are for decks trying to attack on a "fair" angle. Yes, Burn is mostly just red but its incredibly linear in its approach.
My very objective vote goes towards a resounding "no". I think cards that cripple players' mana bases are just not fun, nor do they make for interesting games. I hate Blood Moon (not just because it's good against my decks) and my impression is that people generally do unless they can afford to not care about it. Burn does all the necessary policing right now, and a better way to encourage mono/two color decks is to reward that instead of hating out 3+ color decks.
What's the problem with multicolor decks anyway? How would less multicolorness supposedly make the format better?
The "problem" is that maintaining a greedy manabase is a necessity, not a luxury for having a competitive deck in modern. Anything less than an incredibly greedy manabase that's trying to play a "fair" game of magic is inherently bad. You can play a nongreedy manabase, but only if you're not at all willing to interact with your opponent.
Burn existing does not seem to push people away from these, so with that in mind I'm more likely to believe that Burn doesn't police them hard enough.
so why do you say that you HAVE to run 3 colors?
You're arguing against arguments I haven't made. Stop that.
I've made plenty of 2 color decks in the past and the most common thing I've noticed is that you just don't have enough tools to carve out any kind of niche in the metagame. The most common thing I hear is "There's just no reason to not run x, y, z". Will it win a FNM? Sure. But that's not good enough unless you're just satisfied with that (which I'm not). In my eyes, the only way for any 1-2 color deck to successfully exist is to hate on greedier manabases.
That is why you have to run 3 colors. If you're playing a RB deck, you lack big bodies that green offers so you need to run green because RBG is just strictly better than RB. If you're playing UB, you need to add White because UWB is just strictly better than UB, and so on and so forth. If you're playing a WB deck, you need to either find a way to hate on other manabases, or just bite the bullet and go WBG and become Junk, because you're strictly worse than it without that hate.
Of course, all of these examples are for decks trying to attack on a "fair" angle. Yes, Burn is mostly just red but its incredibly linear in its approach.
While I agree with most of this, it isn't necessarily true. I am currently playing Boros Control instead of Dega Control, Naya Control, or American Control. I designed it to be mostly removal and game-winning bombs. Adding blue would add counterspells, but that is not what I am trying to do (I want every card I draw to be live at every point in the game against fair decks). Adding black would add Murderous Cut, Sorin Solemn Visitor, Lingering Souls, and Blood Baron of Vizkopa, but Cut is relatively slow, Souls isn't as great when you can remove most relevant threats, Sorin is comparable to Elspeth Knight Errant, and Blood Baron isn't that much better than Baneslayer Angel. Adding green would just give access to Thragtusk, which is still comparable to Baneslayer Angel. You can still make 2-color decks that would be better than their 3-color versions. You just need to not have a reason to splash a third color.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
I'm not saying that any one deck needs to be banned or hosed. The question I'm posing is what type of environment would be created when effects that hose being greedy with your mana were more prevalent.
Hell, even three color decks like BGW and BGR midrange both have painful enough mana bases that they can often have brought themselves to 15 or less life by turn 2, especially if they also pack Thoughtseize.
If burn ever ends up being less powerful/prevalent than it is now, then you'll probably see a rise of 4 and even 5 color decks. But as it is now, Burn is all the deterence those decks need.
Well that and the existence of cards like Blood Moon, Sowing Salt, and Molten Rain
BG Rock
Modern:
RW Sun & Moon
RBG Dredge
RWG Burn
Legacy:
W Death & Taxes
Why would it be? Fast decks get away with damaging themselves heavily with their lands because they can win before the life loss catches up to them.
While having more colors available can foster creativity, having too many can lead to decks of nothing but piles of good cards with no thought put into them.
There's only 2 types of decks that are piles of good stuff: BGx (Jund, Abzan) and UW/UWR.
Back when allied fetchlands were confirmed for KTK, I didn't see any new "pile of good stuff" decks come out of it, nor did I see Esper/Grixis/Faeries get any better. You'd expect that 10 fetches would be an invitation to play the strongest cards in every color, but no such thing happened.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
To be fair, Esper and Grixis got significantly better. It just took a few months. I doubt that even with Monastery Mentor an Esper Mentor deck would have been possibly without allied fetchlands. Same goes for Grixis Delver.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Abilities like Devotion are a nice attempt to give players a reason/reward for staying mono-colour but it just isnt enough to balance out the benefits/rewards for splashing another colour or two. Starting at 15-17 life just is not enough of a punishment to balance out the the benefits you get from accessing another colour. People like to think that Burn getting a free bolt is enough to make people think twice about it, but that just isnt true. Even if Burn was 25% of the meta (which it is not) that means you are saving a few win %s against a match up you should see twice in an 8 round tournament. I am sure that splashing a second or three colour gives you access to cards that increase your win % against the field by more than the few % you lose to burn.
I would like to see something like Back to Basics (though not exactly that card) added to the format to encourage/reward mono-colour decks.
Sieges WW
Enchantment
When Sieges enters the battlefield, name a non-basic land.
Lands with that name on the battlefield are called Besieged Earth instead have no abilities except: "t: Add 1 to your mana pool, this land does not untap during your next untap step."
Flooded Cities 1U
Enchantment
When Flooded Cities enters the battlefield, name a non-basic land.
Lands with that name on the battlefield are Islands instead.
Drain The Earth 1BB
Sorcery
Destroy target land. The land's controller loses one life and you gain one life. If the destroyed land is a non-basic land, they lose life equal to the number of copies of that land they still control, and you gain that amount of life.
Massive Mudflow RR
Sorcery
Destroy target nonbasic land, it's controller takes 2 damage and may search their library for a basic land, reveal it, and put it onto the battlefield tapped. If they do, they then shuffle their library.
Nature Overcomes 1G
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant nonbasic land.
Hexproof.
When Nature Overcomes enters the battlefield, gain 4 life.
Enchanted land is a Forest.
Metamorphic Impulse
Land
t: Add 1 to your mana pool.
1, t, Exile Metamorphic Impulse: Exile target nonbasic land you don't control. You and the player that controlled the exiled land may then search your libraries for a basic land, reveal it, and put it into the battlefield tapped. Shuffle each searched library.
There is no deck like that currently in modern though. Also philosophy or fire decks have been since the dawn of magic. You are willing to sacrifice life to kill your opponent faster. Every deck in modern worth note is currently a synergy deck or a combo deck or both. Realistically if you hose colors more combo decks would rise to the top. Still I am not sure what sort of hate your looking for. The format already has choke, blood moon, sowing salt, ghost quarter, molten rain, and tectonic edge. Non-basic hate abounds. Finally what do you mean by improve modern? Deck diversity is at an all time high. It would be nice if more mono-color decks did better but that is hardly the end of the world. This entire post just seems like people complaining about expensive mana bases.
Maybe I am misreading you here, but the bolded part literally makes no sense. There are a ton of tier 1/2 decks that splash 3 colours and are just a pile of good cards; Jund, Abzan, Grixis Delver, RUG twin, Naya Burn/Aggro etc etc. No one said anything about price (I own a set of every shock/fetch and most of the fastlands, so the cost is fine with me) and I think I have a justifiable complaint. I for one did not say we need bans for the manabase; I do think it would be nice if mono-colours were rewarded more though. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see more and more viable decks in a format; the more playstyles and deck types available to people means more people playing the format and that makes it better for everyone.
As to the "non-basic" hate you listed; all the spells are Red (except Choke), require 3+ mana or require your opponent to have 4+ lands. GQ is actually card disadvantage for you; since most decks run at least a few basics. People need to stop looking at very specific, sideboard only cards and saying that X type of card is available and viable in the format. Only the lands (of the cards you listed) are maindeck worth and again; that is only because fetchs and shocks allow even 3 colour decks to run 2-3 colourless lands; which if you think about it, is actually insane.
What's the problem with multicolor decks anyway? How would less multicolorness supposedly make the format better?
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
Not just Those few but namely Iona, Shield of Emeria, its a death for mono coloured decks straight up.
Modern : Huh?
EDH : UBGW Thrasios / Tymna Combo UBGW // GRW Mayael Big Stuff GRW // GU Edric Timewalkers GU
They'll usually have to feed her to the graveyard or something first though, or some other way of cheating her out, given that mana cost, although her being potentially seen in main deck does indeed make her more of a threat that way. It'll usually take more than one spell going off to get her out, on top of facing things like graveyard based hate for Gifts/Rites methods of casting her, while Flashfires and the like would only require a single successful spell, so I'm not sure she is as likely to hate out mono-colored decks if they start turning up more.
The "problem" is that maintaining a greedy manabase is a necessity, not a luxury for having a competitive deck in modern. Anything less than an incredibly greedy manabase that's trying to play a "fair" game of magic is inherently bad. You can play a nongreedy manabase, but only if you're not at all willing to interact with your opponent.
Burn existing does not seem to push people away from these, so with that in mind I'm more likely to believe that Burn doesn't police them hard enough.
However, stifle is a card that punishes fetchlands, a necessity in 3-4 color, but as the hate bears deck demonstrates, are unnecessary in two color. Cards that punish fetching punish 3-4 colors, but not two color, something worth considering.
All this being said, I wouldn't want modern to become a wasteland/stifle/whatever policed format where everyone is playing 1-2 colors instead of 2-3 colors, for the simple reason that mono-colored decks tend to be more linear than multicolor, at least from my experience.
These are not just "pile of good cards" decks. The Delver deck only runs cheap, efficient kill spells or counterspells to protect its creatures. It's a very defined game plan packed with synergistic plays (i.e. Thought Scour fueling Delve). RUG Twin only adds "good cards" in the sense that it now plays Goyf to further the beat down plan, which still meshes with the overall game plan of Twin fairly well (tempo, keep your opponent off guard while you beat down).
Burn is the least of the just "pile of good cards" decks. Sure, it technically plays the best cards for what it's trying to do, but every deck does that. Each card is VERY specific in what it does and how it works with the rest of the deck.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Also, there are tons of T1/T2 mono/two color decks, and many of them aren't non-interactive. So three color decks are viable, so what? I still fail to see the problem. Is this just another thinly veiled budget complaint from players who don't want to pay for fetches and shocks, and thus childishly don't want others to be able to play them either? That's the only way I'm able to make sense of this topic.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
You really do not understand synergy at all. Burn by it's very nature is a pile of cards that do the same thing. All the burn spells deal damage. All the creatures have haste, have powerful triggers/activated abilities that deal damage, and get more use out of cast burn spells. RUG twin is a tempo deck with potential to finish with a combo. They use tarmogoyf because it is the best tempo creature in the game. It also gives them more sideboard cards to play into their tempo plan by going green. Jund and abzan really on powerful interactions and card quality to win. You make it seem like discard and removal have zero interaction with scooze or tarmogoyf. Delver by it's very nature requires you to have a large number of spells. The high numbers or spells feeds delver flips and pyro mancer tokens or tasigur. Then it used all the spells to protect it's dudes and hinder you to win. Also how is running colorless lands absurd in a 3 color deck? Again the entire premise of your argument is subjective or just plain wrong. Also, it should be noted that mono color decks are more popular now that elves is an actual thing. You have merfolk and elves that reward you for playing mono color. Merfolk is actually a very good deck and elves is more than capable of taking games. Also rewarding having something with another card or effect, is something that is extremely easy to break. You only need to look at a card like Gaea's Cradle to see how broken that can be. Your asking Wizards to break the game in half just to have more basics, that is a terrible idea. Also acting like mono color decks don't play cards cause they are good is beyond absurd. One merely needs to look at death and taxes decks from legacy to see how a properly built mono-colored deck is built. Are we going to call them absurd or playing stoneforge mystic and vial. Are they not merely playing the best cards?
I have read this thread since it started and Im really asking myself that question too.
/thread
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
Eh, I've already got my shocks, and my Tarkir fetches, and I see the argument here. I think 3 color decks should be a bit more risky, and monocolor decks should be a bit more beneficial, not exactly for budget reasons, but for more thematic reasons, so that mono-color Vorthosy focus can be more competitive. I'd love to have it so that there is at least a T2 deck for each mono-color without relying on artifacts, nonbasic lands, or things you can cheat the colors on like Dismember, ones that won't be easily hated out by Choke and the like filling up sideboards if they occasionally drift into T1 with metagame shifts. I'd love to see a higher percentage of mana bases in Modern be basics, due to nonbasics being punished slightly more by things from a wider variety of decks. Not so much that 3 color decks are hated out of T1, but that we'll usually have no more than one 3 color deck in tier 1. I'd also kinda like for it to be possible for that 3 color deck to not always be a BGx deck of some sort, perhaps being Jeskai, Esper, Temur, Naya, etc. on occasion.
While I have nothing against 3-color decks, I think it would be nice if more 2-color decks were viable.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Like a very powerful red card that costs RRR? Now there's a more elegant solution: Push decks that go deep into one color instead of punishing decks that play colorful.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
You're arguing against arguments I haven't made. Stop that.
I've made plenty of 2 color decks in the past and the most common thing I've noticed is that you just don't have enough tools to carve out any kind of niche in the metagame. The most common thing I hear is "There's just no reason to not run x, y, z". Will it win a FNM? Sure. But that's not good enough unless you're just satisfied with that (which I'm not). In my eyes, the only way for any 1-2 color deck to successfully exist is to hate on greedier manabases.
That is why you have to run 3 colors. If you're playing a RB deck, you lack big bodies that green offers so you need to run green because RBG is just strictly better than RB. If you're playing UB, you need to add White because UWB is just strictly better than UB, and so on and so forth. If you're playing a WB deck, you need to either find a way to hate on other manabases, or just bite the bullet and go WBG and become Junk, because you're strictly worse than it without that hate.
Of course, all of these examples are for decks trying to attack on a "fair" angle. Yes, Burn is mostly just red but its incredibly linear in its approach.
While I agree with most of this, it isn't necessarily true. I am currently playing Boros Control instead of Dega Control, Naya Control, or American Control. I designed it to be mostly removal and game-winning bombs. Adding blue would add counterspells, but that is not what I am trying to do (I want every card I draw to be live at every point in the game against fair decks). Adding black would add Murderous Cut, Sorin Solemn Visitor, Lingering Souls, and Blood Baron of Vizkopa, but Cut is relatively slow, Souls isn't as great when you can remove most relevant threats, Sorin is comparable to Elspeth Knight Errant, and Blood Baron isn't that much better than Baneslayer Angel. Adding green would just give access to Thragtusk, which is still comparable to Baneslayer Angel. You can still make 2-color decks that would be better than their 3-color versions. You just need to not have a reason to splash a third color.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.