Wait... are we objecting to the Bloom ban now? This thread confuses me.
In other news, Eldrazi! I'm publishing my article on the deck next week and am currently leaning towards (but not too heavily) an Eye of Ugin ban. Removing Eye returns Eldrazi to a much fairer Temple and maybe Vesuva/Urzatron shell. This seems much more in line with Wizards goals for Modern than the higher variance, explosive Eye starts. What are some of the arguments for and against this proposal? Just want to talk through them a bit before writing.
No matter when you actually play it, it still provides an unfair advantage mana-wise to the Eldrazi player. This advantage is easier to see in the early game, but it is just as present as the game goes on. What makes it unfair is that it takes some very specific set of cards to actually deny you that mana advantage. Even if you only got to use it once before it is blown up it is still a permanent mana source with a Lotus Petal attached and that's still busted. If they don't destroy it, how many free Lotus Petals do you actually need to win an average game of Magic?
Bottom line is that both lands shouldn't be legal in Modern if for no other reason then for the sake of maintaining a "modern unique" power level. Having Sol lands without strings attached, even if only one of them, should be strictly Legacy territory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Wait... are we objecting to the Bloom ban now? This thread confuses me.
In other news, Eldrazi! I'm publishing my article on the deck next week and am currently leaning towards (but not too heavily) an Eye of Ugin ban. Removing Eye returns Eldrazi to a much fairer Temple and maybe Vesuva/Urzatron shell. This seems much more in line with Wizards goals for Modern than the higher variance, explosive Eye starts. What are some of the arguments for and against this proposal? Just want to talk through them a bit before writing.
No matter when you actually play it, it still provides an unfair advantage mana-wise to the Eldrazi player. This advantage is easier to see in the early game, but it is just as present as the game goes on. What makes it unfair is that it takes some very specific set of cards to actually deny you that mana advantage. Even if you only got to use it once before it is blown up it is still a permanent mana source with a Lotus Petal attached and that's still busted. If they don't destroy it, how many free Lotus Petals do you actually need to win an average game of Magic?
Bottom line is that both lands shouldn't be legal in Modern if for no other reason then for the sake of maintaining a "modern unique" power level. Having Sol lands without strings attached, even if only one of them, should be strictly Legacy territory.
Forsythe said in the GP coverage that they didn't want to nuke the deck. Do you think he ia going to go back on that? If so, why? If not, how can they ban both lands WITHOUT nuking the deck?
I'd point out that he also said it isn't just his decision and suggested that they would be doing some testing. They could reasonably come to the conclusion that both lands need to be banned. Or not.
Again, we do not know what NUKE THE DECK means. KikiTwin is useless compared to Twin, was it nuked? Was it intended to be? Who knows. They dont speak to us.
Its again just some corporate buzz speak that is pointless, much like that entire interview was.
Forsythe said in the GP coverage that they didn't want to nuke the deck. Do you think he ia going to go back on that? If so, why? If not, how can they ban both lands WITHOUT nuking the deck?
The key word there is "want". I'm pretty sure they didn't "want" this Eldrazi madness either, but that's what we've got. In that vein, they might "want" to avoid nuking both lands but that doesn't mean their hands won't be tied in the matter.
After the GP fiasco, and you should know these numbers better then most, leaving even a single land legal can prove to be a serious liability. Supposing that a ban of a single land would decrease the decks share by, say, 20% we would still be left with a monster that fit all relevant ban criteria in the recent years. Going from 40+% "down" to 20+% isn't that big of an improvement since it still leaves us with a deck that's overshadowing the rest of the format.
There is also the whole "communication" thing which kind of clearly demands that they visibly demonstrate that the Eldrazi problem has been dealt with. Leaving any of the lands legal gives us more then enough reason to doubt them, as if we didn't have enough reasons to do so already.
In the very likely scenario both lands get nuked, I think we would still be left with a reasonably competitive midrange deck, depending on how you want to configure it. As somebody already mentioned the cards are just too good not to play, at least some of them are. More then enough to warrant interest in a more midrangey approach to the strategy. Given WotC's heavy bias towards midrange decks in recent years, in both Standard and Modern, I would say that's exactly what their goal is.
EDIT: The Tron lands are actually fairer then they look. For one thing, you more or less need to devote your entire deck to assembling it. That leaves you open to all kinds of rush strategies, not to mention fast combo since the deck is very light on disruption. Second, you don't get the payoff before turn 3+ while the Eldrazi lands are nowhere near as "long term" in that sense. Those differences aside, the urztron and the eldrazi lands are simply not on the same level, power-wise, and mixing them together in any conversation is a lot like mixing apples and oranges.
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
The bigger problem with eldrazi is that I don't think the deck is really that fun to play, either. Heck, it isn't even that fun to watch. Then again, my own preference has always been towards field manipulation and fun interactions with different zones like the graveyard, so linear decks like eldrazi aggro tend to be the apotheosis of boredom with me. Processing, on the other hand, is at least somewhat engaging and if they had worked the mechanics a little better it might have been better then what it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Agreed Colt. If there was one option and it was full on Reality Smasher blitz, I would say OK you've got your trick and let's move on. The rest of the broken creatures though just leads to drowner of attention span moments.
I would be amazing if Eye survives this *and disappointed* and wouldn't be surprised if both Eye and Temple were gone. I am more curious if they are going to urban meaningful blue cards now that the twin excuse is gone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
SonofaBith - Wizards was so excited about making the packaging for Modern Masters 2 recyclable, they decided to make most of the rares and all but 1 of the UC's recycle-bin ready too. Convenient!
The Eldrazi are beatable. We are seeing it more and more as time goes by. As I have said in the past, as players its our job to adapt.
Where was this when Jund was using BBE? Where was this while Wild Nacatl got the axe? Where was this when Twin got banned?
Bocephus, if there was an award for most talkative and uninformed user on these forums, you would win by a landslide. The deck is nearly 50% of the metagame since the Pro Tour. What do you mean by beatable? If an Asteroid the size of Saturn was headed for Earth, in theory that's beatable.
There's no reason to ban them according to the results it has made although I must admit I wouldn't argue if they banned it since I don't like Tron but then again personal preferences (because you don't like specific deck) can't be the reason to ban something.
People, I do not think the tron lands need banned. That is not what I was saying. Someone else, whom I was replying to, wanted BOTH eye AND temple banned because they thought all sol lands were too powerful for modern. I thought that was bad reasoning so my question was meant, almost rhetorically, to tease out the flaw in that reasoning.
It's weird that I've received a couple responses as if I had actually said tron lands should be banned without a question mark, yet no one else noticed the original post that implied that such should be done.
The Eldrazi are beatable. We are seeing it more and more as time goes by. As I have said in the past, as players its our job to adapt.
Where was this when Jund was using BBE? Where was this while Wild Nacatl got the axe? Where was this when Twin got banned?
Bocephus, if there was an award for most talkative and uninformed user on these forums, you would win by a landslide. The deck is nearly 50% of the metagame since the Pro Tour. What do you mean by beatable? If an Asteroid the size of Saturn was headed for Earth, in theory that's beatable.
There's no reason to ban them according to the results it has made although I must admit I wouldn't argue if they banned it since I don't like Tron but then again personal preferences (because you don't like specific deck) can't be the reason to ban something.
People, I do not think the tron lands need banned. That is not what I was saying. Someone else, whom I was replying to, wanted BOTH eye AND temple banned because they thought all sol lands were too powerful for modern. I thought that was bad reasoning so my question was meant, almost rhetorically, to tease out the flaw in that reasoning.
It's weird that I've received a couple responses as if I had actually said tron lands should be banned without a question mark, yet no one else noticed the original post that implied that such should be done.
It's a bad comparison anyway, because the Tron lands aren't true Sol lands. You need to literally invest the entirety of 2-3 turns before they actually do anything. By contrast, Temple and Eye are online for that deck immediately as soon as they hit the board.
I am aware it is a bad comparison. But it was a comparison that was entirely within the line of reasoning used. So if the comparison was bad, the reasoning was bad. That was the point. So if not all lands that make more than 1 mana need be banned, then BOTH eldrazi lands don't need banned unless there is another reason that was previously left unstated.
I'm hoping that we see an Ensnaring Bridge ban by the end of the year. Lantern Control is bad for the format, even if it's not commanding a metagame share that's too big or winning too early. If we want the game to grow on Twitch and other streaming platforms, we can't allow a deck like this to exist. If a new player's first exposure to Modern is watching a Lantern mirror, they're just going to write off the format from the start.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
People, I do not think the tron lands need banned. That is not what I was saying. Someone else, whom I was replying to, wanted BOTH eye AND temple banned because they thought all sol lands were too powerful for modern. I thought that was bad reasoning so my question was meant, almost rhetorically, to tease out the flaw in that reasoning.
It's weird that I've received a couple responses as if I had actually said tron lands should be banned without a question mark, yet no one else noticed the original post that implied that such should be done.
That poster would be me.
I've edited my last post to address your questions but you seem to have skipped it. No biggie, it's a big thread and new post are flowing in on an hourly basis. Missing a few lines here or there is only logical...
As to the reply itself, you can't reasonably compare Sol lands to Urzatron. It's really like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit (they are lands that can generate more then one colorless mana), but saying that they are equally powerful would be, pun intended, fruity. With the Sol lands you get the mana straight away and you can spend it as neat as you like, while Urzatron actually requires setup. Eldrazi decks need to play colorless spells to use the excess mana but Urzatron needs to play, well, most of it's deck to even get the extra mana.
Consider this also: assuming the tron player drew all pieces of the Urzatron in his opener, he would get to use about nine mana within three turns time as he makes his land drops. The player with Sol lands on the other hand, assuming he drew three of his eight Sol lands) would have access to 12 mana within that same time frame (2+4+6) and he would actually get to spend it on meaningful stuff that isn't mana setup but threats and disruption. That one of the main reasons Tron sucks in this Eldrazi metagame. Honestly, who is playing Tron right now? Tron players should happily offer up the Eye to the chopping block to give them a shot at being a contender in the format again. Leaving things as they are will leave it in bleak anonymity along with the rest of the format's previously popular decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
There's no reason to ban them according to the results it has made although I must admit I wouldn't argue if they banned it since I don't like Tron but then again personal preferences (because you don't like specific deck) can't be the reason to ban something.
People, I do not think the tron lands need banned. That is not what I was saying. Someone else, whom I was replying to, wanted BOTH eye AND temple banned because they thought all sol lands were too powerful for modern. I thought that was bad reasoning so my question was meant, almost rhetorically, to tease out the flaw in that reasoning.
It's weird that I've received a couple responses as if I had actually said tron lands should be banned without a question mark, yet no one else noticed the original post that implied that such should be done.
tron lands aren't sol lands... they are combo lands... specifically a 3 card combo... and by and large most 3 card combos are fine... you need the 12 lands plus the requisite tutors to make the engine work... that's fine by me... tron has been around for as long as any other deck and it's never been a problem because of this...
temple and eye only require eldrazi.... the lands are only as good as the things that it enables... if we want anymore eldrazi in the future which are going to printed whether you like it or not... both should be banned...
I would be amazing if Eye survives this *and disappointed* and wouldn't be surprised if both Eye and Temple were gone. I am more curious if they are going to urban meaningful blue cards now that the twin excuse is gone.
The key word there is "want". I'm pretty sure they didn't "want" this Eldrazi madness either,
That 'unwanted' madness sold a ton of product. It seems most are only looking at this from the players point of view and either not understanding or not caring about the business side.
Quote from Shmanka »
Where was this when Jund was using BBE? Where was this while Wild Nacatl got the axe? Where was this when Twin got banned?
Bocephus, if there was an award for most talkative and uninformed user on these forums, you would win by a landslide. The deck is nearly 50% of the metagame since the Pro Tour. What do you mean by beatable? If an Asteroid the size of Saturn was headed for Earth, in theory that's beatable.
1) meta share has nothing to do with how good a deck is, just how popular. If there is a 1000 person event and the deck of the quarter is being played by over half the field in the hands of some of the best players in the game, we are going to see what we are seeing now. We have also seen the Eldrazi decks change and become multiple versions. We have also see those best players in the game adapt and beat the deck.
2) As for my feelings toward the format, they have changed over the 5 years. What everyone is screaming about now, I wanted 5 years ago with loweer percentages. I told people back then a moment likenow would happen if they didnt stop it then. But I was looked at as the crazy of the board. So I sat back, played the format and got to enjoy it. Now something has happened that was warned about years ago and people are pissed. I dont care anymore. I just play the format. Like I have said, a majority of those posting in this thread wont play at the level of Magic they are complaining about. Its a moot point.
3) Jund was given how long? a year? 2? The Eldrazi have been hated since day one with little to no adapting.
Quote from bfrie »
He just comes here to disagree with everyone
No I dont, I just dont base my opinions on the format on events I dont play in. I base my opinions on the format on the meta I play in. You know, the actual point of the game.. to play.
Quote from Colt47 »
The bigger problem with eldrazi is that I don't think the deck is really that fun to play, either. Heck, it isn't even that fun to watch.
This could be said about multiple decks in the format by different people. If people didnt have a reason to play the deck, it wouldnt be played. People tend to forget about the fatigue in playing a multiple day event. People tend to play decks that are easier for them to play to lessen the fatigue.
bocephus, the 'level of magic we talk about' is MTGO. For many of us, thats just as much our meta as the paper one, and often its even more tilted towards the broken/linear side.
So no, its not fair to say we are complaining about a format or level we dont play in. We do, daily.
The key word there is "want". I'm pretty sure they didn't "want" this Eldrazi madness either,
That 'unwanted' madness sold a ton of product. It seems most are only looking at this from the players point of view and either not understanding or not caring about the business side.
Considering both the words and non-verbal communication (posture, expressions, etc) shown by Forsythe in his interview, I can't imagine they wanted to destroy a Modern and disenfranchise players of their second most popular format in order to sell more BFZ/Oath product. I mean, I'm sure SOME cynical schmuck in Wizards' accounting said something like that, but anyone who actually cares about their business' reputation wouldn't actively support destroying it for a short term gain.
No I dont, I just dont base my opinions on the format on events I dont play in. I base my opinions on the format on the meta I play in. You know, the actual point of the game.. to play.
I've played in several comp REL events over the last few months - Eldrazi has won or been in the finals of every one of them. I've played at FNMs or Monday Night Moderns in 4 different stores over the same time period in different cities - same story. Just because YOUR meta isn't infected by this deck doesn't mean that others aren't dealing with it in a meaningful way - from casual players to players many times more serious, people ARE being affected by the deck.
We could all use a healthy dose of the veil of ignorance when making judgments about this format or the game in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Death to false Value.
GW
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Spirits
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Eldrazi Temple is only fair when compared to Eye of Ugin.
No matter when you actually play it, it still provides an unfair advantage mana-wise to the Eldrazi player. This advantage is easier to see in the early game, but it is just as present as the game goes on. What makes it unfair is that it takes some very specific set of cards to actually deny you that mana advantage. Even if you only got to use it once before it is blown up it is still a permanent mana source with a Lotus Petal attached and that's still busted. If they don't destroy it, how many free Lotus Petals do you actually need to win an average game of Magic?
Bottom line is that both lands shouldn't be legal in Modern if for no other reason then for the sake of maintaining a "modern unique" power level. Having Sol lands without strings attached, even if only one of them, should be strictly Legacy territory.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Forsythe said in the GP coverage that they didn't want to nuke the deck. Do you think he ia going to go back on that? If so, why? If not, how can they ban both lands WITHOUT nuking the deck?
Its again just some corporate buzz speak that is pointless, much like that entire interview was.
Spirits
Why? The Tron lands were never responsible for a 40% metagame share apocalypse.
The key word there is "want". I'm pretty sure they didn't "want" this Eldrazi madness either, but that's what we've got. In that vein, they might "want" to avoid nuking both lands but that doesn't mean their hands won't be tied in the matter.
After the GP fiasco, and you should know these numbers better then most, leaving even a single land legal can prove to be a serious liability. Supposing that a ban of a single land would decrease the decks share by, say, 20% we would still be left with a monster that fit all relevant ban criteria in the recent years. Going from 40+% "down" to 20+% isn't that big of an improvement since it still leaves us with a deck that's overshadowing the rest of the format.
There is also the whole "communication" thing which kind of clearly demands that they visibly demonstrate that the Eldrazi problem has been dealt with. Leaving any of the lands legal gives us more then enough reason to doubt them, as if we didn't have enough reasons to do so already.
In the very likely scenario both lands get nuked, I think we would still be left with a reasonably competitive midrange deck, depending on how you want to configure it. As somebody already mentioned the cards are just too good not to play, at least some of them are. More then enough to warrant interest in a more midrangey approach to the strategy. Given WotC's heavy bias towards midrange decks in recent years, in both Standard and Modern, I would say that's exactly what their goal is.
EDIT: The Tron lands are actually fairer then they look. For one thing, you more or less need to devote your entire deck to assembling it. That leaves you open to all kinds of rush strategies, not to mention fast combo since the deck is very light on disruption. Second, you don't get the payoff before turn 3+ while the Eldrazi lands are nowhere near as "long term" in that sense. Those differences aside, the urztron and the eldrazi lands are simply not on the same level, power-wise, and mixing them together in any conversation is a lot like mixing apples and oranges.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Spirits
GW Rhys the Redeemed EDH
RUGAnimar, Soul of Elements EDH
WBRAlesha, Who Smiles at Death EDH
Where was this when Jund was using BBE? Where was this while Wild Nacatl got the axe? Where was this when Twin got banned?
Bocephus, if there was an award for most talkative and uninformed user on these forums, you would win by a landslide. The deck is nearly 50% of the metagame since the Pro Tour. What do you mean by beatable? If an Asteroid the size of Saturn was headed for Earth, in theory that's beatable.
People, I do not think the tron lands need banned. That is not what I was saying. Someone else, whom I was replying to, wanted BOTH eye AND temple banned because they thought all sol lands were too powerful for modern. I thought that was bad reasoning so my question was meant, almost rhetorically, to tease out the flaw in that reasoning.
It's weird that I've received a couple responses as if I had actually said tron lands should be banned without a question mark, yet no one else noticed the original post that implied that such should be done.
He just comes here to disagree with everyone
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
I am aware it is a bad comparison. But it was a comparison that was entirely within the line of reasoning used. So if the comparison was bad, the reasoning was bad. That was the point. So if not all lands that make more than 1 mana need be banned, then BOTH eldrazi lands don't need banned unless there is another reason that was previously left unstated.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
That poster would be me.
I've edited my last post to address your questions but you seem to have skipped it. No biggie, it's a big thread and new post are flowing in on an hourly basis. Missing a few lines here or there is only logical...
As to the reply itself, you can't reasonably compare Sol lands to Urzatron. It's really like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit (they are lands that can generate more then one colorless mana), but saying that they are equally powerful would be, pun intended, fruity. With the Sol lands you get the mana straight away and you can spend it as neat as you like, while Urzatron actually requires setup. Eldrazi decks need to play colorless spells to use the excess mana but Urzatron needs to play, well, most of it's deck to even get the extra mana.
Consider this also: assuming the tron player drew all pieces of the Urzatron in his opener, he would get to use about nine mana within three turns time as he makes his land drops. The player with Sol lands on the other hand, assuming he drew three of his eight Sol lands) would have access to 12 mana within that same time frame (2+4+6) and he would actually get to spend it on meaningful stuff that isn't mana setup but threats and disruption. That one of the main reasons Tron sucks in this Eldrazi metagame. Honestly, who is playing Tron right now? Tron players should happily offer up the Eye to the chopping block to give them a shot at being a contender in the format again. Leaving things as they are will leave it in bleak anonymity along with the rest of the format's previously popular decks.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
tron lands aren't sol lands... they are combo lands... specifically a 3 card combo... and by and large most 3 card combos are fine... you need the 12 lands plus the requisite tutors to make the engine work... that's fine by me... tron has been around for as long as any other deck and it's never been a problem because of this...
temple and eye only require eldrazi.... the lands are only as good as the things that it enables... if we want anymore eldrazi in the future which are going to printed whether you like it or not... both should be banned...
What's so funny? Do you think a card like Preordain is so broken in a vacuum that it can't ever be unbanned?
That 'unwanted' madness sold a ton of product. It seems most are only looking at this from the players point of view and either not understanding or not caring about the business side.
1) meta share has nothing to do with how good a deck is, just how popular. If there is a 1000 person event and the deck of the quarter is being played by over half the field in the hands of some of the best players in the game, we are going to see what we are seeing now. We have also seen the Eldrazi decks change and become multiple versions. We have also see those best players in the game adapt and beat the deck.
2) As for my feelings toward the format, they have changed over the 5 years. What everyone is screaming about now, I wanted 5 years ago with loweer percentages. I told people back then a moment likenow would happen if they didnt stop it then. But I was looked at as the crazy of the board. So I sat back, played the format and got to enjoy it. Now something has happened that was warned about years ago and people are pissed. I dont care anymore. I just play the format. Like I have said, a majority of those posting in this thread wont play at the level of Magic they are complaining about. Its a moot point.
3) Jund was given how long? a year? 2? The Eldrazi have been hated since day one with little to no adapting.
No I dont, I just dont base my opinions on the format on events I dont play in. I base my opinions on the format on the meta I play in. You know, the actual point of the game.. to play.
This could be said about multiple decks in the format by different people. If people didnt have a reason to play the deck, it wouldnt be played. People tend to forget about the fatigue in playing a multiple day event. People tend to play decks that are easier for them to play to lessen the fatigue.
So no, its not fair to say we are complaining about a format or level we dont play in. We do, daily.
Spirits
Considering both the words and non-verbal communication (posture, expressions, etc) shown by Forsythe in his interview, I can't imagine they wanted to destroy a Modern and disenfranchise players of their second most popular format in order to sell more BFZ/Oath product. I mean, I'm sure SOME cynical schmuck in Wizards' accounting said something like that, but anyone who actually cares about their business' reputation wouldn't actively support destroying it for a short term gain.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I've played in several comp REL events over the last few months - Eldrazi has won or been in the finals of every one of them. I've played at FNMs or Monday Night Moderns in 4 different stores over the same time period in different cities - same story. Just because YOUR meta isn't infected by this deck doesn't mean that others aren't dealing with it in a meaningful way - from casual players to players many times more serious, people ARE being affected by the deck.
We could all use a healthy dose of the veil of ignorance when making judgments about this format or the game in general.