Well how do you succeed in the current Modern? I can't beat Soul Sisters with Burn. Do I need to Jared Boettcher my opponent's deck? Do I need to Fabrizio Anteri my deck? The only solution I can come up with is cheat or play a different deck, which is the case with all the decks I've tested in the Modern format. Since you're clearly saying I'm lacking skill, you obviously believe you are a better player than me, so how do you beat your unwinnable matchups? I clearly should have started cheating against Tron players who always have turn 3 Karn every game when I play Jund. Notice a pattern here? Outside of monopolizing a certain deck in my area, I can't eliminate bad matchups in Modern.
Good players consistently beat their worst matchups more often than players who are worse than them, and that is generally why pro players consistently top 32 over random grinders. There are decks (like Junk/Jund) who generally have good matchups across the board, but no overwhelming odds. Play those decks. Yes you still have bad matchups (tron), but your win percentage will be higher against those bad matchups. If you are a better player you will have a higher win percentage than other players playing the same deck, and therefore place higher in a tournament. If you can't do/accept this, it is clear you do not actually want to play in a competitive format, and instead should opt to play casual games with friends.
Well how do you succeed in the current Modern? I can't beat Soul Sisters with Burn. Do I need to Jared Boettcher my opponent's deck? Do I need to Fabrizio Anteri my deck? The only solution I can come up with is cheat or play a different deck, which is the case with all the decks I've tested in the Modern format. Since you're clearly saying I'm lacking skill, you obviously believe you are a better player than me, so how do you beat your unwinnable matchups? I clearly should have started cheating against Tron players who always have turn 3 Karn every game when I play Jund. Notice a pattern here? Outside of monopolizing a certain deck in my area, I can't eliminate bad matchups in Modern.
Good players consistently beat their worst matchups more often than players who are worse than them, and that is generally why pro players consistently top 32 over random grinders. There are decks (like Junk/Jund) who generally have good matchups across the board, but no overwhelming odds. Play those decks. Yes you still have bad matchups (tron), but your win percentage will be higher against those bad matchups. If you are a better player you will have a higher win percentage than other players playing the same deck, and therefore place higher in a tournament. If you can't do/accept this, it is clear you do not actually want to play in a competitive format, and instead should opt to play casual games with friends.
There are also Modern Pro Tour finalists who also cannot win a single match after 3 byes at GP Los Angeles (ie. Jacob Wilson). I don't know what it is, but a lot of losses feel completely out of my control in this format more often than not. It's quite frustrating.
Well how do you succeed in the current Modern? I can't beat Soul Sisters with Burn. Do I need to Jared Boettcher my opponent's deck? Do I need to Fabrizio Anteri my deck? The only solution I can come up with is cheat or play a different deck, which is the case with all the decks I've tested in the Modern format. Since you're clearly saying I'm lacking skill, you obviously believe you are a better player than me, so how do you beat your unwinnable matchups? I clearly should have started cheating against Tron players who always have turn 3 Karn every game when I play Jund. Notice a pattern here? Outside of monopolizing a certain deck in my area, I can't eliminate bad matchups in Modern.
Good players consistently beat their worst matchups more often than players who are worse than them, and that is generally why pro players consistently top 32 over random grinders. There are decks (like Junk/Jund) who generally have good matchups across the board, but no overwhelming odds. Play those decks. Yes you still have bad matchups (tron), but your win percentage will be higher against those bad matchups. If you are a better player you will have a higher win percentage than other players playing the same deck, and therefore place higher in a tournament. If you can't do/accept this, it is clear you do not actually want to play in a competitive format, and instead should opt to play casual games with friends.
There are also Modern Pro Tour finalists who also cannot win a single match after 3 byes at GP Los Angeles (ie. Jacob Wilson). I don't know what it is, but a lot of losses feel completely out of my control in this format more often than not. It's quite frustrating.
there is no guarantee of performance in individual matches or events no matter how good you are, that's true, but is it that different in standard? obviously standard is better if all you care about is cashing out, but it's also a much less interesting format: one dimensional and artificially limited often in not so elegant ways
but in the longterm everyone gets what he deserves, sure you can have bad luck at one event, but the opposite is also true, if you keep playing eventually some events will unfold beautifully for you, if you don't have good results even then, you're not that good, period. (again you is generic and i don't mean you personally)
what do you do? play at ~4 events instead of one, if none of them produces satisfactory results the blame falls on you, objectively there are high level players that focus too much on standard/draft and are simply not that good in Modern, they can complain all they want about the format, but if they invested more time in it, they'd be rewarded accordingly, you can't play Modern only in off-seasons and expect to beat people who play nothing but Modern the entire year just because you're a 'pro' and that 'pro' tag is specific and not generic, i might be a pro sprinter, if i lose at marathons it doesn't mean that marathon sucks, only that i'm not good at it
regardless i'm not denying that there are some issues, but my feeling is that your criticism is mostly exaggerations, you speak as if every MU is 30-70 or vice versa when those MUs are the exceptions and not the canon and even in those sometimes you can steal a win or two if you play better than the other guy, it's just difficult and demands that he doesn't draw very well
Standard is a much more narrow metagame, which makes it easier to pick and choose a deck that exploits the field. Modern feels like cross your fingers and hope you don't get paired vs your bad matchup/silver bullet sideboard card due to its diverse nature. If my gameplan is hope my opponent draws poorly like you have pointed out, that's something I cannot control unless I intend to cheat.
Not necessarily. But it would likely bring back clear "best decks" which you can predictably prepare for while helping give an answer to a lot of the random, inconsistent "oops I win" decks in the lower tiers. I'm probably looking through this with Twin-colored glasses, but I've also not found a deck I liked to play for the past six months, so it's probably just whimsical thinking.
I am in the same boat, Modern just isn't for me, since all I care about is winning and the only decks I like to play, WOTC bans because they are "too good". The format is not a good for proving who is better at Magic, but rather it's a format that allows you to use your collection to play Magic that doesn't have an upkeep cost like Standard. I'm having trouble figuring out what Modern deck to play for the PPTQ season because every deck "loses to something out of your control". I hate that quality in any of the decks I play in a tournament. And don't drop the Jund argument because "game against everything" is not the same as "beats everything". You need a deck that "beats everything" to spike a big tournament.
In what way is this different from Legacy? Even the mighty Miracles doesn't fulfill the qualities you want.
Actually Miracles basically fulfills the qualities I want because Miracles actually beats all the non-decks in the format aside from 12-POST and MUD. Which are literally non-factors in the format. Eldrazi and Abrupt Decay decks don't crush Miracles. There's a reason Miracles had the most representation in the top 8's of the double Legacy GP weekend. It's literally better than everything else and it's hard to argue against that when the results clearly show that. Unless you are like a stone master like Rodrigo Togores with ANT, I really cannot see why you wouldn't play Miracles other than card availability (if you want to win).
Miracles does EXACTLY what ktkenshinx quoted a wizards employee on what bannable decks do, have majority 50/50 or greater matchups against most of the field. There is no good reason for miracles existing in legacy in it's current state.
Legacy's standards are not exactly the same, the format's context is very much a product of having good cantrips and free disruption.
I am in the same boat, Modern just isn't for me, since all I care about is winning and the only decks I like to play, WOTC bans because they are "too good". The format is not a good for proving who is better at Magic, but rather it's a format that allows you to use your collection to play Magic that doesn't have an upkeep cost like Standard. I'm having trouble figuring out what Modern deck to play for the PPTQ season because every deck "loses to something out of your control". I hate that quality in any of the decks I play in a tournament. And don't drop the Jund argument because "game against everything" is not the same as "beats everything". You need a deck that "beats everything" to spike a big tournament.
In what way is this different from Legacy? Even the mighty Miracles doesn't fulfill the qualities you want.
Actually Miracles basically fulfills the qualities I want because Miracles actually beats all the non-decks in the format aside from 12-POST and MUD. Which are literally non-factors in the format. Eldrazi and Abrupt Decay decks don't crush Miracles. There's a reason Miracles had the most representation in the top 8's of the double Legacy GP weekend. It's literally better than everything else and it's hard to argue against that when the results clearly show that. Unless you are like a stone master like Rodrigo Togores with ANT, I really cannot see why you wouldn't play Miracles other than card availability (if you want to win).
Miracles does EXACTLY what ktkenshinx quoted a wizards employee on what bannable decks do, have majority 50/50 or greater matchups against most of the field. There is no good reason for miracles existing in legacy in it's current state.
Legacy's standards are not exactly the same, the format's context is very much a product of having good cantrips and free disruption.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On mtgsalvation people don't want to discuss ideas, so I give people something else to discuss: my controversial opinions.
In what way is this different from Legacy? Even the mighty Miracles doesn't fulfill the qualities you want.
Actually Miracles basically fulfills the qualities I want because Miracles actually beats all the non-decks in the format aside from 12-POST and MUD. Which are literally non-factors in the format. Eldrazi and Abrupt Decay decks don't crush Miracles. There's a reason Miracles had the most representation in the top 8's of the double Legacy GP weekend. It's literally better than everything else and it's hard to argue against that when the results clearly show that. Unless you are like a stone master like Rodrigo Togores with ANT, I really cannot see why you wouldn't play Miracles other than card availability (if you want to win).
Miracles does EXACTLY what ktkenshinx quoted a wizards employee on what bannable decks do, have majority 50/50 or greater matchups against most of the field. There is no good reason for miracles existing in legacy in it's current state.
Legacy's standards are not exactly the same, the format's context is very much a product of having good cantrips and free disruption.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
I'm just saying that it's a really delicate issue, because at the heart of the problem are cards that fundamentally make Legacy the format it is.
Not to mention the whole "decks should be punished for winning" aspect; that hasn't helped Modern's public image, and boy will the fires rise if it crops up anywhere else.
Good players consistently beat their worst matchups more often than players who are worse than them, and that is generally why pro players consistently top 32 over random grinders. There are decks (like Junk/Jund) who generally have good matchups across the board, but no overwhelming odds. Play those decks. Yes you still have bad matchups (tron), but your win percentage will be higher against those bad matchups. If you are a better player you will have a higher win percentage than other players playing the same deck, and therefore place higher in a tournament. If you can't do/accept this, it is clear you do not actually want to play in a competitive format, and instead should opt to play casual games with friends.
There are also Modern Pro Tour finalists who also cannot win a single match after 3 byes at GP Los Angeles (ie. Jacob Wilson). I don't know what it is, but a lot of losses feel completely out of my control in this format more often than not. It's quite frustrating.
there is no guarantee of performance in individual matches or events no matter how good you are, that's true, but is it that different in standard? obviously standard is better if all you care about is cashing out, but it's also a much less interesting format: one dimensional and artificially limited often in not so elegant ways
but in the longterm everyone gets what he deserves, sure you can have bad luck at one event, but the opposite is also true, if you keep playing eventually some events will unfold beautifully for you, if you don't have good results even then, you're not that good, period. (again you is generic and i don't mean you personally)
what do you do? play at ~4 events instead of one, if none of them produces satisfactory results the blame falls on you, objectively there are high level players that focus too much on standard/draft and are simply not that good in Modern, they can complain all they want about the format, but if they invested more time in it, they'd be rewarded accordingly, you can't play Modern only in off-seasons and expect to beat people who play nothing but Modern the entire year just because you're a 'pro' and that 'pro' tag is specific and not generic, i might be a pro sprinter, if i lose at marathons it doesn't mean that marathon sucks, only that i'm not good at it
regardless i'm not denying that there are some issues, but my feeling is that your criticism is mostly exaggerations, you speak as if every MU is 30-70 or vice versa when those MUs are the exceptions and not the canon and even in those sometimes you can steal a win or two if you play better than the other guy, it's just difficult and demands that he doesn't draw very well
Standard is a much more narrow metagame, which makes it easier to pick and choose a deck that exploits the field. Modern feels like cross your fingers and hope you don't get paired vs your bad matchup/silver bullet sideboard card due to its diverse nature. If my gameplan is hope my opponent draws poorly like you have pointed out, that's something I cannot control unless I intend to cheat.
ok so the problem is noted (partially at least, i still think you exaggerate, after all in standard if you get paired with your bad MU and he draws whatever he wants to are you going to win?), if anything there are parts of standard that are simplistic (like curving out, when i open a hand with one 1 drop, one 2 drop, one 3drop etc many choices have already been made for me and that seems pretty common in standard but anyways, same goes with deckbuilding, you are not left to figure out the optimal amount of removal your deck needs, you just play as much as they printed and usually it's not enough...)
so what are the solutions?
to anyone who says Modern should become casualised my answer is as rude as the context allows, there are many competitive players focusing on Modern and we're not less or more important than the players of any other format
to anyone who suggests let's ban everything till there's nothing but midrange, well gl with that...
to anyone who suggests let's unban someting so we can have THE best deck, my answer is go play Legacy Miracles or Standard GW tokens/Bant CoCo
so does the complaining of yours has some suggestion behind it? because like i said we need specific prints, i have some ideas, i'm sure someone else could come up with even more or polish them, but as long as they don't print directly for Modern we can't do much and even with all those restrictions things have improved (for those that weren't on the banned decks at least, at least they lived the dream for as long as it lasted, playing in a field both diverse and with your deck on top), generally there are many decks that have game against everything save one deck, well you have to deal with one bad MU it's not that tragic and there will be tours that you won't get paired with it
Oh, I already play Standard and Legacy. GW Tokens is the best rock deck that Cryptolith Rites (the paper deck) can't even consistently beat. There's no such metagame exploitation that you can do in Modern, and quite frankly that means I lose the one edge I have in Constructed magic which is exploit trends which Modern does not have. The common trend that Modern does have though is that nobodies for the most part spike Modern GPs and usually fall off the Pro Tour train after one or two appearances and very few if any Modern GP champions can stay on the Pro Tour train for longer than a year. Legacy is a pre-dominantly blue format yes, but at least the games aren't total blowouts (assuming you play blue) where there's nothing you can do about your opponent's strategy or backbreaking sideboard card. I dunno, but there's less back and forth in Modern in my experience than any other Constructed format I've played in recent memory.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
This is where I breathe a sigh of relief that Legacy is a different format than Modern. If Modern players had a say in Legacy bannings, then Show and Tell would have been banned long ago when Brad Nelson and company played it. Shardless BUG would have been banned when Gerry Thompson and everyone and their mom played it. Maybe Death and Taxes would have been banned when the Danish players played it?
There is more ebb and flow in Legacy and a deck that has had a lot of results may eventually not have as many results. Legacy players' lives don't revolve around bannings and unbannings. Simply put.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
there is no guarantee of performance in individual matches or events no matter how good you are, that's true, but is it that different in standard? obviously standard is better if all you care about is cashing out, but it's also a much less interesting format: one dimensional and artificially limited often in not so elegant ways
but in the longterm everyone gets what he deserves, sure you can have bad luck at one event, but the opposite is also true, if you keep playing eventually some events will unfold beautifully for you, if you don't have good results even then, you're not that good, period. (again you is generic and i don't mean you personally)
what do you do? play at ~4 events instead of one, if none of them produces satisfactory results the blame falls on you, objectively there are high level players that focus too much on standard/draft and are simply not that good in Modern, they can complain all they want about the format, but if they invested more time in it, they'd be rewarded accordingly, you can't play Modern only in off-seasons and expect to beat people who play nothing but Modern the entire year just because you're a 'pro' and that 'pro' tag is specific and not generic, i might be a pro sprinter, if i lose at marathons it doesn't mean that marathon sucks, only that i'm not good at it
regardless i'm not denying that there are some issues, but my feeling is that your criticism is mostly exaggerations, you speak as if every MU is 30-70 or vice versa when those MUs are the exceptions and not the canon and even in those sometimes you can steal a win or two if you play better than the other guy, it's just difficult and demands that he doesn't draw very well
Standard is a much more narrow metagame, which makes it easier to pick and choose a deck that exploits the field. Modern feels like cross your fingers and hope you don't get paired vs your bad matchup/silver bullet sideboard card due to its diverse nature. If my gameplan is hope my opponent draws poorly like you have pointed out, that's something I cannot control unless I intend to cheat.
ok so the problem is noted (partially at least, i still think you exaggerate, after all in standard if you get paired with your bad MU and he draws whatever he wants to are you going to win?), if anything there are parts of standard that are simplistic (like curving out, when i open a hand with one 1 drop, one 2 drop, one 3drop etc many choices have already been made for me and that seems pretty common in standard but anyways, same goes with deckbuilding, you are not left to figure out the optimal amount of removal your deck needs, you just play as much as they printed and usually it's not enough...)
so what are the solutions?
to anyone who says Modern should become casualised my answer is as rude as the context allows, there are many competitive players focusing on Modern and we're not less or more important than the players of any other format
to anyone who suggests let's ban everything till there's nothing but midrange, well gl with that...
to anyone who suggests let's unban someting so we can have THE best deck, my answer is go play Legacy Miracles or Standard GW tokens/Bant CoCo
so does the complaining of yours has some suggestion behind it? because like i said we need specific prints, i have some ideas, i'm sure someone else could come up with even more or polish them, but as long as they don't print directly for Modern we can't do much and even with all those restrictions things have improved (for those that weren't on the banned decks at least, at least they lived the dream for as long as it lasted, playing in a field both diverse and with your deck on top), generally there are many decks that have game against everything save one deck, well you have to deal with one bad MU it's not that tragic and there will be tours that you won't get paired with it
Oh, I already play Standard and Legacy. GW Tokens is the best rock deck that Cryptolith Rites (the paper deck) can't even consistently beat. There's no such metagame exploitation that you can do in Modern, and quite frankly that means I lose the one edge I have in Constructed magic which is exploit trends which Modern does not have. The common trend that Modern does have though is that nobodies for the most part spike Modern GPs and usually fall off the Pro Tour train after one or two appearances and very few if any Modern GP champions can stay on the Pro Tour train for longer than a year. Legacy is a pre-dominantly blue format yes, but at least the games aren't total blowouts (assuming you play blue) where there's nothing you can do about your opponent's strategy or backbreaking sideboard card. I dunno, but there's less back and forth in Modern in my experience than any other Constructed format I've played in recent memory.
games aren't like that in Modern at all and there have been plenty of recorded games in which highly skilled players overcame bad MUs or SB bullets used against them, you're overly dramatic, most MUs are within the 60-40 range and most decks do not just lose to specific hatecards, only specific linear strategies do, imo the only deck that truly falls into MU lottery teritory is Tron and even that is getting a bit more 'normal' if more folks follow Losset's example
as for your preference towards one of the worst standard environments in recent times, well... i guess you enjoyed Modern during the Eldrazi reign? you essentially complain about why there's no best deck you can just play and win and i have to ask again, if you need to play a broken deckt to win, maybe you don't deserve to win? am i supposed to be impressed by folks who won with full powered Eldrazi? if anything Modern was a free for all at that time, on the other hand i highly doubt that all the GP winners out there (the ones that played non broken decks at least) were lucky each and every round for 18 rounds in a row, obviously they did something right
@Foodchaingoblins i agree actually, enforcing Modern policies in Legacy is a poor choice, since we have many folks that believe in a self regulating format with high power level, let them have it, having two format's with exactly the same goals/policies is wasteful
Can you point to me said matches recorded on camera of Modern overcoming bad matchups that happened recently? I am struggling to find one right now, I know that Rodrigo Togores played ANT to beat his Miracles opponent (considered favorable for Miracles) through a hand of double FOW double Flusterstorm Snapcaster Mage and Surgical Extraction. All I remember from Modern in recent memory is that a Merfolk player drew his Hurkyl's Recall against Affinity and wrecked him because of it in the finals of GP LA.
None of this is to mention that in any situation where people are this worried about 'the matchup lottery' anyone could make that their advantage by predicting the meta. Which requires a whole separate layer of skill.
Such as Reid duke piloting boggles through a sea of control decks at worlds. And this may just be the perfect example for this discussion as shahar beat duke with a control deck in the final round.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
This is where I breathe a sigh of relief that Legacy is a different format than Modern. If Modern players had a say in Legacy bannings, then Show and Tell would have been banned long ago when Brad Nelson and company played it. Shardless BUG would have been banned when Gerry Thompson and everyone and their mom played it. Maybe Death and Taxes would have been banned when the Danish players played it?
There is more ebb and flow in Legacy and a deck that has had a lot of results may eventually not have as many results. Legacy players' lives don't revolve around bannings and unbannings. Simply put.
You are talking about the difference, from the companies point of view, about a format that they really dont support any more and dont really care about in Legacy, as opposed to a format they were trying to make another competitive format in Modern.
Lets be honest, what Wotc needs, wants in a competitive format, is not the same as what the player base wants. Because of that I foresee Wotc sticking with Standard and Limited and letting all other formats be picked and supported by outside entities. Like how SCG picked up and revived Legacy, and pushed Modern.
you don't expect me to actually spent like 30 minutes for this right?
but i can provide with examples so you can look for them yourself if you want to
GP Pittsburgh 2015 Aaron Webster with his affinity deck managed to beat Craig Wescoe in the semi-finals despite the latter had deployed a T2 Stony Silence
GP LA 2016: Simon ****sky with his Merfolks wins against Ethan Brown (affinity) in the finals, any Merfolk player can tell you that affinity and elves are the worst MUs for this deck, in the same event Simon ****sky again wins against Jund which is slightly favored against Merfolks, so maybe it's safe to assume that Simon was the better player since he won 2 times in a row against his bad MUs?
those are examples from recent GP Top8s alone, now if i'm to get more generic i've seen Joe Losset with his RG Tron winning games he had no buisiness to win (even against Infect!) and also lose against decks that Tron traditionally beats
also during the latest SCG evens we've seen Grixis Delver win against Jund (admittedly the said deck was more control than tempo and swapped delver for AV so this is not a great example) and we've also seen Abzan CoCo decks win against Tron which folks here once used as an arguement to ban CoCo (ridiculous but whatever...)
those are just recent examples that come to memory and i'm not even getting into anecdotal evidence and personal stories which i have a ton, anyways i understand complaining about Tron as a BG/CoCo/control player or about Infect as a combo/tron player but that's about it, the rest are hyperboles
Craig Wescoe's drew the wrong part of the deck vs fliers, his affinity opponent was fortunate enough to draw signal pests against a stony silence not shutting off much of anything.
Jund guy, reading coverage was experiencing the fail rate of his deck that I personally experience more often than I like, leading to his loss. And Merfolk employing the Spreading Seas your opponent out of the game strategy works against most Jund draws and is usually how you beat Jund from the Merfolk side.
Those did not seem like matches that I would personally enjoy watching or experiencing. Oh and going first is extremely important in all those matches. That was a common trend in all the matches, the guy who was on the play was the winner in all of the matches you have described.
None of this is to mention that in any situation where people are this worried about 'the matchup lottery' anyone could make that their advantage by predicting the meta. Which requires a whole separate layer of skill.
Such as Reid duke piloting boggles through a sea of control decks at worlds. And this may just be the perfect example for this discussion as shahar beat duke with a control deck in the final round.
I also love how you fail to mention that Reid Duke mulliganed to oblivion to contribute to Shahar's win and the fact that the metagame is smaller than most PPTQs. Back then, Modern was alright though, metagame was narrow enough and was exploitable just like how Reid Duke exploited it to make a finals appearance at Worlds.
Honestly sisicat, why are you still posting in here, we get it you hate modern. This is the banlist thread, we are here to talk about how to improve the format via bans and unbans, all your doing is complaining that you cant throw money at a wall and get free wins in modern and reguritating arguments you saw in some article, contributing nothing to the thread
Calm down, just find him a recorded major match that happened recently where a deck with an unfavorable matchup won despite the favored deck drawing the "right" part of their deck and both players mulliganed evenly and also the favored deck was on the play. Otherwise, modern is clearly broken forever.
you don't expect me to actually spent like 30 minutes for this right?
but i can provide with examples so you can look for them yourself if you want to
GP Pittsburgh 2015 Aaron Webster with his affinity deck managed to beat Craig Wescoe in the semi-finals despite the latter had deployed a T2 Stony Silence
GP LA 2016: Simon ****sky with his Merfolks wins against Ethan Brown (affinity) in the finals, any Merfolk player can tell you that affinity and elves are the worst MUs for this deck, in the same event Simon ****sky again wins against Jund which is slightly favored against Merfolks, so maybe it's safe to assume that Simon was the better player since he won 2 times in a row against his bad MUs?
those are examples from recent GP Top8s alone, now if i'm to get more generic i've seen Joe Losset with his RG Tron winning games he had no buisiness to win (even against Infect!) and also lose against decks that Tron traditionally beats
also during the latest SCG evens we've seen Grixis Delver win against Jund (admittedly the said deck was more control than tempo and swapped delver for AV so this is not a great example) and we've also seen Abzan CoCo decks win against Tron which folks here once used as an arguement to ban CoCo (ridiculous but whatever...)
those are just recent examples that come to memory and i'm not even getting into anecdotal evidence and personal stories which i have a ton, anyways i understand complaining about Tron as a BG/CoCo/control player or about Infect as a combo/tron player but that's about it, the rest are hyperboles
Craig Wescoe's drew the wrong part of the deck vs fliers, his affinity opponent was fortunate enough to draw signal pests against a stony silence not shutting off much of anything.
Jund guy, reading coverage was experiencing the fail rate of his deck that I personally experience more often than I like, leading to his loss. And Merfolk employing the Spreading Seas your opponent out of the game strategy works against most Jund draws and is usually how you beat Jund from the Merfolk side.
Those did not seem like matches that I would personally enjoy watching or experiencing. Oh and going first is extremely important in all those matches. That was a common trend in all the matches, the guy who was on the play was the winner in all of the matches you have described.
not sure what i can make of this, you assume an awful lot about a game which wasn't streamed while your comment about Wecoe directly contradicts your point, you've claimed that essentially all you need to win is your hatecard and now you say that Wescoe drew the wrong half of his deck? he drew a path, a ghost quarter, a bunch of creatures and stony, what was the right part and how does it matter if stony is unbeatable like you claim?
as for you not enjoying the matches correct me if i'm wrong but do you enjoy matches in which you don't play a busted deck? because from your overall contribution in this thread that's the impression you're giving me, that if it's not above T1 it's not good enough for you,you just said that none of the T1 decks have a good enough winrate for you, you realise that this comment falls a bit on the absurd side yes? well some format's are actually balanced and do not offer easy wins to anyone that can afford the best deck at the time, deal with it
I can't see why it's absurd when literally every other constructed format offers a format predator to play with. Is Modern just the odd exception? In Pauper it's being run by Mono U Delver and UR Drake decks, Standard is GW decks, Legacy is Miracles vs the world. I fail to see why my request is unreasonable, it's do-able in other formats, are you trying to tell me there's something wrong with all of them? If Modern can't have a format predator, then isn't it just a crapshoot at who gets good pairings? Because that's what Modern looks like to me right now. Should I be in the What deck I should play thread? I'm pretty sure no one has the correct answer for my needs there.
Honestly sisicat, why are you still posting in here, we get it you hate modern. This is the banlist thread, we are here to talk about how to improve the format via bans and unbans, all your doing is complaining that you cant throw money at a wall and get free wins in modern and reguritating arguments you saw in some article, contributing nothing to the thread
I think the point being made is that the overly swingy matches are resulting in more feel-bads and less actual good games of Magic. Last night with Grixis Delver for example, I start off 2-0 against decks I probably should have lost against (Jund and Ad Nauseam). The Jund match was a disgusting beatdown of drawing exactly the right stuff at the right time and won 2-0. The AN match was very close first game, but should have lost the second. He fizzled the combo by Spoils-ing away two of his Pacts and a Simian Spirit Guide while I had Leak, Dispel, Remand in hand when trying to go off. The next round was a sub-5 minute 0-2 loss against back-to-back turn 2 Blood Moons. Final round was a grindy win, T3 Blood Moon loss, and Grindy loss against Grishoalbrand to finish 2-2. Like it or not, this is Modern. I took my $4 store credit and got a foil Blood Artist for my Tesya Commander deck. Then I caught a few more Pokemon on my way out while hoping one day my friends can come back. But at least the grindy games were mostly fun, and once I stopped caring about random losses since strict competition in the format is ridiculously unbalanced, I can go on with my life and not get worked up about it anymore.
Honestly sisicat, why are you still posting in here, we get it you hate modern. This is the banlist thread, we are here to talk about how to improve the format via bans and unbans, all your doing is complaining that you cant throw money at a wall and get free wins in modern and reguritating arguments you saw in some article, contributing nothing to the thread
I think the point being made is that the overly swingy matches are resulting in more feel-bads and less actual good games of Magic. Last night with Grixis Delver for example, I start off 2-0 against decks I probably should have lost against (Jund and Ad Nauseam). The Jund match was a disgusting beatdown of drawing exactly the right stuff at the right time and won 2-0. The AN match was very close first game, but should have lost the second. He fizzled the combo by Spoils-ing away two of his Pacts and a Simian Spirit Guide while I had Leak, Dispel, Remand in hand when trying to go off. The next round was a sub-5 minute 0-2 loss against back-to-back turn 2 Blood Moons. Final round was a grindy win, T3 Blood Moon loss, and Grindy loss against Grishoalbrand to finish 2-2. Like it or not, this is Modern. I took my $4 store credit and got a foil Blood Artist for my Tesya Commander deck. Then I caught a few more Pokemon on my way out while hoping one day my friends can come back. But at least the grindy games were mostly fun, and once I stopped caring about random losses since strict competition in the format is ridiculously unbalanced, I can go on with my life and not get worked up about it anymore.
I don't really see anything wrong with this, though. Set 1: wins where your deck worked. Set 2: a close game and a win where your opponent's deck did the thing keeping it in tier 2 status (but you seemed prepared anyway w/ counters in hand), set 3: losses against 2 nut draws (you can't really say T2 blood moon is the norm, let alone twice in a row). Set 4: a close set you happened to lose. You ended up at 2-2 while playing 2, arguably 3 bad MU's, and that seems more indicative of the format being ridiculously balanced rather than the other way around.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
This is where I breathe a sigh of relief that Legacy is a different format than Modern. If Modern players had a say in Legacy bannings, then Show and Tell would have been banned long ago when Brad Nelson and company played it. Shardless BUG would have been banned when Gerry Thompson and everyone and their mom played it. Maybe Death and Taxes would have been banned when the Danish players played it?
There is more ebb and flow in Legacy and a deck that has had a lot of results may eventually not have as many results. Legacy players' lives don't revolve around bannings and unbannings. Simply put.
Considering that many pro players have called for miracles to be banned (many of whom play the deck itself). I find your attempt to flame me really funny.
A good player who knows his deck and knows how the other top 10 or so decks in the format work and how their deck interacts with the others can do just fine in Modern. Anybody claiming otherwise isn't nearly as good as they believe they are. MTG is a game of variance and it strikes in all formats, even Legacy. Legacy mitigates it by consistency tools and free spells. Standard mitigates it by a tiny card pool. Players need to mitigate it in Modern with knowing their lines inside and out, knowing the format inside and out, knowing how to board and how to mulligan. If you're consistently losing you're either a poor player or you're not doing one of those mitigating factors correctly.
I can't see why it's absurd when literally every other constructed format offers a format predator to play with. Is Modern just the odd exception? In Pauper it's being run by Mono U Delver and UR Drake decks, Standard is GW decks, Legacy is Miracles vs the world. I fail to see why my request is unreasonable, it's do-able in other formats, are you trying to tell me there's something wrong with all of them? If Modern can't have a format predator, then isn't it just a crapshoot at who gets good pairings? Because that's what Modern looks like to me right now. Should I be in the What deck I should play thread? I'm pretty sure no one has the correct answer for my needs there.
I think this is pretty much the entire point. People don't want to just have the same sort of thing in every format, and WoTC has made it pretty clear they don't want modern to be that way either. All of their behavior has been clearly aimed at making modern a format with, according to I think forsythe (though it may be stoddard) 10+ "top tier" decks (and I think we have generally decided that they view "top tier" as what this forum classifies as tier 1 and 2).
WotC wants modern to be this way. So while I get that people don't like modern because it doesnt have a clear cut best deck, whenever we do get one, they will just manage the format to eliminate it. Modern really isn't the format for you if this is what you want.
Still on vacation, and still baffled why people think playing the 50-50+ format predator deck is skill-intensive. When all your matchups except the mirror are favorable or better, you just play that deck and get by on how good the deck is. That's not skill-intensive at all, and the only reason other formats allow it is because those other formats are different from Modern in significant ways.
For instance, Standard rotates so frequently that stagnant DTB formats disappear naturally without intervention. Legacy has much less support, fewer players, and artificially constrained card supply. All of this inhibits natural metagame growth like we see in Modern, which benefits from different qualities: high levels of support, more players, no rotation, high card availability, etc.
Finally, none of this is a banlist problem as it is being argued. That is, unless the complaint is "ban dozens of cards to increase interactivity," which is against thread rules because it's effectively, and historically, spam. So really, this vocal hyper-minority argument needs to stop.
EDIT: I'll add that I DO think Modern would benefit from at least one more generic answer to tighten the matchup lottery even further. But again, that's not a banlist thread discussion. Take that to the reprint or new card thread.
A good player who knows his deck and knows how the other top 10 or so decks in the format work and how their deck interacts with the others can do just fine in Modern. Anybody claiming otherwise isn't nearly as good as they believe they are. MTG is a game of variance and it strikes in all formats, even Legacy. Legacy mitigates it by consistency tools and free spells. Standard mitigates it by a tiny card pool. Players need to mitigate it in Modern with knowing their lines inside and out, knowing the format inside and out, knowing how to board and how to mulligan. If you're consistently losing you're either a poor player or you're not doing one of those mitigating factors correctly.
Are you trying to say Modern requires more skill than any other format? I noticed how you added many things to Modern and made generalizations of all the other formats. The line for Jund to beat Tron is T1 Thoughtseize and many Tarmogoyfs your hand can produce afterwards. My Fulminator Mage plan doesn't work against Tron players who draw the nuts and wins the die roll. Unfortunately knowing that line doesn't let me beat my bad matchup when they have a nut draw. There's not much you can do in Modern to curb your bad matchup, you literally have to cross your fingers and hope they have the extreme low end of their draws to win. There's a reason why a deck that has "game against everything" in Jund doesn't win Grand Prix.
A good player who knows his deck and knows how the other top 10 or so decks in the format work and how their deck interacts with the others can do just fine in Modern. Anybody claiming otherwise isn't nearly as good as they believe they are. MTG is a game of variance and it strikes in all formats, even Legacy. Legacy mitigates it by consistency tools and free spells. Standard mitigates it by a tiny card pool. Players need to mitigate it in Modern with knowing their lines inside and out, knowing the format inside and out, knowing how to board and how to mulligan. If you're consistently losing you're either a poor player or you're not doing one of those mitigating factors correctly.
Are you trying to say Modern requires more skill than any other format? I noticed how you added many things to Modern and made generalizations of all the other formats. The line for Jund to beat Tron is T1 Thoughtseize and many Tarmogoyfs your hand can produce afterwards. My Fulminator Mage plan doesn't work against Tron players who draw the nuts and wins the die roll. Unfortunately knowing that line doesn't let me beat my bad matchup when they have a nut draw. There's not much you can do in Modern to curb your bad matchup, you literally have to cross your fingers and hope they have the extreme low end of their draws to win. There's a reason why a deck that has "game against everything" in Jund doesn't win Grand Prix.
I'm not saying it takes more skill. I'm saying it takes DIFFERENT skills. Those things I listed are still present in all other formats but they're not quite as important in those formats as they are in Standard. Someone who has mastered those things will still excel in other formats, but they'll also do very well in Modern. Since this is the Modern forums, I'm assuming we're talking about winning competitive Modern games.
Good players consistently beat their worst matchups more often than players who are worse than them, and that is generally why pro players consistently top 32 over random grinders. There are decks (like Junk/Jund) who generally have good matchups across the board, but no overwhelming odds. Play those decks. Yes you still have bad matchups (tron), but your win percentage will be higher against those bad matchups. If you are a better player you will have a higher win percentage than other players playing the same deck, and therefore place higher in a tournament. If you can't do/accept this, it is clear you do not actually want to play in a competitive format, and instead should opt to play casual games with friends.
There are also Modern Pro Tour finalists who also cannot win a single match after 3 byes at GP Los Angeles (ie. Jacob Wilson). I don't know what it is, but a lot of losses feel completely out of my control in this format more often than not. It's quite frustrating.
Standard is a much more narrow metagame, which makes it easier to pick and choose a deck that exploits the field. Modern feels like cross your fingers and hope you don't get paired vs your bad matchup/silver bullet sideboard card due to its diverse nature. If my gameplan is hope my opponent draws poorly like you have pointed out, that's something I cannot control unless I intend to cheat.
Legacy's standards are not exactly the same, the format's context is very much a product of having good cantrips and free disruption.
This discussion isn't for this threat but miracles has had consistent top 8 finishes since avacyn restored was in standard. It's difficult to find major tournaments (gps/pro tours) where miracles isn't in the top 8. It loses to very few decks. The deck clearly needs to go.
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
I'm just saying that it's a really delicate issue, because at the heart of the problem are cards that fundamentally make Legacy the format it is.
Not to mention the whole "decks should be punished for winning" aspect; that hasn't helped Modern's public image, and boy will the fires rise if it crops up anywhere else.
Oh, I already play Standard and Legacy. GW Tokens is the best rock deck that Cryptolith Rites (the paper deck) can't even consistently beat. There's no such metagame exploitation that you can do in Modern, and quite frankly that means I lose the one edge I have in Constructed magic which is exploit trends which Modern does not have. The common trend that Modern does have though is that nobodies for the most part spike Modern GPs and usually fall off the Pro Tour train after one or two appearances and very few if any Modern GP champions can stay on the Pro Tour train for longer than a year. Legacy is a pre-dominantly blue format yes, but at least the games aren't total blowouts (assuming you play blue) where there's nothing you can do about your opponent's strategy or backbreaking sideboard card. I dunno, but there's less back and forth in Modern in my experience than any other Constructed format I've played in recent memory.
This is where I breathe a sigh of relief that Legacy is a different format than Modern. If Modern players had a say in Legacy bannings, then Show and Tell would have been banned long ago when Brad Nelson and company played it. Shardless BUG would have been banned when Gerry Thompson and everyone and their mom played it. Maybe Death and Taxes would have been banned when the Danish players played it?
There is more ebb and flow in Legacy and a deck that has had a lot of results may eventually not have as many results. Legacy players' lives don't revolve around bannings and unbannings. Simply put.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Can you point to me said matches recorded on camera of Modern overcoming bad matchups that happened recently? I am struggling to find one right now, I know that Rodrigo Togores played ANT to beat his Miracles opponent (considered favorable for Miracles) through a hand of double FOW double Flusterstorm Snapcaster Mage and Surgical Extraction. All I remember from Modern in recent memory is that a Merfolk player drew his Hurkyl's Recall against Affinity and wrecked him because of it in the finals of GP LA.
Such as Reid duke piloting boggles through a sea of control decks at worlds. And this may just be the perfect example for this discussion as shahar beat duke with a control deck in the final round.
You are talking about the difference, from the companies point of view, about a format that they really dont support any more and dont really care about in Legacy, as opposed to a format they were trying to make another competitive format in Modern.
Lets be honest, what Wotc needs, wants in a competitive format, is not the same as what the player base wants. Because of that I foresee Wotc sticking with Standard and Limited and letting all other formats be picked and supported by outside entities. Like how SCG picked up and revived Legacy, and pushed Modern.
Craig Wescoe's drew the wrong part of the deck vs fliers, his affinity opponent was fortunate enough to draw signal pests against a stony silence not shutting off much of anything.
Jund guy, reading coverage was experiencing the fail rate of his deck that I personally experience more often than I like, leading to his loss. And Merfolk employing the Spreading Seas your opponent out of the game strategy works against most Jund draws and is usually how you beat Jund from the Merfolk side.
Those did not seem like matches that I would personally enjoy watching or experiencing. Oh and going first is extremely important in all those matches. That was a common trend in all the matches, the guy who was on the play was the winner in all of the matches you have described.
I also love how you fail to mention that Reid Duke mulliganed to oblivion to contribute to Shahar's win and the fact that the metagame is smaller than most PPTQs. Back then, Modern was alright though, metagame was narrow enough and was exploitable just like how Reid Duke exploited it to make a finals appearance at Worlds.
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
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
I can't see why it's absurd when literally every other constructed format offers a format predator to play with. Is Modern just the odd exception? In Pauper it's being run by Mono U Delver and UR Drake decks, Standard is GW decks, Legacy is Miracles vs the world. I fail to see why my request is unreasonable, it's do-able in other formats, are you trying to tell me there's something wrong with all of them? If Modern can't have a format predator, then isn't it just a crapshoot at who gets good pairings? Because that's what Modern looks like to me right now. Should I be in the What deck I should play thread? I'm pretty sure no one has the correct answer for my needs there.
I think the point being made is that the overly swingy matches are resulting in more feel-bads and less actual good games of Magic. Last night with Grixis Delver for example, I start off 2-0 against decks I probably should have lost against (Jund and Ad Nauseam). The Jund match was a disgusting beatdown of drawing exactly the right stuff at the right time and won 2-0. The AN match was very close first game, but should have lost the second. He fizzled the combo by Spoils-ing away two of his Pacts and a Simian Spirit Guide while I had Leak, Dispel, Remand in hand when trying to go off. The next round was a sub-5 minute 0-2 loss against back-to-back turn 2 Blood Moons. Final round was a grindy win, T3 Blood Moon loss, and Grindy loss against Grishoalbrand to finish 2-2. Like it or not, this is Modern. I took my $4 store credit and got a foil Blood Artist for my Tesya Commander deck. Then I caught a few more Pokemon on my way out while hoping one day my friends can come back. But at least the grindy games were mostly fun, and once I stopped caring about random losses since strict competition in the format is ridiculously unbalanced, I can go on with my life and not get worked up about it anymore.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't really see anything wrong with this, though. Set 1: wins where your deck worked. Set 2: a close game and a win where your opponent's deck did the thing keeping it in tier 2 status (but you seemed prepared anyway w/ counters in hand), set 3: losses against 2 nut draws (you can't really say T2 blood moon is the norm, let alone twice in a row). Set 4: a close set you happened to lose. You ended up at 2-2 while playing 2, arguably 3 bad MU's, and that seems more indicative of the format being ridiculously balanced rather than the other way around.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Considering that many pro players have called for miracles to be banned (many of whom play the deck itself). I find your attempt to flame me really funny.
Here are the stats on miracles: (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/ban-miracles/) in what world is 28 percent okay?
Decks I'm playing in Modern right now:
URB Grixis Reveler (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-grixis-reveler/)
UB Faeries (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/ub-fae-2/)
UW Azorious Control (http://www.mtgvault.com/supast4r7/decks/modern-ojutai-control-2/)
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
I think this is pretty much the entire point. People don't want to just have the same sort of thing in every format, and WoTC has made it pretty clear they don't want modern to be that way either. All of their behavior has been clearly aimed at making modern a format with, according to I think forsythe (though it may be stoddard) 10+ "top tier" decks (and I think we have generally decided that they view "top tier" as what this forum classifies as tier 1 and 2).
WotC wants modern to be this way. So while I get that people don't like modern because it doesnt have a clear cut best deck, whenever we do get one, they will just manage the format to eliminate it. Modern really isn't the format for you if this is what you want.
For instance, Standard rotates so frequently that stagnant DTB formats disappear naturally without intervention. Legacy has much less support, fewer players, and artificially constrained card supply. All of this inhibits natural metagame growth like we see in Modern, which benefits from different qualities: high levels of support, more players, no rotation, high card availability, etc.
Finally, none of this is a banlist problem as it is being argued. That is, unless the complaint is "ban dozens of cards to increase interactivity," which is against thread rules because it's effectively, and historically, spam. So really, this vocal hyper-minority argument needs to stop.
EDIT: I'll add that I DO think Modern would benefit from at least one more generic answer to tighten the matchup lottery even further. But again, that's not a banlist thread discussion. Take that to the reprint or new card thread.
Are you trying to say Modern requires more skill than any other format? I noticed how you added many things to Modern and made generalizations of all the other formats. The line for Jund to beat Tron is T1 Thoughtseize and many Tarmogoyfs your hand can produce afterwards. My Fulminator Mage plan doesn't work against Tron players who draw the nuts and wins the die roll. Unfortunately knowing that line doesn't let me beat my bad matchup when they have a nut draw. There's not much you can do in Modern to curb your bad matchup, you literally have to cross your fingers and hope they have the extreme low end of their draws to win. There's a reason why a deck that has "game against everything" in Jund doesn't win Grand Prix.
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
I know this isn´t the thread for it, but my thoughts would be that this particular thread should be Ghostown until next GP.
I hope Modern stays this way, and along new expansions, new decks show up in fringe and competitive play.
I love Legacy, but actually i think the best competitive format is Modern.