Honestly my hope is they just throw Force of Will into Modern Masters 17 and say 'Here, regulate your own format'.
Speaking of things they'll never do. Introducing cards to modern outside of standard is very likely to be outside their best interests. I'm absolutely certain that WotC is concerned that standard-based sales would tank way more than any increase in modern-based sales if they bypass standard. There is basically no upside to doing that from their perspective, so I think we should believe them when they say that cards get to modern though standard as a rule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Honestly my hope is they just throw Force of Will into Modern Masters 17 and say 'Here, regulate your own format'.
Speaking of things they'll never do. Introducing cards to modern outside of standard is very likely to be outside their best interests. I'm absolutely certain that WotC is concerned that standard-based sales would tank way more than any increase in modern-based sales if they bypass standard. There is basically no upside to doing that from their perspective, so I think we should believe them when they say that cards get to modern though standard as a rule.
Yep I know. I still think Force would be great in Modern. There is a reason Legacy is such a healthy format, and Force is a large part of that.
Honestly my hope is they just throw Force of Will into Modern Masters 17 and say 'Here, regulate your own format'.
Speaking of things they'll never do. Introducing cards to modern outside of standard is very likely to be outside their best interests. I'm absolutely certain that WotC is concerned that standard-based sales would tank way more than any increase in modern-based sales if they bypass standard. There is basically no upside to doing that from their perspective, so I think we should believe them when they say that cards get to modern though standard as a rule.
Yep I know. I still think Force would be great in Modern. There is a reason Legacy is such a healthy format, and Force is a large part of that.
This talk is about Modern, but I consider Legacy to be super broken, and super unhealthy as a whole. I don't want Force of Will in Modern either because it will create situations like "spinwheel" about if you do have Fow And a blue card in your hand, on top of being too strong for Modern.
I'm aware what the discussion is about, thanks. You consider Legacy broken and unhealthy? Have you played it?
FoW creates card disadvantage but allows you to not die on turn 1 to Belcher or TES. Legacy is the healthiest format in MTG and I have never heard someone who has actually played Legacy say it is 'super broke and unhealthy'. Sorry man but it will be hard for me to take your argument seriously here.
I've come to the realization after GP Dallas that Modern will never turn out the way I want it to be. WOTC is clearly happy that Modern is a "blazing fast format" and quite frankly I honestly don't think WOTC cares if the format is balanced or not. I think WOTC purposely made Modern the way it is today, simply to frustrate very competitive players to migrate over to Standard (which I have done) and of course it benefits WOTC the more people that play Standard. I've basically come to accept what Modern's goal is as a format (diverse decks), and accept the fact that it won't be a format for me where I can build one deck and crush everything since WOTC actively discourages that by taking action with the banlist on said decks.
I've come to the realization after GP Dallas that Modern will never turn out the way I want it to be. WOTC is clearly happy that Modern is a "blazing fast format" and quite frankly I honestly don't think WOTC cares if the format is balanced or not. I think WOTC purposely made Modern the way it is today, simply to frustrate very competitive players to migrate over to Standard (which I have done) and of course it benefits WOTC the more people that play Standard. I've basically come to accept what Modern's goal is as a format (diverse decks), and accept the fact that it won't be a format for me where I can build one deck and crush everything since WOTC actively discourages that by taking action with the banlist on said decks.
GP Dallas made you realize this? With Skred Red, Grixis, and UWR Control in the top 8? I mean yeah there were 3 infect decks but I thought GP Dallas was fantastic in showcasing different decks. The SCG Modern even the same weekend was even more diverse.
I recall someone posting a similar version of that post on Reddit.
I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to play Modern, heck myself included. I'm happy Grixis and Skred did well and that you can tune your deck to the meta, but playing against Dredge, Infect and Affinity each tournament gets old real fast.
I've come to the realization after GP Dallas that Modern will never turn out the way I want it to be. WOTC is clearly happy that Modern is a "blazing fast format" and quite frankly I honestly don't think WOTC cares if the format is balanced or not. I think WOTC purposely made Modern the way it is today, simply to frustrate very competitive players to migrate over to Standard (which I have done) and of course it benefits WOTC the more people that play Standard. I've basically come to accept what Modern's goal is as a format (diverse decks), and accept the fact that it won't be a format for me where I can build one deck and crush everything since WOTC actively discourages that by taking action with the banlist on said decks.
GP Dallas made you realize this? With Skred Red, Grixis, and UWR Control in the top 8? I mean yeah there were 3 infect decks but I thought GP Dallas was fantastic in showcasing different decks. The SCG Modern even the same weekend was even more diverse.
Diversity is not a selling point for me, high amounts of diversity means I'm more at the mercy of the pairings board. I like playing decks where I can beat everything, and Modern currently does not do that for me. I can't pick up a strategy in Modern right now that's 80/20 versus the entire field, WOTC would kill off that deck in an instant if that existed in Modern. That's why I liked Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Amulet Bloom, they beat a vast majority of the field. Which is a quality I look for in decks.
Diversity is not a selling point for me, high amounts of diversity means I'm more at the mercy of the pairings board. I like playing decks where I can beat everything, and Modern currently does not do that for me. I can't pick up a strategy in Modern right now that's 80/20 versus the entire field, WOTC would kill off that deck in an instant if that existed in Modern. That's why I liked Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Amulet Bloom, they beat a vast majority of the field. Which is a quality I look for in decks.
What? That is not the case even for standard unless we have super broken, solved out formats. If you play a deck with 80/20 against an entire field then there is not much a field, just a field of mirror matches with the occasional Timmy filling in the slots.
If you like decks that can bit everything then you are clearly not in the correct game. And if you don't see decks that have a game against most of the field then you are probably also not paying attention. Infect definitely has a game at the moment against most of the field hence the 3 decks in the top. Same goes for Bant Eldrazi. That's why they are high in Tier 1. Maybe not 80/20 against the entire field but that is so unhealthy it would warrant a ban even in standard.
I've come to the realization after GP Dallas that Modern will never turn out the way I want it to be. WOTC is clearly happy that Modern is a "blazing fast format" and quite frankly I honestly don't think WOTC cares if the format is balanced or not. I think WOTC purposely made Modern the way it is today, simply to frustrate very competitive players to migrate over to Standard (which I have done) and of course it benefits WOTC the more people that play Standard. I've basically come to accept what Modern's goal is as a format (diverse decks), and accept the fact that it won't be a format for me where I can build one deck and crush everything since WOTC actively discourages that by taking action with the banlist on said decks.
GP Dallas made you realize this? With Skred Red, Grixis, and UWR Control in the top 8? I mean yeah there were 3 infect decks but I thought GP Dallas was fantastic in showcasing different decks. The SCG Modern even the same weekend was even more diverse.
Diversity is not a selling point for me, high amounts of diversity means I'm more at the mercy of the pairings board. I like playing decks where I can beat everything, and Modern currently does not do that for me. I can't pick up a strategy in Modern right now that's 80/20 versus the entire field, WOTC would kill off that deck in an instant if that existed in Modern. That's why I liked Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Amulet Bloom, they beat a vast majority of the field. Which is a quality I look for in decks.
Did you own all of those decks? Because I owned 2 of them.(Genuinely asking). Dredge is a great deck with only 1 bad matchup(Burn), and you can win even that with Gnaws. Problem is that you can be hated out easily, by anyone. This is what keeps the deck in check and not in immediate need for a ban.
Bant Eldrazi has great matchups across most of the field, except toolbox decks, and go wide decks like Merfolks or Elves and you can face them with Explosives, and Affinity which you can hate.
Infect is a good choice as well, but you lose to Burn, Abzan Company, Jund, Junk, Jeskai, Grixis and even some variations of UR Prowess can beat you. You have great game against every other deck though. And you can face them(well, not Jund and Grixis) with certain sideboard cards.
Atm, only one deck is super-hyper broken but can be hated out(dredge).
You cant seriously tell me that you are looking for a deck with so little bad matchups.
I did own all of those decks, I also have Jund with DRS. I just can't find a deck that replicates the power level of previous decks that got banned. Modern just doesn't accommodate what I like to do in Magic, win an unreasonable amount of matches with a high power level deck compared to the rest of the field.
Come on guys you can't take sisicat seriously. He's the dude who claims he deserves to win for playing a more expensive deck. It's quite obvious what he wants out of MTG.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
GP Dallas made you realize this? With Skred Red, Grixis, and UWR Control in the top 8? I mean yeah there were 3 infect decks but I thought GP Dallas was fantastic in showcasing different decks. The SCG Modern even the same weekend was even more diverse.
Diversity is not a selling point for me, high amounts of diversity means I'm more at the mercy of the pairings board. I like playing decks where I can beat everything, and Modern currently does not do that for me. I can't pick up a strategy in Modern right now that's 80/20 versus the entire field, WOTC would kill off that deck in an instant if that existed in Modern. That's why I liked Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Amulet Bloom, they beat a vast majority of the field. Which is a quality I look for in decks.
Did you own all of those decks? Because I owned 2 of them.(Genuinely asking). Dredge is a great deck with only 1 bad matchup(Burn), and you can win even that with Gnaws. Problem is that you can be hated out easily, by anyone. This is what keeps the deck in check and not in immediate need for a ban.
Bant Eldrazi has great matchups across most of the field, except toolbox decks, and go wide decks like Merfolks or Elves and you can face them with Explosives, and Affinity which you can hate.
Infect is a good choice as well, but you lose to Burn, Abzan Company, Jund, Junk, Jeskai, Grixis and even some variations of UR Prowess can beat you. You have great game against every other deck though. And you can face them(well, not Jund and Grixis) with certain sideboard cards.
Atm, only one deck is super-hyper broken but can be hated out(dredge).
You cant seriously tell me that you are looking for a deck with so little bad matchups.
I did own all of those decks, I also have Jund with DRS. I just can't find a deck that replicates the power level of previous decks that got banned. Modern just doesn't accommodate what I like to do in Magic, win an unreasonable amount of matches with a high power level deck compared to the rest of the field.
Welcome to the real world, where everyone has bad matchups. You should get used to it.
Yup, I've come to accept that I will lose to looser technical players in Modern due to variance the same way Corey Burkhart lost to Skred Red and his loose play in the top 8. I've already come to accept that fact already.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
Did you own all of those decks? Because I owned 2 of them.(Genuinely asking). Dredge is a great deck with only 1 bad matchup(Burn), and you can win even that with Gnaws. Problem is that you can be hated out easily, by anyone. This is what keeps the deck in check and not in immediate need for a ban.
Bant Eldrazi has great matchups across most of the field, except toolbox decks, and go wide decks like Merfolks or Elves and you can face them with Explosives, and Affinity which you can hate.
Infect is a good choice as well, but you lose to Burn, Abzan Company, Jund, Junk, Jeskai, Grixis and even some variations of UR Prowess can beat you. You have great game against every other deck though. And you can face them(well, not Jund and Grixis) with certain sideboard cards.
Atm, only one deck is super-hyper broken but can be hated out(dredge).
You cant seriously tell me that you are looking for a deck with so little bad matchups.
I did own all of those decks, I also have Jund with DRS. I just can't find a deck that replicates the power level of previous decks that got banned. Modern just doesn't accommodate what I like to do in Magic, win an unreasonable amount of matches with a high power level deck compared to the rest of the field.
Welcome to the real world, where everyone has bad matchups. You should get used to it.
Yup, I've come to accept that I will lose to looser technical players in Modern due to variance the same way Corey Burkhart lost to Skred Red and his loose play in the top 8. I've already come to accept that fact already.
Or just accept that a meta with a 'BEST DECK' is a flawed one. Atm, no deck is the best deck, but again I could not take you serious enough. Rock - paper - scissors metas are how the game works at its best.
I want you to explain me why cant you just play Dredge, Affinity, Infect, Bant Eldrazi, or Jund if you want a really good deck. You are going to have success with either of them, if you are a good player. Losing 2/10 matchups is math. You are going to have another 2 easy matchups and it's up to you to win the remaining 6 matchups out of supposedly 10. You should accept it if you want the meta to be balanced.
So, why not 1 of those 5?
I have been playing Dredge and have been coming across many Infect players winning dice rolls against me and losing because I didn't have the one extra turn to lethal my opponents. When I started playing Affinity, I would steal game 1 very often and get Stony Silenced out of the game and not draw my backup plan to Stony Silence. When I played Infect, I got paired against many 1 mana removal spell decks and lost the die roll every time and never got a threat to stick. When I played Bant Eldrazi, my lack of interaction got me killed against fast decks. When I played Jund, I would always get paired against Tron/Scapeshift and just not pack the land hate or not fortunate enough to dodge it. Maybe I should not impulse ditch decks when I receive bad beats but that's probably something I need to work on is getting familiar with my 6 sided dice.
I've come to the realization after GP Dallas that Modern will never turn out the way I want it to be. WOTC is clearly happy that Modern is a "blazing fast format" and quite frankly I honestly don't think WOTC cares if the format is balanced or not. I think WOTC purposely made Modern the way it is today, simply to frustrate very competitive players to migrate over to Standard (which I have done) and of course it benefits WOTC the more people that play Standard. I've basically come to accept what Modern's goal is as a format (diverse decks), and accept the fact that it won't be a format for me where I can build one deck and crush everything since WOTC actively discourages that by taking action with the banlist on said decks.
GP Dallas made you realize this? With Skred Red, Grixis, and UWR Control in the top 8? I mean yeah there were 3 infect decks but I thought GP Dallas was fantastic in showcasing different decks. The SCG Modern even the same weekend was even more diverse.
Diversity is not a selling point for me, high amounts of diversity means I'm more at the mercy of the pairings board. I like playing decks where I can beat everything, and Modern currently does not do that for me. I can't pick up a strategy in Modern right now that's 80/20 versus the entire field, WOTC would kill off that deck in an instant if that existed in Modern. That's why I liked Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Amulet Bloom, they beat a vast majority of the field. Which is a quality I look for in decks.
Oh. Well then I guess we don't have much to talk about lol.
Or you could just accept the fact that you're not as good as you think you are.
You're right I'm probably not good, but it's not hard to recognize when your opponent is making such obvious mistakes. You don't need to be good to figure that out.
I did own all of those decks, I also have Jund with DRS. I just can't find a deck that replicates the power level of previous decks that got banned. Modern just doesn't accommodate what I like to do in Magic, win an unreasonable amount of matches with a high power level deck compared to the rest of the field.
Welcome to the real world, where everyone has bad matchups. You should get used to it.
Yup, I've come to accept that I will lose to looser technical players in Modern due to variance the same way Corey Burkhart lost to Skred Red and his loose play in the top 8. I've already come to accept that fact already.
Or just accept that a meta with a 'BEST DECK' is a flawed one. Atm, no deck is the best deck, but again I could not take you serious enough. Rock - paper - scissors metas are how the game works at its best.
I want you to explain me why cant you just play Dredge, Affinity, Infect, Bant Eldrazi, or Jund if you want a really good deck. You are going to have success with either of them, if you are a good player. Losing 2/10 matchups is math. You are going to have another 2 easy matchups and it's up to you to win the remaining 6 matchups out of supposedly 10. You should accept it if you want the meta to be balanced.
So, why not 1 of those 5?
I have been playing Dredge and have been coming across many Infect players winning dice rolls against me and losing because I didn't have the one extra turn to lethal my opponents. When I started playing Affinity, I would steal game 1 very often and get Stony Silenced out of the game and not draw my backup plan to Stony Silence. When I played Infect, I got paired against many 1 mana removal spell decks and lost the die roll every time and never got a threat to stick. When I played Bant Eldrazi, my lack of interaction got me killed against fast decks. When I played Jund, I would always get paired against Tron/Scapeshift and just not pack the land hate or not fortunate enough to dodge it. Maybe I should not impulse ditch decks when I receive bad beats but that's probably something I need to work on is getting familiar with my 6 sided dice.
You're asking for a field of hyper expensive mirror decks (caw blade, rally, etc. is really the only time these decks come out because hate is so plentiful in the modern environment). At that point it's a variance game of who drew the best grip, which sounds insanely boring.
Walking into a tournament with a 4 year old deck and crushing the opposition pretty much ensures no new players enter the format.
It's also easy to discount a players skill when they're at a GP after two days of intense mental calculations for hours each day (let alone the playtesting before), stress induced from being on camera, and stress if you need to win the pot because you do this for a living. Bubble up to the top of a 2000 person tournament and play flawlessly before you start hurling insults at these guys. Mental fatigue is a thing and I think what they did was great.
Gravitating to the most borked thing in the meta is pretty much asking to waste your money. WotC have been very vocal about the tournament scene and what they want to see and what they think is healthy. The cream of the crop is always at risk to the scythe first...telling yourself otherwise is futile.
It sounds like chess is more your style. Everyone has the same tools, it's just determine who goes first and how to navigate a win. Magic is built on variance and is thriving because newer players can get on the right side of it and learn/enjoy the game enough to become invested. Not many people can sit across from someone crushing their gameplay with superior tools and come back next week...
I've heard people have legitimate complaints about Modern but wanting a deck that trumps the rest is asking a bit too much. If you didn't like how the ban list is being managed or perhaps you don't like playing against linear decks I would've nodded and agreed, but a 80/20 deck is farfetched. Before taking a break from Modern I was on Jund and had at best 50/50 at my LGS.
Welcome to the real world, where everyone has bad matchups. You should get used to it.
Yup, I've come to accept that I will lose to looser technical players in Modern due to variance the same way Corey Burkhart lost to Skred Red and his loose play in the top 8. I've already come to accept that fact already.
Or just accept that a meta with a 'BEST DECK' is a flawed one. Atm, no deck is the best deck, but again I could not take you serious enough. Rock - paper - scissors metas are how the game works at its best.
I want you to explain me why cant you just play Dredge, Affinity, Infect, Bant Eldrazi, or Jund if you want a really good deck. You are going to have success with either of them, if you are a good player. Losing 2/10 matchups is math. You are going to have another 2 easy matchups and it's up to you to win the remaining 6 matchups out of supposedly 10. You should accept it if you want the meta to be balanced.
So, why not 1 of those 5?
I have been playing Dredge and have been coming across many Infect players winning dice rolls against me and losing because I didn't have the one extra turn to lethal my opponents. When I started playing Affinity, I would steal game 1 very often and get Stony Silenced out of the game and not draw my backup plan to Stony Silence. When I played Infect, I got paired against many 1 mana removal spell decks and lost the die roll every time and never got a threat to stick. When I played Bant Eldrazi, my lack of interaction got me killed against fast decks. When I played Jund, I would always get paired against Tron/Scapeshift and just not pack the land hate or not fortunate enough to dodge it. Maybe I should not impulse ditch decks when I receive bad beats but that's probably something I need to work on is getting familiar with my 6 sided dice.
You're asking for a field of hyper expensive mirror decks (caw blade, rally, etc. is really the only time these decks come out because hate is so plentiful in the modern environment). At that point it's a variance game of who drew the best grip, which sounds insanely boring.
Walking into a tournament with a 4 year old deck and crushing the opposition pretty much ensures no new players enter the format.
It's also easy to discount a players skill when they're at a GP after two days of intense mental calculations for hours each day (let alone the playtesting before), stress induced from being on camera, and stress if you need to win the pot because you do this for a living. Bubble up to the top of a 2000 person tournament and play flawlessly before you start hurling insults at these guys. Mental fatigue is a thing and I think what they did was great.
Gravitating to the most borked thing in the meta is pretty much asking to waste your money. WotC have been very vocal about the tournament scene and what they want to see and what they think is healthy. The cream of the crop is always at risk to the scythe first...telling yourself otherwise is futile.
It sounds like chess is more your style. Everyone has the same tools, it's just determine who goes first and how to navigate a win. Magic is built on variance and is thriving because newer players can get on the right side of it and learn/enjoy the game enough to become invested. Not many people can sit across from someone crushing their gameplay with superior tools and come back next week...
I have been learning chess, it's quite humbling how bad I am at it, but I don't get upset because I know my opponents were just clearly better than me. It could be just my long streak of bad variance in Modern, but it's literally the only format I struggle in. I am happy with my results in Standard, Limited, and even Legacy. Either I have bad variance that hasn't ended yet or Modern is just a format I'll never be able to achieve consistent success in. Which I have accepted to be the case now.
Or you could just accept the fact that you're not as good as you think you are.
You're right I'm probably not good, but it's not hard to recognize when your opponent is making such obvious mistakes. You don't need to be good to figure that out.
So what ? That's the case for any competitive game whether it's Magic or something like League of Legends. It's variance, it happens. In magic, sometimes you win even though you misplay badly and sometimes you lose even though your opponent misplays badly. In LoL, sometimes you're the best player on the team but you're unable to carry the team to a win, other times you're the worst player on the team but the team is able to carry you to a win.
That's the thing about people, they always remember the time their 'luck-sack' opponent pulls out a lucky top deck to win the game but when they themselves pull out a game winning top deck, it's 'deserved'.
Attributing losses to bad beats are basically what all the *****-tier players in any and every competitive game do. Yes it happens, but it evens out over time. If you're any good at all you WILL be winning a lot more than you lose. There's a reason why even in an insanely RNG-based game like Hearthstone, the same couple of players are always at the top. Variance is not an excuse.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
I've come to the realization after GP Dallas that Modern will never turn out the way I want it to be. WOTC is clearly happy that Modern is a "blazing fast format" and quite frankly I honestly don't think WOTC cares if the format is balanced or not. I think WOTC purposely made Modern the way it is today, simply to frustrate very competitive players to migrate over to Standard (which I have done) and of course it benefits WOTC the more people that play Standard. I've basically come to accept what Modern's goal is as a format (diverse decks), and accept the fact that it won't be a format for me where I can build one deck and crush everything since WOTC actively discourages that by taking action with the banlist on said decks.
GP Dallas made you realize this? With Skred Red, Grixis, and UWR Control in the top 8? I mean yeah there were 3 infect decks but I thought GP Dallas was fantastic in showcasing different decks. The SCG Modern even the same weekend was even more diverse.
Diversity is not a selling point for me, high amounts of diversity means I'm more at the mercy of the pairings board. I like playing decks where I can beat everything, and Modern currently does not do that for me. I can't pick up a strategy in Modern right now that's 80/20 versus the entire field, WOTC would kill off that deck in an instant if that existed in Modern. That's why I liked Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Amulet Bloom, they beat a vast majority of the field. Which is a quality I look for in decks.
Did you own all of those decks? Because I owned 2 of them.(Genuinely asking). Dredge is a great deck with only 1 bad matchup(Burn), and you can win even that with Gnaws. Problem is that you can be hated out easily, by anyone. This is what keeps the deck in check and not in immediate need for a ban.
Bant Eldrazi has great matchups across most of the field, except toolbox decks, and go wide decks like Merfolks or Elves and you can face them with Explosives, and Affinity which you can hate.
Infect is a good choice as well, but you lose to Burn, Abzan Company, Jund, Junk, Jeskai, Grixis and even some variations of UR Prowess can beat you. You have great game against every other deck though. And you can face them(well, not Jund and Grixis) with certain sideboard cards.
Atm, only one deck is super-hyper broken but can be hated out(dredge).
You cant seriously tell me that you are looking for a deck with so little bad matchups.
Dredge loses to quite a few decks actually. It loses to infect around 60% of the time, same with the kilnfiend ur decks. It loses to combos that are just flat out better than them, so scapeshift (the full combo versions) goryos vengeance, storm, through the breach decks, anger moon decks like skred red, Bant Eldrazi because it just goes over us and can make a crap ton of blockers, while bringing real grave hate easily, Eldrazi and taxes for the same reasoning. we lose to burn more often than not, simply because you said, its Gnaw on turn 3 or not, which means A. we have to mill it. B. we have to mill it with creatures. C. We have to not die by the time we can cast it. D. Hit 3 mana on turn 3 (which is hard.) E. Pray to god they dont have a atarkas command or skull crack. So yes, do we have a card that single handedly wins the match? Yes. Is it likely we can pull it off? No.
So tier 1, 3 bad matchups, and tier 2 7-8 bat matchups. Thats pretty average for a tier 1 deck.
Lately people have expressed interest in talking about "problems" with modern, mostly because a lot of pros have written articles on it. Whether or not modern has problems in its format is up for debate, but what is clear is people want to talk about modern as a format, and not just ban list, or the SCG meta game.
As such, the Mods and I have talked it over, and we are opening this thread as a trial. If it is successful we will modify the rules as needed and open a new thread in one week. Banlist, reprints, meta shares, recent performance, anything that has to do with the MODERN FORMAT is allowed here.
However, we will strictly mod these few rules:
1. No flaming, or trolling. You MUST keep the conversation on the cards not the users.
2. No spamming or baiting. Your post must actually have reasons to back out your post, and quality content. You must also not post things that will irritate users.
3. No format bashing. If you don't like modern, thats fine, but explain why and be optimistic.
The mod team will enforce these few rules. Please make this a place where people are unafraid to post their thoughts. Use the report button should you think someone is breaking these rules.
Or just accept that a meta with a 'BEST DECK' is a flawed one. Atm, no deck is the best deck, but again I could not take you serious enough. Rock - paper - scissors metas are how the game works at its best.
I want you to explain me why cant you just play Dredge, Affinity, Infect, Bant Eldrazi, or Jund if you want a really good deck. You are going to have success with either of them, if you are a good player. Losing 2/10 matchups is math. You are going to have another 2 easy matchups and it's up to you to win the remaining 6 matchups out of supposedly 10. You should accept it if you want the meta to be balanced.
So, why not 1 of those 5?
I have been playing Dredge and have been coming across many Infect players winning dice rolls against me and losing because I didn't have the one extra turn to lethal my opponents. When I started playing Affinity, I would steal game 1 very often and get Stony Silenced out of the game and not draw my backup plan to Stony Silence. When I played Infect, I got paired against many 1 mana removal spell decks and lost the die roll every time and never got a threat to stick. When I played Bant Eldrazi, my lack of interaction got me killed against fast decks. When I played Jund, I would always get paired against Tron/Scapeshift and just not pack the land hate or not fortunate enough to dodge it. Maybe I should not impulse ditch decks when I receive bad beats but that's probably something I need to work on is getting familiar with my 6 sided dice.
You're asking for a field of hyper expensive mirror decks (caw blade, rally, etc. is really the only time these decks come out because hate is so plentiful in the modern environment). At that point it's a variance game of who drew the best grip, which sounds insanely boring.
Walking into a tournament with a 4 year old deck and crushing the opposition pretty much ensures no new players enter the format.
It's also easy to discount a players skill when they're at a GP after two days of intense mental calculations for hours each day (let alone the playtesting before), stress induced from being on camera, and stress if you need to win the pot because you do this for a living. Bubble up to the top of a 2000 person tournament and play flawlessly before you start hurling insults at these guys. Mental fatigue is a thing and I think what they did was great.
Gravitating to the most borked thing in the meta is pretty much asking to waste your money. WotC have been very vocal about the tournament scene and what they want to see and what they think is healthy. The cream of the crop is always at risk to the scythe first...telling yourself otherwise is futile.
It sounds like chess is more your style. Everyone has the same tools, it's just determine who goes first and how to navigate a win. Magic is built on variance and is thriving because newer players can get on the right side of it and learn/enjoy the game enough to become invested. Not many people can sit across from someone crushing their gameplay with superior tools and come back next week...
I have been learning chess, it's quite humbling how bad I am at it, but I don't get upset because I know my opponents were just clearly better than me. It could be just my long streak of bad variance in Modern, but it's literally the only format I struggle in. I am happy with my results in Standard, Limited, and even Legacy. Either I have bad variance that hasn't ended yet or Modern is just a format I'll never be able to achieve consistent success in. Which I have accepted to be the case now.
I bet you are cheating in LEgacy by playing the best deck that literally wins everyone(Miracles) and Bant Company or BG Delirium in Standard.
You don't seem to enjoy the game, only to cheat by having a clear cut best deck.
This is so bad.
We each enjoy the game for different reasons, I don't know why you believe I am a cheater. I like playing decks that win a lot, you like variety in gameplay. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that I am cheater from what I've said. If anything I've said is bashing the format, as far as I'm concerned, is allowed to be said here. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm just stating my personal experience and my viewpoint as a player who plays mainly Competitive REL events.
Public Mod Note
(Lantern):
Infraction for Spam ~Lantern
Pivoting back to topic I don't think anything with more than a 60% win rate PRE and POST board in an open field can be healthy. Those kinds of stats are when we start seeing brute force numbers push these decks into top 8s and wins through the sheer volume of people on the deck combined with it's strength. I fear that dredge is heading this direction.
The issue I see is that if an answer is printed for a specific archetype (thinking blessed alliance at combating "tall" or "protect the queen" strats like infect, suicide zoo/bloo, etc.) then that answer never settles in because something like spell pierce already exists to fight against anything like that. You can't print a freaking instant or sorcery modal spell when literally all 3 of those decks are capable of running pierce and hitting the mana and having it open in time. Even though the card is modal, it doesn't solve the issue entirely.
The thing is that the tools the top tier decks have are quite absurd outside of their combo or strat to protect themselves. Affinity having access to ghiraphir aether grid, whipflare, dismember, or galvanic blast while presenting a T3 clock in a strat that can go "wide" or "tall" with damage or poison is what makes the deck so difficult to play against. They can just pivot to a game plan that's just as strong on the fly in response to you interacting. What is the rock to affinity's scissors outside of brutal back breaking sideboard cards that invalidate all other artifact (an entire card type mind you) decks.
If a spell was printed to combat the tall and wide strategies both you pretty much just shut down almost every small toughness or single creature strat...wizards can't do that without totally pushing the format in another direction. 2 for 1s are fine, 5 for 1s are not when you effect a multitude of decks.
Modal Swiss Army knife mentality is exactly what the hype for kolaghan's fommand was all about when people started running it. The card literally does almost everything you can jam on a 3 cmc spell without breaking the card in half. Even this, which has tons of relevance against affinity, can be too slow to stem the bleeding if you're on the play against them.
So if aggro > control give control slow answers but allow it to draw a good mix to stem the flood of spells the aggro decks are slinging. Maybe something like counter target spell, spells that your opponent casts until your next turn that share a type with the countered spell cost 1 more to play. Aggro can still get underneath but maybe control can jump in there and slow the game down a bit until they get mana for more impactful spells.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly my hope is they just throw Force of Will into Modern Masters 17 and say 'Here, regulate your own format'.
Speaking of things they'll never do. Introducing cards to modern outside of standard is very likely to be outside their best interests. I'm absolutely certain that WotC is concerned that standard-based sales would tank way more than any increase in modern-based sales if they bypass standard. There is basically no upside to doing that from their perspective, so I think we should believe them when they say that cards get to modern though standard as a rule.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Yep I know. I still think Force would be great in Modern. There is a reason Legacy is such a healthy format, and Force is a large part of that.
I'm aware what the discussion is about, thanks. You consider Legacy broken and unhealthy? Have you played it?
FoW creates card disadvantage but allows you to not die on turn 1 to Belcher or TES. Legacy is the healthiest format in MTG and I have never heard someone who has actually played Legacy say it is 'super broke and unhealthy'. Sorry man but it will be hard for me to take your argument seriously here.
GP Dallas made you realize this? With Skred Red, Grixis, and UWR Control in the top 8? I mean yeah there were 3 infect decks but I thought GP Dallas was fantastic in showcasing different decks. The SCG Modern even the same weekend was even more diverse.
I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to play Modern, heck myself included. I'm happy Grixis and Skred did well and that you can tune your deck to the meta, but playing against Dredge, Infect and Affinity each tournament gets old real fast.
Diversity is not a selling point for me, high amounts of diversity means I'm more at the mercy of the pairings board. I like playing decks where I can beat everything, and Modern currently does not do that for me. I can't pick up a strategy in Modern right now that's 80/20 versus the entire field, WOTC would kill off that deck in an instant if that existed in Modern. That's why I liked Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Amulet Bloom, they beat a vast majority of the field. Which is a quality I look for in decks.
If you like decks that can bit everything then you are clearly not in the correct game. And if you don't see decks that have a game against most of the field then you are probably also not paying attention. Infect definitely has a game at the moment against most of the field hence the 3 decks in the top. Same goes for Bant Eldrazi. That's why they are high in Tier 1. Maybe not 80/20 against the entire field but that is so unhealthy it would warrant a ban even in standard.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I did own all of those decks, I also have Jund with DRS. I just can't find a deck that replicates the power level of previous decks that got banned. Modern just doesn't accommodate what I like to do in Magic, win an unreasonable amount of matches with a high power level deck compared to the rest of the field.
Yup, I've come to accept that I will lose to looser technical players in Modern due to variance the same way Corey Burkhart lost to Skred Red and his loose play in the top 8. I've already come to accept that fact already.
I have been playing Dredge and have been coming across many Infect players winning dice rolls against me and losing because I didn't have the one extra turn to lethal my opponents. When I started playing Affinity, I would steal game 1 very often and get Stony Silenced out of the game and not draw my backup plan to Stony Silence. When I played Infect, I got paired against many 1 mana removal spell decks and lost the die roll every time and never got a threat to stick. When I played Bant Eldrazi, my lack of interaction got me killed against fast decks. When I played Jund, I would always get paired against Tron/Scapeshift and just not pack the land hate or not fortunate enough to dodge it. Maybe I should not impulse ditch decks when I receive bad beats but that's probably something I need to work on is getting familiar with my 6 sided dice.
Oh. Well then I guess we don't have much to talk about lol.
You're right I'm probably not good, but it's not hard to recognize when your opponent is making such obvious mistakes. You don't need to be good to figure that out.
You're asking for a field of hyper expensive mirror decks (caw blade, rally, etc. is really the only time these decks come out because hate is so plentiful in the modern environment). At that point it's a variance game of who drew the best grip, which sounds insanely boring.
Walking into a tournament with a 4 year old deck and crushing the opposition pretty much ensures no new players enter the format.
It's also easy to discount a players skill when they're at a GP after two days of intense mental calculations for hours each day (let alone the playtesting before), stress induced from being on camera, and stress if you need to win the pot because you do this for a living. Bubble up to the top of a 2000 person tournament and play flawlessly before you start hurling insults at these guys. Mental fatigue is a thing and I think what they did was great.
Gravitating to the most borked thing in the meta is pretty much asking to waste your money. WotC have been very vocal about the tournament scene and what they want to see and what they think is healthy. The cream of the crop is always at risk to the scythe first...telling yourself otherwise is futile.
It sounds like chess is more your style. Everyone has the same tools, it's just determine who goes first and how to navigate a win. Magic is built on variance and is thriving because newer players can get on the right side of it and learn/enjoy the game enough to become invested. Not many people can sit across from someone crushing their gameplay with superior tools and come back next week...
I have been learning chess, it's quite humbling how bad I am at it, but I don't get upset because I know my opponents were just clearly better than me. It could be just my long streak of bad variance in Modern, but it's literally the only format I struggle in. I am happy with my results in Standard, Limited, and even Legacy. Either I have bad variance that hasn't ended yet or Modern is just a format I'll never be able to achieve consistent success in. Which I have accepted to be the case now.
So what ? That's the case for any competitive game whether it's Magic or something like League of Legends. It's variance, it happens. In magic, sometimes you win even though you misplay badly and sometimes you lose even though your opponent misplays badly. In LoL, sometimes you're the best player on the team but you're unable to carry the team to a win, other times you're the worst player on the team but the team is able to carry you to a win.
That's the thing about people, they always remember the time their 'luck-sack' opponent pulls out a lucky top deck to win the game but when they themselves pull out a game winning top deck, it's 'deserved'.
Attributing losses to bad beats are basically what all the *****-tier players in any and every competitive game do. Yes it happens, but it evens out over time. If you're any good at all you WILL be winning a lot more than you lose. There's a reason why even in an insanely RNG-based game like Hearthstone, the same couple of players are always at the top. Variance is not an excuse.
Dredge loses to quite a few decks actually. It loses to infect around 60% of the time, same with the kilnfiend ur decks. It loses to combos that are just flat out better than them, so scapeshift (the full combo versions) goryos vengeance, storm, through the breach decks, anger moon decks like skred red, Bant Eldrazi because it just goes over us and can make a crap ton of blockers, while bringing real grave hate easily, Eldrazi and taxes for the same reasoning. we lose to burn more often than not, simply because you said, its Gnaw on turn 3 or not, which means A. we have to mill it. B. we have to mill it with creatures. C. We have to not die by the time we can cast it. D. Hit 3 mana on turn 3 (which is hard.) E. Pray to god they dont have a atarkas command or skull crack. So yes, do we have a card that single handedly wins the match? Yes. Is it likely we can pull it off? No.
So tier 1, 3 bad matchups, and tier 2 7-8 bat matchups. Thats pretty average for a tier 1 deck.
Use the report button.
We each enjoy the game for different reasons, I don't know why you believe I am a cheater. I like playing decks that win a lot, you like variety in gameplay. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that I am cheater from what I've said. If anything I've said is bashing the format, as far as I'm concerned, is allowed to be said here. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm just stating my personal experience and my viewpoint as a player who plays mainly Competitive REL events.
The issue I see is that if an answer is printed for a specific archetype (thinking blessed alliance at combating "tall" or "protect the queen" strats like infect, suicide zoo/bloo, etc.) then that answer never settles in because something like spell pierce already exists to fight against anything like that. You can't print a freaking instant or sorcery modal spell when literally all 3 of those decks are capable of running pierce and hitting the mana and having it open in time. Even though the card is modal, it doesn't solve the issue entirely.
The thing is that the tools the top tier decks have are quite absurd outside of their combo or strat to protect themselves. Affinity having access to ghiraphir aether grid, whipflare, dismember, or galvanic blast while presenting a T3 clock in a strat that can go "wide" or "tall" with damage or poison is what makes the deck so difficult to play against. They can just pivot to a game plan that's just as strong on the fly in response to you interacting. What is the rock to affinity's scissors outside of brutal back breaking sideboard cards that invalidate all other artifact (an entire card type mind you) decks.
If a spell was printed to combat the tall and wide strategies both you pretty much just shut down almost every small toughness or single creature strat...wizards can't do that without totally pushing the format in another direction. 2 for 1s are fine, 5 for 1s are not when you effect a multitude of decks.
Modal Swiss Army knife mentality is exactly what the hype for kolaghan's fommand was all about when people started running it. The card literally does almost everything you can jam on a 3 cmc spell without breaking the card in half. Even this, which has tons of relevance against affinity, can be too slow to stem the bleeding if you're on the play against them.
So if aggro > control give control slow answers but allow it to draw a good mix to stem the flood of spells the aggro decks are slinging. Maybe something like counter target spell, spells that your opponent casts until your next turn that share a type with the countered spell cost 1 more to play. Aggro can still get underneath but maybe control can jump in there and slow the game down a bit until they get mana for more impactful spells.