Detractors of Modern have described it as two ships passing in the night. Hard to argue against that when looking at the results. What are some ways that Wizards could go about changing this?
I can think of something real simple to help with linear degeneracy, promote interaction, and incentivize people to play control decks...
Yeah, but you would also need something to help curtail the Affinity menace, surely there's nothing on the banned list that accomplishes that feat?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Detractors of Modern have described it as two ships passing in the night. Hard to argue against that when looking at the results. What are some ways that Wizards could go about changing this?
I can think of something real simple to help with linear degeneracy, promote interaction, and incentivize people to play control decks...
Jesus Christ. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a 2RR Enchantment Nail.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
Detractors of Modern have described it as two ships passing in the night. Hard to argue against that when looking at the results. What are some ways that Wizards could go about changing this?
I can think of something real simple to help with linear degeneracy, promote interaction, and incentivize people to play control decks...
Jesus Christ. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a 2RR Enchantment Nail.
You got a better idea? Because Wizards sure doesn't.
I can see a problem in today's Modern: It's too uninteractive.. And the problem is REAL. No DS in top 8 actually is bad, because it was a linear festival.
This extreme linearity needs to be resolved somehow. There are 2 ways IMO.
1) New, strong prints(which we are hoping for and we got 4 or 5 during the last 2 years)
2) Unban Splinter Twin.
We are getting to a point that this ban looks hilariously bad. It would be just fine, especially with Fatal Push.
Also, it could also make people run more interaction to fight it.
Just admit your mistake and unban it.
This top 8 is a classic showing of people reacting to a perceived shift in the meta. People saw that a ton of people were going to be running Grixis shadow so they smartly decided to show up with decks that are good against that. They also took advantage of the fact that with decks like Affinity not showing up for awhile the anti-artifact hate was at an all time low while anti-GY hate was at an all time high.
Detractors of Modern have described it as two ships passing in the night. Hard to argue against that when looking at the results. What are some ways that Wizards could go about changing this?
I can think of something real simple to help with linear degeneracy, promote interaction, and incentivize people to play control decks...
Jesus Christ. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a 2RR Enchantment Nail.
You got a better idea? Because Wizards sure doesn't.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Generally no. Force of Will is actually fairly bad in standard environments because the card itself is either a 5 CMC counterspell or it's card disadvantage. It's only at its most useful when it is allowing you to win that turn or preventing someone from winning that turn. That being said with the past standards of Saheeli combo and Aetherworks Marvel there actually is a decent chance it would be too good. That's just my pessimism though.
Edit: I should note that Force of Will has its own issues in that it is the color diversity killer. A large portion of why Legacy is almost all blue is attributable to Force of Will and Brainstorm. A necessary evil in legacy, but not exactly an answer for modern.
Detractors of Modern have described it as two ships passing in the night. Hard to argue against that when looking at the results. What are some ways that Wizards could go about changing this?
I can think of something real simple to help with linear degeneracy, promote interaction, and incentivize people to play control decks...
Jesus Christ. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a 2RR Enchantment Nail.
You got a better idea? Because Wizards sure doesn't.
And here we go again...
I remember why I stopped posting in here.
This is not a constructive post that offers any reasonable or doable solution. Unless your response is to continue and play the "wait and see" game like we have been, where linear degeneracy runs rampant until it is banned, then the next thing lines up until it's banned too. That's what happens when you remove the top "control" deck of the format and then leave all other control decks horrendously underpowered due to the massive boost in threats every set and leave the answers decks to struggle with poor filtering, poor draw, poor counters, and poor win conditions. But if you've got an easier fix than simply putting back a deck that didn't deserve a ban in the first place, I'm all ears. I don't think Shadow needs a ban, I don't think Affinity needs a ban, I think Modern either needs a premiere control deck with a threatening win condition to force people into respecting and interacting with their opponent ~OR~ they need lots and lots of good cantrips, counterspells, and some kind of new, reliable, and timely win condition. One of these options seems a lot more realistic and attainable than the other.
Good luck having Stoneforge Mystic unbanned now with the logic of Wizards. They ll just look at it, then unban NOTHING.
NO CHANGES in modern incoming.
Yeah, SFM seems unlikely with two Hatebears decks in the T8. I still think SFM would be totally fine, but Wizards is unlikely to agree. Preordain also ain't happening with Turns at the top, Storm doing well on MTGO, and Grixis DS just itching to use it.
Do we have any actual evidence that people on the play actually win more than in legacy or is this another "I feel it so it's right"
I keep a lot of stats about my personal performance and when examining matches that go to three games I'm roughly twice as likely in modern to have the outcome go to the first player than legacy. There's some caveats though about how my legacy deck plays, and how games that go to three in modern are more likely to be races.
UB Turns, Affinity, Eldra Tron, Mono W Hatebears in the top 8 already, me thinks.
2 Fringe decks getting in there, that's some GREAT news.
Edit: Craig Wescoe with WG Hatebears in the top 8 probably also.
This is the best result any DS fan could have hoped for. There's no way WotC bans something in August for a deck that can't even make the top8 of a grand prix.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
I can see a problem in today's Modern: It's too uninteractive.. And the problem is REAL. No DS in top 8 actually is bad, because it was a linear festival.
This extreme linearity needs to be resolved somehow. There are 2 ways IMO.
1) New, strong prints(which we are hoping for and we got 4 or 5 during the last 2 years)
2) Unban Splinter Twin.
We are getting to a point that this ban looks hilariously bad. It would be just fine, especially with Fatal Push.
Also, it could also make people run more interaction to fight it.
Just admit your mistake and unban it.
This top 8 is a classic showing of people reacting to a perceived shift in the meta. People saw that a ton of people were going to be running Grixis shadow so they smartly decided to show up with decks that are good against that. They also took advantage of the fact that with decks like Affinity not showing up for awhile the anti-artifact hate was at an all time low while anti-GY hate was at an all time high.
This is a perfect analysis. What we learned today is that there is no such thing as a "best deck" in Modern. You have to be a holistic player with good skill, good metagame reads, and good sideboard design. I can't imagine a format better than Modern right now. And if you don't think there's enough interaction, go re-watch that Wescoe vs. BBD match just before the top 8. There were tons of interactions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
top 32 is out as shows 6 Grixis Death's Shadow decks in the top 32 showing the deck is still highly prevalent even if it didn't quite make it. Some real interesting decks though such as a pox deck at 12th place.
Also 6 affinity decks
Out of curiosity, where do people get their Modern fix? LGS? MTGO? SCG tournaments? Tournaments by other providers (Hareruya, Card Kingdom, CF, etc.)?
I ask because I'm almost exclusively an MTGO player, and I find Modern to be quite skill-testing and interactive even in some of the allegedly less interactive games. When I lose, I can often attribute that loss to at least one error I made, not just getting nut-drawn by an opponent or going second. Sometimes, I can't tell if people complaining about Modern are actually playing the format or if it's all theorycrafting based on articles/content they find. I know some of the critics do play and their criticism comes from experience, but I also know others who barely/don't play and still give Modern a hard time.
FNM primarily - and I am one of the better players and it pays dividends. I win matchups I shouldn't with some regularity on the back of sequencing, mulliganning and sideboarding mistakes by opponents. I don't mean that arrogantly, I lose a lot and to better players too. I was about a 55% player in constructed modern on MTGO for reference though since the kiddo I don't get uninterrupted computer time for MTGO really.
Generally I think people exaggerate how much luck has to do as well. Yeah, you lose to nut draws, bad topdecks and sideboard gaps, but I can attribute skill gap to a large percentage of my wins and losses. There're a few players at my local shop who are better than me and I can tell for sure.
I will say that in general I think mulliganning skill is the biggest place I see the gap, and this somewhat reinforces in my mind that your opening hand and 3-4 cards on the top of your deck do make the largest difference in most games. But that is a pretty difficult thing to do right.
It is certainly very interesting to see that even "autopilot" decks like Eldrazi Tron and (supposedly) affinity tend to lose on screen due to egregious play errors more often than luck.
I'm not saying Modern doesn't require skill, but skill does not pay as well in Modern than it does in other formats. Maybe it has to do with the unbalanced power level of certain strategies, but I don't know anyone who is simultaneously good at Legacy and Modern at the same time. I found that people who do well in Modern get destroyed in Legacy and the reverse is also true. I know Mani Davoudi personally, he does not practice Modern at all in the LGS, he loves to do money drafts and play powered cube. He borrowed his foil Affinity deck from one of my close friends that I play PPTQs with often. When he told people in the winner's interview that he did not prepare for this tournament, he was not lying. He proved that Modern just requires you to run well and go first.
I'm not saying Modern doesn't require skill, but skill does not pay as well in Modern than it does in other formats. Maybe it has to do with the unbalanced power level of certain strategies, but I don't know anyone who is simultaneously good at Legacy and Modern at the same time. I found that people who do well in Modern get destroyed in Legacy and the reverse is also true. I know Mani Davoudi personally, he does not practice Modern at all in the LGS, he loves to do money drafts and play powered cube. He borrowed his foil Affinity deck from one of my close friends that I play PPTQs with often. When he told people in the winner's interview that he did not prepare for this tournament, he was not lying. He proved that Modern just requires you to run well and go first.
One instance of a player not preparing and winning =/= "He proved that Modern just requires you to run well and go first." I know you personally dislike this format and have been extremely vocal about it in this thread, but there are plenty of instances of players sticking with decks and running them before big runs. Craig and Daniel were two of those players at the recent GP. I will happily admit that it doesn't require as much skill as Legacy just because you don't have a few huge skilltesters in the format, primarily Brainstorm. But the gap isn't as big as many would claim, Modern is at least supported and here to stay, and Modern continues to require much more skill than the detractors think it does. That's why you generally see the same big names at the tops of big events; good players win on good decks they know how to play.
I mostly play on MTGO. Modern's definitely interactive right now. As far as skill testing goes, yes and no. Obviously skill always factors, but we all know there are a lot of non-games in Modern. Probably more so than any other major format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
I primarily play FNMs (20-30 people) with PPTQs and GPTs thrown in when the season is right (I live in Australia so the number of large tournaments is limited). I have never really understood the idea that modern lacks skill or that it contains a large number of "non-games", at least in comparison to any other format or game. I agree with Pokken that mulliganning is a often overlooked skill in modern, I have seen too many people keep a hand of lands and spells that doesn't actually do anything in the match-up.
It does feel like a lot of the complaining about modern comes from writers and pro players that don't actually have a lot to do with the format. Which makes a certain level of sense; standard goes stale pretty quick, and the legacy audience is smaller so why not slap together 800+ words about the format that is in a constant state of ban-mania and get some guaranteed views?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In play: Jund Death Shadow, Grixis Control, Eldrazi Stompy, Ponza
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Jesus Christ. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a 2RR Enchantment Nail.
You got a better idea? Because Wizards sure doesn't.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This top 8 is a classic showing of people reacting to a perceived shift in the meta. People saw that a ton of people were going to be running Grixis shadow so they smartly decided to show up with decks that are good against that. They also took advantage of the fact that with decks like Affinity not showing up for awhile the anti-artifact hate was at an all time low while anti-GY hate was at an all time high.
And here we go again...
I remember why I stopped posting in here.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
That right there is a virtual win.
Barring a rules change, I think its going to be a combination of super strong new answer cards and, sadly yes, more bans to help alleviate this
If we went the rules change route over bans/new cards?
I would just add "spells cannot be cast on the very first turn of the game"
That alone would boost reactive control decks quite a few degrees
Generally no. Force of Will is actually fairly bad in standard environments because the card itself is either a 5 CMC counterspell or it's card disadvantage. It's only at its most useful when it is allowing you to win that turn or preventing someone from winning that turn. That being said with the past standards of Saheeli combo and Aetherworks Marvel there actually is a decent chance it would be too good. That's just my pessimism though.
Edit: I should note that Force of Will has its own issues in that it is the color diversity killer. A large portion of why Legacy is almost all blue is attributable to Force of Will and Brainstorm. A necessary evil in legacy, but not exactly an answer for modern.
This is not a constructive post that offers any reasonable or doable solution. Unless your response is to continue and play the "wait and see" game like we have been, where linear degeneracy runs rampant until it is banned, then the next thing lines up until it's banned too. That's what happens when you remove the top "control" deck of the format and then leave all other control decks horrendously underpowered due to the massive boost in threats every set and leave the answers decks to struggle with poor filtering, poor draw, poor counters, and poor win conditions. But if you've got an easier fix than simply putting back a deck that didn't deserve a ban in the first place, I'm all ears. I don't think Shadow needs a ban, I don't think Affinity needs a ban, I think Modern either needs a premiere control deck with a threatening win condition to force people into respecting and interacting with their opponent ~OR~ they need lots and lots of good cantrips, counterspells, and some kind of new, reliable, and timely win condition. One of these options seems a lot more realistic and attainable than the other.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Or maybe BBE. Jund isn't doing well and the card costs 80 cents. It's not overpowered and I would love to see an unban of BBE and Splinter Twin.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB
I keep a lot of stats about my personal performance and when examining matches that go to three games I'm roughly twice as likely in modern to have the outcome go to the first player than legacy. There's some caveats though about how my legacy deck plays, and how games that go to three in modern are more likely to be races.
This is the best result any DS fan could have hoped for. There's no way WotC bans something in August for a deck that can't even make the top8 of a grand prix.
This is a perfect analysis. What we learned today is that there is no such thing as a "best deck" in Modern. You have to be a holistic player with good skill, good metagame reads, and good sideboard design. I can't imagine a format better than Modern right now. And if you don't think there's enough interaction, go re-watch that Wescoe vs. BBD match just before the top 8. There were tons of interactions.
Also 6 affinity decks
Grixis Shadow - 6
Affinity - 6
Burn - 4
Eldrazi Tron - 3
Hatebears - 1
Death & Taxes - 1
Turns - 1
Breach Titan - 1
Abzan - 1
WB Smallpox - 1
GWx Company - 1
Humans - 1
Jeskai Control - 1
Naya Zoo - 1
UB Faeries - 1
Bant Eldrazi - 1
Dredge - 1
17 different archetypes. No one deck dominated, although Grixis Shadow, Affinity, Burn, and Eldrazi Tron look to be the winners of the weekend.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Link 1-8: http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gplv17-modern/top-8-decklists-2017-06-18
Link 9-32: http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gplv17/9-32-decklists-2017-06-18
I ask because I'm almost exclusively an MTGO player, and I find Modern to be quite skill-testing and interactive even in some of the allegedly less interactive games. When I lose, I can often attribute that loss to at least one error I made, not just getting nut-drawn by an opponent or going second. Sometimes, I can't tell if people complaining about Modern are actually playing the format or if it's all theorycrafting based on articles/content they find. I know some of the critics do play and their criticism comes from experience, but I also know others who barely/don't play and still give Modern a hard time.
Generally I think people exaggerate how much luck has to do as well. Yeah, you lose to nut draws, bad topdecks and sideboard gaps, but I can attribute skill gap to a large percentage of my wins and losses. There're a few players at my local shop who are better than me and I can tell for sure.
I will say that in general I think mulliganning skill is the biggest place I see the gap, and this somewhat reinforces in my mind that your opening hand and 3-4 cards on the top of your deck do make the largest difference in most games. But that is a pretty difficult thing to do right.
It is certainly very interesting to see that even "autopilot" decks like Eldrazi Tron and (supposedly) affinity tend to lose on screen due to egregious play errors more often than luck.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
One instance of a player not preparing and winning =/= "He proved that Modern just requires you to run well and go first." I know you personally dislike this format and have been extremely vocal about it in this thread, but there are plenty of instances of players sticking with decks and running them before big runs. Craig and Daniel were two of those players at the recent GP. I will happily admit that it doesn't require as much skill as Legacy just because you don't have a few huge skilltesters in the format, primarily Brainstorm. But the gap isn't as big as many would claim, Modern is at least supported and here to stay, and Modern continues to require much more skill than the detractors think it does. That's why you generally see the same big names at the tops of big events; good players win on good decks they know how to play.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
It does feel like a lot of the complaining about modern comes from writers and pro players that don't actually have a lot to do with the format. Which makes a certain level of sense; standard goes stale pretty quick, and the legacy audience is smaller so why not slap together 800+ words about the format that is in a constant state of ban-mania and get some guaranteed views?
In the yard: RUG Delver, Kiki-Chord, Grixis Twin, Mardu Control, Smallpox, Jeskai Control, Jeskai Delver, Assault Loam, Elves, Deathcloud, Eggs, Storm