Very happy to see that the GPs and SCG event are solidifying what we've thought for a while now - that we're currently enjoying the best Modern in the format's history. Glad to see all WOTC's bans/unbans paying off.
I was all over for Friday LCT and day one at Kobe and the meta was EXTREMELY diverse. In my winning LCT I played against Affinity, Temur Scapeshift, Elves, Abzan(classic), and Gifts/Storm. In other trial I faced Grixis Deathshadow and Burn. In the GP I never faced Death's Shadow. I played against Burn, Affinity, Eldrazitron, Urzatron, Titanshift, Counters Company, Jeskai Nahiri(mirror).
I don't know why people are so down on these results. The Copenhagen finals have been, for the most part, really fun to watch, with Grixis Shadow putting in work as a powerful interactive police deck. Kobe T8 was obviously amazing; one of the most diverse I've seen in a while. No idea what SCG Baltimore T8 and T32 will look like, but unless it's a complete dumpster fire, this weekend really showcased a lot of Modern's strengths.
Highlights:
9th place, Naya Counters Company. This one doesn't have Kitchen Finks or Viscera Seer, unlike the other Counters Company decks. Instead it has Knight of the Reliquary and a single Rhonas the Indomitable, which is a 3-mana 5/5 with Knight, as well as a mana sink for the Vizier combo. Has Fairgrounds Warden (Fiend Hunter without tricks) in the SB.
10th place, Titanshift with Sweltering Suns and Madcap Experiment.
16th place, RG Eldrazi Tron. As opposed to the colorless versions. Two SBed By Force.
27th place, BG Rock with no splash, not even for Lingering Souls.
28th and 29th place, Vizier Knightfall.
30th place, Esper DS. This deck is remarkably similar to an old Chapin brew with less reliance on delve and free cantrips, and more reliance on DS and Snapcaster Mage. Not getting stuck with Path to Exile as your only 1-mana removal is nice too.
32nd place, Rakdos Reanimator with all 4-ofs main. Has Tormenting Voice over Cathartic Reunion.
The Japanese must have a fascination with turning all 4-of decks. Look at Jeskai Flash, Rakdos Reanimator, and 8 Rack. Seriously, not even Burn decks are all 4-ofs.
I don't know why people are so down on these results. The Copenhagen finals have been, for the most part, really fun to watch, with Grixis Shadow putting in work as a powerful interactive police deck. Kobe T8 was obviously amazing; one of the most diverse I've seen in a while. No idea what SCG Baltimore T8 and T32 will look like, but unless it's a complete dumpster fire, this weekend really showcased a lot of Modern's strengths.
Other than for Eldrazi Winter, "diversity" among top 8s has rarely ever actually been a problem; we have had wildly diverse top 8s almost every large event for several years. What's not exciting is the disproportionate nature of the fast/linear/aggro/combo decks. Yes, there is a "diversity" of flavors, but almost all the decks fall into those categories. No, it's not a dumpster fire, but I don't know if I would consider this a shining example of Modern being amazing either. It's only amazing if you enjoy decks which win almost entirely on the backs of favorable/unfavorable matchups, wildly powerful sideboard cards, and luck-of-the-draw topdeck variance. As much as I loved watching the Grixis Shadow final, without those amazing Shadow top decks, he was as good as dead. Maybe this is what Wizards wants out of the format: big flashy plays off the top of the deck. Matches decided by dramatic fashion. Decks that have no business winning, pulling a victory out of the air. It makes the game more interesting to watch but at least for me, makes it much less interesting to play. I feel like the decisions being made in the game are worth so much less than what the top card of your library is. And that's exactly why the format is mostly dominated by fast proactive decks that are difficult to interact with or resilient enough to function through most interaction. There's no real benefit to playing a reactive strategy because you have to rely so heavily on positive variance.
Highlights:
9th place, BTL Scapeshift. I didn't notice it until now, but BTL Scapeshift is basically a Sultai deck with Valakut and mountains for the wincon.
12th place, Dredge with Reduce // Rubble.
14th place, Living End with Archfiend of Ifnir and Desert Cerodon. The list that T8ed had neither, which is quite insane to me.
16th place, Elves with 4 Devoted Druid and 1 Vizier of Remedies. The nice thing about Druid is that it has tribal synergy in this deck. Ezuri, Renegade Leader saves you a deck slot that would be spent on Walking Ballista, and goes infinite with 2 Devoted Druids.
21st place, Titanshift with 1 Sweltering Suns.
24th place, UW Emeria Titan with Gideon of the Trials.
25th place, Jeskai Copycat.
30th place, Jund. Funny how Jund has become a highlight now (Reid Duke was 9-0 at SCG Baltimore) when it's usually a deck that's expected to T8 or at least T16. DS Jund is too good
32nd place, Titanshift with 1 Sweltering Suns.
34th place, GW Counters Company. No black for Seer, not even red. Also, there's one Caustic Caterpillar over Qasali Pridemage or Reclamation Sage, wtf?
This T36 seems a lot less diverse than Kobe's. Expect a more detailed analysis later.
As much as I loved watching the Grixis Shadow final, without those amazing Shadow top decks, he was as good as dead. Maybe this is what Wizards wants out of the format: big flashy plays off the top of the deck. Matches decided by dramatic fashion. Decks that have no business winning, pulling a victory out of the air. It makes the game more interesting to watch but at least for me, makes it much less interesting to play. I feel like the decisions being made in the game are worth so much less than what the top card of your library is.
How dare players draw the cards they put into their decks.
I don't know why people are so down on these results. The Copenhagen finals have been, for the most part, really fun to watch, with Grixis Shadow putting in work as a powerful interactive police deck. Kobe T8 was obviously amazing; one of the most diverse I've seen in a while. No idea what SCG Baltimore T8 and T32 will look like, but unless it's a complete dumpster fire, this weekend really showcased a lot of Modern's strengths.
Other than for Eldrazi Winter, "diversity" among top 8s has rarely ever actually been a problem; we have had wildly diverse top 8s almost every large event for several years. What's not exciting is the disproportionate nature of the fast/linear/aggro/combo decks. Yes, there is a "diversity" of flavors, but almost all the decks fall into those categories. No, it's not a dumpster fire, but I don't know if I would consider this a shining example of Modern being amazing either. It's only amazing if you enjoy decks which win almost entirely on the backs of favorable/unfavorable matchups, wildly powerful sideboard cards, and luck-of-the-draw topdeck variance. As much as I loved watching the Grixis Shadow final, without those amazing Shadow top decks, he was as good as dead. Maybe this is what Wizards wants out of the format: big flashy plays off the top of the deck. Matches decided by dramatic fashion. Decks that have no business winning, pulling a victory out of the air. It makes the game more interesting to watch but at least for me, makes it much less interesting to play. I feel like the decisions being made in the game are worth so much less than what the top card of your library is. And that's exactly why the format is mostly dominated by fast proactive decks that are difficult to interact with or resilient enough to function through most interaction. There's no real benefit to playing a reactive strategy because you have to rely so heavily on positive variance.
I really don't know what the "Modern is too linear" camp wants. I feel like they won't be happy until they get a 51/49+ reactive blue deck like Miracles, and that no other option will ever satisfy them. This is never going to happen. Wizards has all but explicitly said that such decks will not exist. Get comfortable with bad matchups, learn to play through them, and be ready to play to your outs; that's the mindset Wizards wants Modern players to have. Almost all of their ban decisions in the past 2 years point to Wizards hamstringing the 51/49+ decks to create a metagame where player skill is not the sole determinant of a match.
I also think there's a cognitive dissonance between wanting a 51/49+ deck and desiring a metagame where skill matters. All of the existing reactive blue decks (e.g. Grixis Control, UW Control) and many of the traditional midrange decks (e.g. Jund) have very high skill ceilings and reward player commitment, even if they aren't 51/49+ across the board. You need a lot of skill to win with those decks. You don't actually need as much skill as one might think to win with the 51/49+ decks. As long as your strategy isn't total garbage to begin with, not the case with UW Control/Grixis/Jund, etc., then skill can carry the deficit. Then again, I don't think many of the "Modern too linear" people actually want a skill-based deck. I think they really just want a 51/49+ reactive blue deck regardless of how much skill it takes to play. That's unfair and unrealistic.
I don't think the format is perfect and I believe it would still benefit from more generic answers (especially a counterspell variant). But it's also much better than a few vocal detractors make it out to be. Kobe and Copenhagen really showcased that.
I don't think the format is perfect and I believe it would still benefit from more generic answers (especially a counterspell variant). But it's also much better than a few vocal detractors make it out to be. Kobe and Copenhagen really showcased that.
Results showed us that reactive U decks could take 2 out of the top 32 spots in Kobe, both of which lost in the first round of Top 8, and 0 out of Top 8 in Copenhagen (still waiting on T32). That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in reactive or tempo-based archetypes. My larger concern is they will use these Top 8 results to justify another 6 months of not unbanning anything. "See? Look! Things are fine! Blue needs no help!"
I don't think pilot skill was the issue here, the strategies are simply not good enough with the current card pool.
This is a great example of the mentality I'm talking about. First, you ask about Copenhagen and not Kobe, knowing full well that the Kobe tournament had plenty of unambiguous reactive blue decks in the T32 that would undermine your argument. Second, you suggest a very narrow definition of "reactive blue," presumably knowing that Grixis Shadow won the event and still asking as if Grixis Shadow won't meet your implied definition. Grixis Shadow played numerous reactive games throughout the tournament. It also played proactive games. This gear-shifting is just the natural evolution of the strategy.
Again, we'll have to see what SCG Baltimore looks like. But if I'm just looking at Kobe and Copenhagen, I really don't see anything for control mages to complain so much about. Control mages continue to demonstrate a bizarrely specific, narrow, and biased definition of the kind of deck they want for them to be happy. It can't be too proactive, needs to have no bad matchups worse than 45/55, can't have too many of those bad matchups, needs to have some number of counterspells, can't win too quickly, must have as many good matchups as the other top decks, etc. I don't see any other players in this format or others clinging to such a narrow definition of viability.
Reid Duke saying it as it is at the SCG player interview. Having death shadow is better than having splinter twin and/or infect. Modern is more diverse and fair than it has ever been. Coming from Reid Duke, who chose to play classic Jund over anything is worth a lot I think.
I for one think that Reactive Control was not well represented despite that lone Jeskai Queller in Kobe. I'm not rushing any statements because we still have the SCG data.
But let's be honest. Grixis Shadow's best hands(i know this by experience) are the ones that are Jundy. The ones that involve Thoughtseize and Death Shadows in multiple copies. Serum Visions and Tasigur and Denial are just a backup to shore some combo matchups and give Snapcaster some targets. It's NOT a reactive deck by any stretch of imagination. It's more of a Jund deck than a Grixis deck in playstyle, and its best hands involve discard and Death Shadow, not Visions,Denial and removal.
I for one think that Reactive Control was not well represented despite that lone Jeskai Queller in Kobe. I'm not rushing any statements because we still have the SCG data.
But let's be honest. Grixis Shadow's best hands(i know this by experience) are the ones that are Jundy. The ones that involve Thoughtseize and Death Shadows in multiple copies. Serum Visions and Tasigur and Denial are just a backup to shore some combo matchups and give Snapcaster some targets. It's NOT a reactive deck by any stretch of imagination. It's more of a Jund deck than a Grixis deck in playstyle, and its best hands involve discard and Death Shadow, not Visions,Denial and removal.
Totally agree. I would prefer turn 1 discard into turn 2 Tasigur every time over Serum Visions, hold up removal/counter. Been playing UBx Shadow a couple months now, and this deck wants to be as far from reactivate as possible, whenever possible. It only plays a reactive game when it absolutely has to (no early threats or facing overwhelming pressure on the draw).
I don't know why people are so down on these results. The Copenhagen finals have been, for the most part, really fun to watch, with Grixis Shadow putting in work as a powerful interactive police deck. Kobe T8 was obviously amazing; one of the most diverse I've seen in a while. No idea what SCG Baltimore T8 and T32 will look like, but unless it's a complete dumpster fire, this weekend really showcased a lot of Modern's strengths.
Other than for Eldrazi Winter, "diversity" among top 8s has rarely ever actually been a problem; we have had wildly diverse top 8s almost every large event for several years. What's not exciting is the disproportionate nature of the fast/linear/aggro/combo decks. Yes, there is a "diversity" of flavors, but almost all the decks fall into those categories. No, it's not a dumpster fire, but I don't know if I would consider this a shining example of Modern being amazing either. It's only amazing if you enjoy decks which win almost entirely on the backs of favorable/unfavorable matchups, wildly powerful sideboard cards, and luck-of-the-draw topdeck variance. As much as I loved watching the Grixis Shadow final, without those amazing Shadow top decks, he was as good as dead. Maybe this is what Wizards wants out of the format: big flashy plays off the top of the deck. Matches decided by dramatic fashion. Decks that have no business winning, pulling a victory out of the air. It makes the game more interesting to watch but at least for me, makes it much less interesting to play. I feel like the decisions being made in the game are worth so much less than what the top card of your library is. And that's exactly why the format is mostly dominated by fast proactive decks that are difficult to interact with or resilient enough to function through most interaction. There's no real benefit to playing a reactive strategy because you have to rely so heavily on positive variance.
I really don't know what the "Modern is too linear" camp wants. I feel like they won't be happy until they get a 51/49+ reactive blue deck like Miracles, and that no other option will ever satisfy them. This is never going to happen. Wizards has all but explicitly said that such decks will not exist. Get comfortable with bad matchups, learn to play through them, and be ready to play to your outs; that's the mindset Wizards wants Modern players to have. Almost all of their ban decisions in the past 2 years point to Wizards hamstringing the 51/49+ decks to create a metagame where player skill is not the sole determinant of a match.
I also think there's a cognitive dissonance between wanting a 51/49+ deck and desiring a metagame where skill matters. All of the existing reactive blue decks (e.g. Grixis Control, UW Control) and many of the traditional midrange decks (e.g. Jund) have very high skill ceilings and reward player commitment, even if they aren't 51/49+ across the board. You need a lot of skill to win with those decks. You don't actually need as much skill as one might think to win with the 51/49+ decks. As long as your strategy isn't total garbage to begin with, not the case with UW Control/Grixis/Jund, etc., then skill can carry the deficit. Then again, I don't think many of the "Modern too linear" people actually want a skill-based deck. I think they really just want a 51/49+ reactive blue deck regardless of how much skill it takes to play. That's unfair and unrealistic.
I don't think the format is perfect and I believe it would still benefit from more generic answers (especially a counterspell variant). But it's also much better than a few vocal detractors make it out to be. Kobe and Copenhagen really showcased that.
Is it really surprising though ? It's been like this for ages.
When Chapin 1st pioneered and did well with grixis control. Dismissed as 'not a real control deck' because it was able to play fat delve creatures and present a clock early if it had to.
When Burkhart did well with grixis control. He got lucky and dodged all his bad match ups.
UW control puts up good results online. Dismissed as a flash in the pan that's only a good choice because of DS.
When Jeskai control made top 8 at kobe. It's dismissed because japanese results not worth anything for some reason.
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.
Quite a few people in this thread wont be happy unless Miracles, or a modern equivalent, is dominant in Modern. They dismiss UW, Esper, and Jeskai control as complete flukes, which seems very insulting to both the players that pilot those decks to great finishes and those that actively work to tune decks based on said finishes.
I got to see so many varieties of lists on camera both at Copenhagen and on SCG Balt. Looking at the results from both GP's and SCG, the only strong statement I can make is if you want to play anything, you can play it. If you want to play Draw-Go control, you can play it, prison, aggro-control, combo-control, ramp-combo, straight up aggro, whatever you want. If you're good enough, you will be rewarded.
I am all about that DS zoo list.
Quite a few people in this thread wont be happy unless Miracles, or a modern equivalent, is dominant in Modern. They dismiss UW, Esper, and Jeskai control as complete flukes, which seems very insulting to both the players that pilot those decks to great finishes and those that actively work to tune decks based on said finishes.
Sad, but true. Specifically, I believe the "control sucks" camp won't be happy with Modern until a deck emerges that fits the following conditions:
1. The deck is mostly blue
2. The deck is primarily draw-go
3. The deck doesn't include a viable proactive Plan A/B
4. The deck includes some number, probably 8+, counterspell variants
5. The deck has no matchups worse than 45/55
6. The deck has no more 45/55 (or worse) matchups than other competing top-tier decks
7. The deck has at least as many 55/45 (or better) matchups as other competing top-tier decks
8. The deck consistently places in major event T8s for 6+ months
9. The deck consistent places in MTGO Leagues and major event Day 2s for 6+ months
10. The deck is widely acknowledged by pros as being top-tier
If decks emerge that don't fit all those 10 conditions, I really believe that the "control sucks" contingent of Modern players won't believe in any deck in this format. That's too bad because there are clearly lots of strong options out there, as these events have attested, particularly if one is willing to compromise on at least some of the first four conditions.
In late 2016, I was really unhappy with Modern because you couldn't play reactive blue at all. It was all Dredge, Infect, DSZ, ramp, etc. with no space for any blue decks. Snapcaster was basically extinct. Now, reactive blue is extremely viable between the traditional blue decks and the more proactive DS ones, and the old complaint no longer holds. All that is left is the group of players who still wants the very specific deck I defined above. Or, as beanman said, they won't be happy until they get Modern Miracles.
Quite a few people in this thread wont be happy unless Miracles, or a modern equivalent, is dominant in Modern. They dismiss UW, Esper, and Jeskai control as complete flukes, which seems very insulting to both the players that pilot those decks to great finishes and those that actively work to tune decks based on said finishes.
I got to see so many varieties of lists on camera both at Copenhagen and on SCG Balt. Looking at the results from both GP's and SCG, the only strong statement I can make is if you want to play anything, you can play it. If you want to play Draw-Go control, you can play it, prison, aggro-control, combo-control, ramp-combo, straight up aggro, whatever you want. If you're good enough, you will be rewarded.
I am all about that DS zoo list.
Players dismiss these decks for a reason. They aren't consistent and therefore aren't always competitive options, especially if you can only buy one deck. If a deck is only good for 1 or 2 months (which is 1 big modern tournament) that is the definition of a fluke.
And the suggestion that if you're good enough you will be rewarded is ridiculous because you're saying that no control deck has won any tournament (and barely any have top 8's) recently because professionals aren't good enough.
Lets face it creature combo, aggro and midrange are all substantially more powerful than control in modern.
It's only fair that control players are unhappy their way of playing isn't well represented and they get abuse online from players saying 'get better', 'you just want a tier 0 deck' or from the game creators saying 'U is too powerful you'll get bad answers, bad creatures and like it'
On a different note I'm totally building 5 colour shadow (mixing 2 of my most played decks shadow and burn) also gotta love that forest in the sb
The Jeskai and Esper decks might not be picked up by players or put up results after this tournament so it's a valid point that they may never be 'proven'. However, I don't understand this thing about the Japanese Meta being 'weird' or 'specific'.
Other than a few outliers such as the esper/jeskai/BW eldrazi, or have some seemingly weird card choices but most of the top 32 decks seem pretty stock and in line with the 'general' meta. They still have the typical dredge, e-tron, burn, scapeshift, different flavors of DS, druid combo etc, it's not like the proven meta decks weren't being played in big numbers bearing in mind that Kobe was a 3000 player event.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpcop17/top-8-decklists-2017-05-28
Highlights include Living End with only Horror of the Broken Lands (no Desert Cerodon, no Archfiend of Ifnir - he's actually playing Monstrous Carabid over Cerodon), Storm with 1 SSG, and the return of DS Zoo with Renegade Rallier, Grim Flayer and Tribal Flames over Gitaxian Probe and Become Immense (and Seal of Primordium SB for the synergy with Rallier).
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
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
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I expect Shadow will lose to Leyline of the Voids.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpkob17/9th-32nd-decklists-2017-05-28
Highlights:
9th place, Naya Counters Company. This one doesn't have Kitchen Finks or Viscera Seer, unlike the other Counters Company decks. Instead it has Knight of the Reliquary and a single Rhonas the Indomitable, which is a 3-mana 5/5 with Knight, as well as a mana sink for the Vizier combo. Has Fairgrounds Warden (Fiend Hunter without tricks) in the SB.
10th place, Titanshift with Sweltering Suns and Madcap Experiment.
16th place, RG Eldrazi Tron. As opposed to the colorless versions. Two SBed By Force.
27th place, BG Rock with no splash, not even for Lingering Souls.
28th and 29th place, Vizier Knightfall.
30th place, Esper DS. This deck is remarkably similar to an old Chapin brew with less reliance on delve and free cantrips, and more reliance on DS and Snapcaster Mage. Not getting stuck with Path to Exile as your only 1-mana removal is nice too.
32nd place, Rakdos Reanimator with all 4-ofs main. Has Tormenting Voice over Cathartic Reunion.
All decks that played the Vizier combo had Walking Ballista for infinite damage, and Duskwatch Recruiter to search for it (in addition to Chord of Calling and Collected Company). Rhonas saw play in some decks, but it takes a back seat to Ballista.
The trend of playing Ceremonious Rejection in the SBs of fair blue decks continues. Look at 11th, 24th, and 30th place.
Notably missing are Censor and Gideon of the Trials. The Noble Hierarch decks didn't play Gideon, they just added the Vizier combo.
The Japanese must have a fascination with turning all 4-of decks. Look at Jeskai Flash, Rakdos Reanimator, and 8 Rack. Seriously, not even Burn decks are all 4-ofs.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
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
Other than for Eldrazi Winter, "diversity" among top 8s has rarely ever actually been a problem; we have had wildly diverse top 8s almost every large event for several years. What's not exciting is the disproportionate nature of the fast/linear/aggro/combo decks. Yes, there is a "diversity" of flavors, but almost all the decks fall into those categories. No, it's not a dumpster fire, but I don't know if I would consider this a shining example of Modern being amazing either. It's only amazing if you enjoy decks which win almost entirely on the backs of favorable/unfavorable matchups, wildly powerful sideboard cards, and luck-of-the-draw topdeck variance. As much as I loved watching the Grixis Shadow final, without those amazing Shadow top decks, he was as good as dead. Maybe this is what Wizards wants out of the format: big flashy plays off the top of the deck. Matches decided by dramatic fashion. Decks that have no business winning, pulling a victory out of the air. It makes the game more interesting to watch but at least for me, makes it much less interesting to play. I feel like the decisions being made in the game are worth so much less than what the top card of your library is. And that's exactly why the format is mostly dominated by fast proactive decks that are difficult to interact with or resilient enough to function through most interaction. There's no real benefit to playing a reactive strategy because you have to rely so heavily on positive variance.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpcop17/9th-36th-decklists-2017-05-28
Highlights:
9th place, BTL Scapeshift. I didn't notice it until now, but BTL Scapeshift is basically a Sultai deck with Valakut and mountains for the wincon.
12th place, Dredge with Reduce // Rubble.
14th place, Living End with Archfiend of Ifnir and Desert Cerodon. The list that T8ed had neither, which is quite insane to me.
16th place, Elves with 4 Devoted Druid and 1 Vizier of Remedies. The nice thing about Druid is that it has tribal synergy in this deck. Ezuri, Renegade Leader saves you a deck slot that would be spent on Walking Ballista, and goes infinite with 2 Devoted Druids.
21st place, Titanshift with 1 Sweltering Suns.
24th place, UW Emeria Titan with Gideon of the Trials.
25th place, Jeskai Copycat.
30th place, Jund. Funny how Jund has become a highlight now (Reid Duke was 9-0 at SCG Baltimore) when it's usually a deck that's expected to T8 or at least T16. DS Jund is too good
32nd place, Titanshift with 1 Sweltering Suns.
34th place, GW Counters Company. No black for Seer, not even red. Also, there's one Caustic Caterpillar over Qasali Pridemage or Reclamation Sage, wtf?
This T36 seems a lot less diverse than Kobe's. Expect a more detailed analysis later.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
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 really don't know what the "Modern is too linear" camp wants. I feel like they won't be happy until they get a 51/49+ reactive blue deck like Miracles, and that no other option will ever satisfy them. This is never going to happen. Wizards has all but explicitly said that such decks will not exist. Get comfortable with bad matchups, learn to play through them, and be ready to play to your outs; that's the mindset Wizards wants Modern players to have. Almost all of their ban decisions in the past 2 years point to Wizards hamstringing the 51/49+ decks to create a metagame where player skill is not the sole determinant of a match.
I also think there's a cognitive dissonance between wanting a 51/49+ deck and desiring a metagame where skill matters. All of the existing reactive blue decks (e.g. Grixis Control, UW Control) and many of the traditional midrange decks (e.g. Jund) have very high skill ceilings and reward player commitment, even if they aren't 51/49+ across the board. You need a lot of skill to win with those decks. You don't actually need as much skill as one might think to win with the 51/49+ decks. As long as your strategy isn't total garbage to begin with, not the case with UW Control/Grixis/Jund, etc., then skill can carry the deficit. Then again, I don't think many of the "Modern too linear" people actually want a skill-based deck. I think they really just want a 51/49+ reactive blue deck regardless of how much skill it takes to play. That's unfair and unrealistic.
I don't think the format is perfect and I believe it would still benefit from more generic answers (especially a counterspell variant). But it's also much better than a few vocal detractors make it out to be. Kobe and Copenhagen really showcased that.
Results showed us that reactive U decks could take 2 out of the top 32 spots in Kobe, both of which lost in the first round of Top 8, and 0 out of Top 8 in Copenhagen (still waiting on T32). That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in reactive or tempo-based archetypes. My larger concern is they will use these Top 8 results to justify another 6 months of not unbanning anything. "See? Look! Things are fine! Blue needs no help!"
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This is a great example of the mentality I'm talking about. First, you ask about Copenhagen and not Kobe, knowing full well that the Kobe tournament had plenty of unambiguous reactive blue decks in the T32 that would undermine your argument. Second, you suggest a very narrow definition of "reactive blue," presumably knowing that Grixis Shadow won the event and still asking as if Grixis Shadow won't meet your implied definition. Grixis Shadow played numerous reactive games throughout the tournament. It also played proactive games. This gear-shifting is just the natural evolution of the strategy.
Again, we'll have to see what SCG Baltimore looks like. But if I'm just looking at Kobe and Copenhagen, I really don't see anything for control mages to complain so much about. Control mages continue to demonstrate a bizarrely specific, narrow, and biased definition of the kind of deck they want for them to be happy. It can't be too proactive, needs to have no bad matchups worse than 45/55, can't have too many of those bad matchups, needs to have some number of counterspells, can't win too quickly, must have as many good matchups as the other top decks, etc. I don't see any other players in this format or others clinging to such a narrow definition of viability.
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
But let's be honest. Grixis Shadow's best hands(i know this by experience) are the ones that are Jundy. The ones that involve Thoughtseize and Death Shadows in multiple copies. Serum Visions and Tasigur and Denial are just a backup to shore some combo matchups and give Snapcaster some targets. It's NOT a reactive deck by any stretch of imagination. It's more of a Jund deck than a Grixis deck in playstyle, and its best hands involve discard and Death Shadow, not Visions,Denial and removal.
Totally agree. I would prefer turn 1 discard into turn 2 Tasigur every time over Serum Visions, hold up removal/counter. Been playing UBx Shadow a couple months now, and this deck wants to be as far from reactivate as possible, whenever possible. It only plays a reactive game when it absolutely has to (no early threats or facing overwhelming pressure on the draw).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Is it really surprising though ? It's been like this for ages.
When Chapin 1st pioneered and did well with grixis control. Dismissed as 'not a real control deck' because it was able to play fat delve creatures and present a clock early if it had to.
When Burkhart did well with grixis control. He got lucky and dodged all his bad match ups.
UW control puts up good results online. Dismissed as a flash in the pan that's only a good choice because of DS.
When Jeskai control made top 8 at kobe. It's dismissed because japanese results not worth anything for some reason.
I got to see so many varieties of lists on camera both at Copenhagen and on SCG Balt. Looking at the results from both GP's and SCG, the only strong statement I can make is if you want to play anything, you can play it. If you want to play Draw-Go control, you can play it, prison, aggro-control, combo-control, ramp-combo, straight up aggro, whatever you want. If you're good enough, you will be rewarded.
I am all about that DS zoo list.
My H/W list
Sad, but true. Specifically, I believe the "control sucks" camp won't be happy with Modern until a deck emerges that fits the following conditions:
1. The deck is mostly blue
2. The deck is primarily draw-go
3. The deck doesn't include a viable proactive Plan A/B
4. The deck includes some number, probably 8+, counterspell variants
5. The deck has no matchups worse than 45/55
6. The deck has no more 45/55 (or worse) matchups than other competing top-tier decks
7. The deck has at least as many 55/45 (or better) matchups as other competing top-tier decks
8. The deck consistently places in major event T8s for 6+ months
9. The deck consistent places in MTGO Leagues and major event Day 2s for 6+ months
10. The deck is widely acknowledged by pros as being top-tier
If decks emerge that don't fit all those 10 conditions, I really believe that the "control sucks" contingent of Modern players won't believe in any deck in this format. That's too bad because there are clearly lots of strong options out there, as these events have attested, particularly if one is willing to compromise on at least some of the first four conditions.
In late 2016, I was really unhappy with Modern because you couldn't play reactive blue at all. It was all Dredge, Infect, DSZ, ramp, etc. with no space for any blue decks. Snapcaster was basically extinct. Now, reactive blue is extremely viable between the traditional blue decks and the more proactive DS ones, and the old complaint no longer holds. All that is left is the group of players who still wants the very specific deck I defined above. Or, as beanman said, they won't be happy until they get Modern Miracles.
Players dismiss these decks for a reason. They aren't consistent and therefore aren't always competitive options, especially if you can only buy one deck. If a deck is only good for 1 or 2 months (which is 1 big modern tournament) that is the definition of a fluke.
And the suggestion that if you're good enough you will be rewarded is ridiculous because you're saying that no control deck has won any tournament (and barely any have top 8's) recently because professionals aren't good enough.
Lets face it creature combo, aggro and midrange are all substantially more powerful than control in modern.
It's only fair that control players are unhappy their way of playing isn't well represented and they get abuse online from players saying 'get better', 'you just want a tier 0 deck' or from the game creators saying 'U is too powerful you'll get bad answers, bad creatures and like it'
On a different note I'm totally building 5 colour shadow (mixing 2 of my most played decks shadow and burn) also gotta love that forest in the sb
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Other than a few outliers such as the esper/jeskai/BW eldrazi, or have some seemingly weird card choices but most of the top 32 decks seem pretty stock and in line with the 'general' meta. They still have the typical dredge, e-tron, burn, scapeshift, different flavors of DS, druid combo etc, it's not like the proven meta decks weren't being played in big numbers bearing in mind that Kobe was a 3000 player event.