The argument is that in Japan, things put up results that don't put up results anywhere else and tend not appear ever again. Whether that's a weakness of the decks themselves or the western meta not picking up on their builds is kind of a moot point if the decks do indeed disappear.
The one and only reason for this is that they're not as tied up in only running lists that were already proven before they picked them up, the way the US meta prefers to do things. They're happy to be the "egg" whereas in the US we have this weird "chicken or egg" syndrome where we won't believe it's good until it puts up results but nobody will play it if it's not good, therefore it will never put up results.
It has nothing to do with the strengths/weaknesses of the decks or the players but everything to do with the cultural difference of how players choose their decks.
EDIT: And it's not a moot point whatsoever. They prove time and again that strategies/decks are perfectly viable.
Warning: YGO Comparison Incoming
For those saying MtG USA and MTG Japan, are sigficantly different because X, Y, and Z, if you accept these differences are from a cultural 'tendency', you can see the difference demostrated more saliently in the YGO Franchise*. The first and foremost difference, is that in Japan, players are more likely to play to win instead of playing to not lose. Second there less organized play in terms of big tournament (in comparison to the the US), so the decks tend to be more unrefined. The primary gaming method is via FNM equivalent. And finally YGO wise, Japan tends to favor big splashy plays over attrition based wins.
Now then that stated, the other reasons in YGO for different metas, is that Japan/OCG is about a pack ahead of the US/TCG. Furthermore the difference comes down to tech choices, Scooze vs Grim Flayer. Japan prefering the Scooze immediate impact over a Flayer filtering. Furthermore, in the top tiers of play these differences have never changed what is good or what is a bad deck. Additionally for two years running, Japan has won worlds, over America. Well more appropriately an OCG Player has won the whole thing. And best decks are still the same regardless of which side of the Pacific you live.
So long story short. If you accept that meta differences translate across card games, at the top teir of competitive play, the meta is exactly the same or very similar.
*There is far more large organized play for MtG than YGO in Japan. Given tournament wise, OCG has only a 2-4 major tournaments, and that is for determining who goes to world. And additionally the meta is difference because they are pack ahead of us (I.E they would be on Akhmonket, we'd be on Aether Revolt). And their ban list is different than the TCG, and is meant to partly enable said splashy plays
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.
I personally disagree with this list. The problems faced by reactive blue decks is that their bad match ups are 20/80 and their good match ups are barely 55/45. So there is very little upside and MASSIVE downside to these decks. If control control decks had a win condition that allowed them to get free wins against the uninteractive linear decks, but get torn apart by interaction like discard, counter, removal (like Twin did), we'd be having a different conversation. But bottom line is that the decks have mediocre "good" matchups and horrendous "bad" matchups. What possible incentive is there to play a deck like that other than stubborn nature or simply owning a bunch of the expensive cards and not wanting to play Shadow?
I'd like to add that before the probe ban, Grixis Delver was extremely close to being my ideal deck. Reactivate, proactive, tempo, aggro, control, all in one package. Now it's Death's Shadow or bust, a deck that plays more "Jund" than "Delver" by nearly every aspect.
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.
I feel a much better feel for the tournament should be looking at every 30+ point deck for a fairer play on what was working or not in the tournament. These were tournaments of 1800 and 2800 people. To look at only the top 32 is disingenuous when Modern also relies greatly on deck familiarity and reps to really put yourself over the top if you're not a pro player. Most people would KILL to go 10-6 in a tournament as big as the Kobe GP.
I'm not sure if any finished highly but there were PLENTY of U/W control decks at Kobe. There were also a few Jeskai flash and Jeskai Nahiri and I didn't see any at top tables.
I feel a much better feel for the tournament should be looking at every 30+ point deck for a fairer play on what was working or not in the tournament. These were tournaments of 1800 and 2800 people. To look at only the top 32 is disingenuous when Modern also relies greatly on deck familiarity and reps to really put yourself over the top if you're not a pro player. Most people would KILL to go 10-6 in a tournament as big as the Kobe GP.
That's great, except they publish results at GPs by placing, not record. If you want to know what the 33rd to 340th placed players played, you're SOL unless you personally know them or saw them on stream.
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.
I feel a much better feel for the tournament should be looking at every 30+ point deck for a fairer play on what was working or not in the tournament. These were tournaments of 1800 and 2800 people. To look at only the top 32 is disingenuous when Modern also relies greatly on deck familiarity and reps to really put yourself over the top if you're not a pro player. Most people would KILL to go 10-6 in a tournament as big as the Kobe GP.
Eh, I really dont want to see 10-6 decks (and im going to assume you meant to say 10-5). When it comes to MtG my rule has always kinda been a 75% win ratio (at least in a large turn out tournament). 11-3-1/11-4 is s far back as I have any interest in going. What really bothers me though are sites that track tournament results but only list the top 8. Thats not helpful to anyone trying to build/analyze decks.
I don't think pilot skill was the issue here, the strategies are simply not good enough with the current card pool. Shenhar packed Jeskai Nahiri and got nowhere (I don't think he's lacking skill?).
Shahar Shenhar with Jeskai Nahiri/As Foretold ended up 40th place with 34 points, so I assume he went 11-3-1. That is not "going nowhere", it's a very strong finish in an 1815 people tournament. He must have gone to time at least 1 match and lost points there, and that is problem when you play blue based control in a large tournament. You have a higher chance of losing points by going to time.
It has nothing to do with the strengths/weaknesses of the decks or the players but everything to do with the cultural difference of how players choose their decks.
EDIT: And it's not a moot point whatsoever. They prove time and again that strategies/decks are perfectly viable.
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
For those saying MtG USA and MTG Japan, are sigficantly different because X, Y, and Z, if you accept these differences are from a cultural 'tendency', you can see the difference demostrated more saliently in the YGO Franchise*. The first and foremost difference, is that in Japan, players are more likely to play to win instead of playing to not lose. Second there less organized play in terms of big tournament (in comparison to the the US), so the decks tend to be more unrefined. The primary gaming method is via FNM equivalent. And finally YGO wise, Japan tends to favor big splashy plays over attrition based wins.
Now then that stated, the other reasons in YGO for different metas, is that Japan/OCG is about a pack ahead of the US/TCG. Furthermore the difference comes down to tech choices, Scooze vs Grim Flayer. Japan prefering the Scooze immediate impact over a Flayer filtering. Furthermore, in the top tiers of play these differences have never changed what is good or what is a bad deck. Additionally for two years running, Japan has won worlds, over America. Well more appropriately an OCG Player has won the whole thing. And best decks are still the same regardless of which side of the Pacific you live.
So long story short. If you accept that meta differences translate across card games, at the top teir of competitive play, the meta is exactly the same or very similar.
*There is far more large organized play for MtG than YGO in Japan. Given tournament wise, OCG has only a 2-4 major tournaments, and that is for determining who goes to world. And additionally the meta is difference because they are pack ahead of us (I.E they would be on Akhmonket, we'd be on Aether Revolt). And their ban list is different than the TCG, and is meant to partly enable said splashy plays
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)
I personally disagree with this list. The problems faced by reactive blue decks is that their bad match ups are 20/80 and their good match ups are barely 55/45. So there is very little upside and MASSIVE downside to these decks. If control control decks had a win condition that allowed them to get free wins against the uninteractive linear decks, but get torn apart by interaction like discard, counter, removal (like Twin did), we'd be having a different conversation. But bottom line is that the decks have mediocre "good" matchups and horrendous "bad" matchups. What possible incentive is there to play a deck like that other than stubborn nature or simply owning a bunch of the expensive cards and not wanting to play Shadow?
I'd like to add that before the probe ban, Grixis Delver was extremely close to being my ideal deck. Reactivate, proactive, tempo, aggro, control, all in one package. Now it's Death's Shadow or bust, a deck that plays more "Jund" than "Delver" by nearly every aspect.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I feel a much better feel for the tournament should be looking at every 30+ point deck for a fairer play on what was working or not in the tournament. These were tournaments of 1800 and 2800 people. To look at only the top 32 is disingenuous when Modern also relies greatly on deck familiarity and reps to really put yourself over the top if you're not a pro player. Most people would KILL to go 10-6 in a tournament as big as the Kobe GP.
http://www.cubetutor.com/viewcube/13649 - My all foil cube.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Shahar Shenhar with Jeskai Nahiri/As Foretold ended up 40th place with 34 points, so I assume he went 11-3-1. That is not "going nowhere", it's a very strong finish in an 1815 people tournament. He must have gone to time at least 1 match and lost points there, and that is problem when you play blue based control in a large tournament. You have a higher chance of losing points by going to time.
UWRUWR Delver/Lynx TempoUWR-------UWRUWR Midrange GeistUWR-------UWRUWR Nahiri ControlUWR-------UWRUWR SaheeliUWR
BGRJund / Jund ShadowBGR-------BGWAbzan / Abzan ShadowBGW
Commander (Leviathan/MTGO): UWGeist of Saint TraftUW