That was probably me, I am still a firm believer that Modern is too diverse and not worth the effort to get to a win percentage where monetization of the format can provide you a living. You can't build a Modern deck that has even to favored matchups against the field, that bothers me when the rewards of most Magic events are structured in such a way that you have to win at all costs to get the big reward.
You say this as if any format of Magic is a plausible way to make a living. Magic "pros" invariably have part-time jobs on the side or supplement their tournament income with getting paid to write articles for Magic sites.
I just want to cast bloodbraid elf, cascade into stoneforge mystic then lose to half the tier 1 decks in the format. With no unbans and the lack of communication about them not unbanning certain cards makes it hard to get excited over modern
With that type of logic, you can argue for unbanning SFM by saying you want to use it to search up Leonin Scimitar or Shuko. This format is legitimately awesome and well-balanced, but you want to be able to play a midrange deck with 50/50 or better matchups against the entire field. You've actually used numbers as high as 70% winrates, but I will assume some element of hyperbole in those statements.
Don't get me wrong, I wish there would have been more comment on the No Change decision, considering pros were briefly crying for a ban to hit DS decks. I would like them to say "we consider the format to be healthy, so we did not consider any changes early on" or even "we considered trying to boost (insert archetype here), but do not yet have the data to justify this specific unban." But I can't help but believe that you and a couple other users just want your pet deck to be tier 1 or even tier 0.
You keep telling people what they want dispite not actually knowing these people.
You have literally said on this thread that you want a deck with a positive win percentage against the entire field, and that one reason you didn't like modern was the lack of a clear best deck or ones that could clearly be best with proper metagame awareness. I'm not telling anyone what they want, I'm remembering your claims some fifteen pages ago.
That was probably me, I am still a firm believer that Modern is too diverse and not worth the effort to get to a win percentage where monetization of the format can provide you a living. You can't build a Modern deck that has even to favored matchups against the field, that bothers me when the rewards of most Magic events are structured in such a way that you have to win at all costs to get the big reward.
Yeah, sorry. I guess this format isn't for the 1337$. Infraction issued for trolling. -- CavalryWolfPack
With that type of logic, you can argue for unbanning SFM by saying you want to use it to search up Leonin Scimitar or Shuko. This format is legitimately awesome and well-balanced, but you want to be able to play a midrange deck with 50/50 or better matchups against the entire field. You've actually used numbers as high as 70% winrates, but I will assume some element of hyperbole in those statements.
Don't get me wrong, I wish there would have been more comment on the No Change decision, considering pros were briefly crying for a ban to hit DS decks. I would like them to say "we consider the format to be healthy, so we did not consider any changes early on" or even "we considered trying to boost (insert archetype here), but do not yet have the data to justify this specific unban." But I can't help but believe that you and a couple other users just want your pet deck to be tier 1 or even tier 0.
You keep telling people what they want dispite not actually knowing these people.
You have literally said on this thread that you want a deck with a positive win percentage against the entire field, and that one reason you didn't like modern was the lack of a clear best deck or ones that could clearly be best with proper metagame awareness. I'm not telling anyone what they want, I'm remembering your claims some fifteen pages ago.
That was probably me, I am still a firm believer that Modern is too diverse and not worth the effort to get to a win percentage where monetization of the format can provide you a living. You can't build a Modern deck that has even to favored matchups against the field, that bothers me when the rewards of most Magic events are structured in such a way that you have to win at all costs to get the big reward.
Yeah, sorry. I guess this format isn't for the 1337$.
For starters, modern is far and away the most popular format in all of the towns and cities that run fnm where I live. Nobody plays legacy.
Also modern is for better for brewing than legacy is. Take a wonky brew to a legacy fnm (pshh like those ever happen) and you'd get crushed. Take one to modern and as long as you've observed good deckbuilding practices you've got a shot.
I also find modern more fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
Lots of people brew in legacy. The reason legacy fnms don't fire is $ it's too expensive to buy into. I took a lantern brew and a 4 color coco brew to legacy and did decent a couple nights but I honestly think if the format was affordable at least 1/2 the modern players would switch. Dual lands Brice everyone out of the format and if you do t run them many times you need other $200+ lands. Then you have sb cards like flusterstorm that are ridiculously pricey too. Cost of legacy and vintage are absolutely what keep modern so popular. This is a format where the main reason jtms can't be unbanned is because it'll go up to $200+ rather than actually looking at card power level. I love modern and play it all the time heck I have like 10+ viable decks I can play but I'd love to have 5+ viable legacy decks to play if it were played more. I'm actually on the cusp of selling some duals to buy a couple modern decks for modo just to play more because I want the practice.
Someone in another thread posted a list and I found it amusing how we have a bunch of counterspells with names that are basically 'Spell [Verb]'. For example:
Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Spell Burst, Spell Shrivel, Spell Rupture....you get the idea. What are some unused counterspell names along this vein of naming that you'd like to see in the future?
I know personally I'd like to see something like Spell Pop. Or Spell Crack.
Yes this is completely random, but I thought it was an amusing train of thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
Or, less cynically, we've got some great brewers in the community who know how to tune decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
Wait, so your argument is that people playing in competitive events with Tier 1 decks have stopped playing those Tier 1 decks and moved on to other decks, despite proving they can do very well and win money at competitive events with those decks, because they want to make it less represented so cards don't get banned.
I have a better explanation that, you know, actually makes a grain of sense.
Eldrazi Tron is doing well as a deck. Affinity preys on E-Tron, so more people start playing Affinity expecting lots of people to be playing E-Tron. This brings down the number of people who are winning with E-Tron and the number of people winning with Affinity rise. Then people start playing decks that prey on Affinity, or sideboarding better for it, and other decks start doing well. Eventually people will be playing decks that E-Tron prey on and they'll swing back to having a lot of good results.
You know I feel like we have a name for this phenomenon. Oh right, it's called THE EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAME
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
That's a pretty bold claim.
What evidence do you have to prove this idea? You've made some pretty outlandish claims before, but this one is just plain... wacky.
I highly doubt Modern Tron players have that level of coordination to collectively decide to "back off" on playing Tron because it might get banned if it does too good at too many high-level events. Most Modern players I know are more concerned about playing the best deck, or best configuration of a deck for the meta.
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
That's a pretty bold claim.
What evidence do you have to prove this idea? You've made some pretty outlandish claims before, but this one is just plain... wacky.
I highly doubt Modern Tron players have that level of coordination to collectively decide to "back off" on playing Tron because it might get banned if it does too good at too many high-level events. Most Modern players I know are more concerned about playing the best deck, or best configuration of a deck for the meta.
Agreed, also hahahahahahahahaha. Seriously the idea that some decks exist purely due to some conspiracy theory is laughable. I'm trying to wrap my brain around it. I think bans and potential bans impact what deck players buy into, but I have never heard anyone at any level of play say that they were avoiding deck X because a good showing might put it under a ban spotlight. Hell that literally happened at GP Vancouver with DSJund. By round five it was every other feature match!
Tron and Grishoalbrand decks don't see much play due to them being pretty f'ing durdley. Yes, the god draws are amazing, they are also rare.
I have a ton of problems with the pro scene, such as rampant cheating, byes, and the idea EFro labeled as "pro equity," but conspiring to keep some decks legal vs others is not on that list.
This is a terrible attitude to have as a brewer. "I can't beat everything with a brew, therefore the format is bad." No...not how it works. The variety of modern keeps things balanced, and allows people to buy into these decks and play with them for years.
Idk, brewing is very difficult in modern and legacy and that difficulty is about the same to me. In legacy the blue cantrip shell restricts brews. You are heavily incentivesed In legacy to start your deck with 4 brainstorm, 4 ponder and 4 fow. In modern the diversity among tier 1 and tier 2 decks punish brews. You simply can't brew a deck that can have decent matchups across the majority of tiered decks
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
That's a pretty bold claim.
What evidence do you have to prove this idea? You've made some pretty outlandish claims before, but this one is just plain... wacky.
I highly doubt Modern Tron players have that level of coordination to collectively decide to "back off" on playing Tron because it might get banned if it does too good at too many high-level events. Most Modern players I know are more concerned about playing the best deck, or best configuration of a deck for the meta.
The variety of modern keeps things balanced, and allows people to buy into these decks and play with them for years.
That's what WOTC wants you to believe, their continuation of "managing the format as we have" according to AF will definitely bite someone. I also wouldn't be surprised if Rivals of Ixalan was such a broken set to start another Eldrazi Winter again because it lines up with the Modern Pro Tour. Remember, that's how they sold Oath of the Gatewatch last time. Knowing Hasbro shareholders, they are gonna want this set to be so busted that it will invalidate many decks. I look forward to a 1-2 deck Modern format should they walk this path again.
That's what WOTC wants you to believe, their continuation of "managing the format as we have" according to AF will definitely bite someone. I also wouldn't be surprised if Rivals of Ixalan was such a broken set to start another Eldrazi Winter again because it lines up with the Modern Pro Tour. Remember, that's how they sold Oath of the Gatewatch last time. Knowing Hasbro shareholders, they are gonna want this set to be so busted that it will invalidate many decks. I look forward to a 1-2 deck Modern format should they walk this path again.
I don't know if there is enough tinfoil in the world to make you a proper hat.
Eldrazi Winter happened not because WotC decided to make the set super broken because "lol Modern Pro Tour guys!?!"
Eldrazi Winter happened because R&D pushed colourless as the main mechanic for Oath of the Gatewatch. Add to this that Wizards has said on multiple occassions that they don't test for Modern, and ta-da!
I am curious as to why you play a game you seem to think us run by maniacal greedy overlords who want nothing more than to ruin your fun and yet somehow still get you to give them money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
The moment I read "that's what so and so wants you to believe" every other word is suspect. The tinfoil hat is on, the newspaper has covered every inch of the walls of the room, and it's game over in terms of conversation or debate. Sisicat...wait you are one of the guys who hates modern being so diverse. Aren't you rooting for a two deck meta? So you can "metagame" against it? If you have another one of those uncut sheets for Rivals of Ixalan providing some evidence, please demonstrate. Otherwise, you are simply making unsubstantiated claims to back up your hatred of modern. Just...just save up for a couple of months, play affinity, and relax.
Someone in another thread posted a list and I found it amusing how we have a bunch of counterspells with names that are basically 'Spell [Verb]'. For example:
Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Spell Burst, Spell Shrivel, Spell Rupture....you get the idea. What are some unused counterspell names along this vein of naming that you'd like to see in the future?
I know personally I'd like to see something like Spell Pop. Or Spell Crack.
Yes this is completely random, but I thought it was an amusing train of thought.
this set is mostly fatty dinosaurs from what i see. Rivals would have to be designed in a 180 degree shift or this set would have to have a dramatic increase in power to set up a more powerful rivals set. All that has to happen or they have to print something insane for another eldrazi winter to happen.
Someone in another thread posted a list and I found it amusing how we have a bunch of counterspells with names that are basically 'Spell [Verb]'. For example:
Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Spell Burst, Spell Shrivel, Spell Rupture....you get the idea. What are some unused counterspell names along this vein of naming that you'd like to see in the future?
I know personally I'd like to see something like Spell Pop. Or Spell Crack.
Yes this is completely random, but I thought it was an amusing train of thought.
Spell Punch!
BYAAAAAAAHHH
What would that look like? O_o
Spell Punch UR
Instant
Counter target non-creature spell. That spell's controller takes damage equal to it's converted mana cost. Stop spelling yourself!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Now that Planeswalkers are legendary, I think we can see this sort of a counterspell effect printed:
Counter target non-legendary spell
I'm not going to propose a mana cost, much less a name, as of yet although UU would be a nice homage to counterspell. Given standard, with its high focus on planeswalkers, this could actually make it through development aggressively costed as such.
Now that Planeswalkers are legendary, I think we can see this sort of a counterspell effect printed:
Counter target non-legendary spell
I'm not going to propose a mana cost, much less a name, as of yet although UU would be a nice homage to counterspell. Given standard, with its high focus on planeswalkers, this could actually make it through development aggressively costed as such.
I suddenly wish Hero's Demise was "Destroy target Legendary non-land permanent"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
You know I feel like we have a name for this phenomenon. Oh right, it's called THE EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAME
What metagame? You mean your 100+ different deck metagame in a GP? How do you metagame that? How do I achieve the 90% win rate needed to top 8 the GP I need for the weekend? If I could play against Eldrazi Tron 15 times with Affinity in a GP, I wouldn't be having this discussion about Modern being too diverse. It's not like those MTGGoldfish metagame representation numbers are accurate, they base it mostly on MTGO decklists from comp leagues that are cherry picked. This EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAMEdoes not happen in practice the way you say it does. Unless I deliberately sink excessive amounts of cash to cleanout the community of certain cards that are favorable against my deck of choice, I cannot reliably predict what I play against in a large tournament when there are 100+ different decks that are viable and capable of winning a tournament of any size. This diversity is beneficial to the replayability of the format, but it is very detrimental to people who must win at all costs.
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
You know I feel like we have a name for this phenomenon. Oh right, it's called THE EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAME
What metagame? You mean your 100+ different deck metagame in a GP? How do you metagame that? How do I achieve the 90% win rate needed to top 8 the GP I need for the weekend? If I could play against Eldrazi Tron 15 times with Affinity in a GP, I wouldn't be having this discussion about Modern being too diverse. It's not like those MTGGoldfish metagame representation numbers are accurate, they base it mostly on MTGO decklists from comp leagues that are cherry picked. This EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAMEdoes not happen in practice the way you say it does. Unless I deliberately sink excessive amounts of cash to cleanout the community of certain cards that are favorable against my deck of choice, I cannot reliably predict what I play against in a large tournament when there are 100+ different decks that are viable and capable of winning a tournament of any size. This diversity is beneficial to the replayability of the format, but it is very detrimental to people who must win at all costs.
Simple: Practice your deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, sorry. I guess this format isn't for the 1337$.
Infraction issued for trolling. -- CavalryWolfPack
Who is modern for?
Well I can, and I prefer modern.
For starters, modern is far and away the most popular format in all of the towns and cities that run fnm where I live. Nobody plays legacy.
Also modern is for better for brewing than legacy is. Take a wonky brew to a legacy fnm (pshh like those ever happen) and you'd get crushed. Take one to modern and as long as you've observed good deckbuilding practices you've got a shot.
I also find modern more fun.
It is hilarious that you say diversity stifles brewing. How was that deck diversity reached I wonder? Like, what did it take to get so many different decks to a viable state?
Someone in another thread posted a list and I found it amusing how we have a bunch of counterspells with names that are basically 'Spell [Verb]'. For example:
Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Spell Burst, Spell Shrivel, Spell Rupture....you get the idea. What are some unused counterspell names along this vein of naming that you'd like to see in the future?
I know personally I'd like to see something like Spell Pop. Or Spell Crack.
Yes this is completely random, but I thought it was an amusing train of thought.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
WOTC's reckless bannings, the community being better informed about how metagame representation can lead to bans. Why do you think Tron and some other Turn 2 kill Grishoalbrand decks are under-represented? I can guarantee you if you have 2 or 3 Modern GPs in a row with 10+ turn 2 kills on camera, Grishoalbrand would have eaten a ban. That's why Tron players don't get their deck banhammered, they saw how other decks with high metagame representation get hit and are scaling back accordingly. This is also the reason no deck in the format has more than 10% metagame representation, it's artificial diversity created by the fear of banning.
Or, less cynically, we've got some great brewers in the community who know how to tune decks.
Wait, so your argument is that people playing in competitive events with Tier 1 decks have stopped playing those Tier 1 decks and moved on to other decks, despite proving they can do very well and win money at competitive events with those decks, because they want to make it less represented so cards don't get banned.
I have a better explanation that, you know, actually makes a grain of sense.
Eldrazi Tron is doing well as a deck. Affinity preys on E-Tron, so more people start playing Affinity expecting lots of people to be playing E-Tron. This brings down the number of people who are winning with E-Tron and the number of people winning with Affinity rise. Then people start playing decks that prey on Affinity, or sideboarding better for it, and other decks start doing well. Eventually people will be playing decks that E-Tron prey on and they'll swing back to having a lot of good results.
You know I feel like we have a name for this phenomenon. Oh right, it's called THE EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAME
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
That's a pretty bold claim.
What evidence do you have to prove this idea? You've made some pretty outlandish claims before, but this one is just plain... wacky.
I highly doubt Modern Tron players have that level of coordination to collectively decide to "back off" on playing Tron because it might get banned if it does too good at too many high-level events. Most Modern players I know are more concerned about playing the best deck, or best configuration of a deck for the meta.
Agreed, also hahahahahahahahaha. Seriously the idea that some decks exist purely due to some conspiracy theory is laughable. I'm trying to wrap my brain around it. I think bans and potential bans impact what deck players buy into, but I have never heard anyone at any level of play say that they were avoiding deck X because a good showing might put it under a ban spotlight. Hell that literally happened at GP Vancouver with DSJund. By round five it was every other feature match!
Tron and Grishoalbrand decks don't see much play due to them being pretty f'ing durdley. Yes, the god draws are amazing, they are also rare.
I have a ton of problems with the pro scene, such as rampant cheating, byes, and the idea EFro labeled as "pro equity," but conspiring to keep some decks legal vs others is not on that list.
This is a terrible attitude to have as a brewer. "I can't beat everything with a brew, therefore the format is bad." No...not how it works. The variety of modern keeps things balanced, and allows people to buy into these decks and play with them for years.
That's what WOTC wants you to believe, their continuation of "managing the format as we have" according to AF will definitely bite someone. I also wouldn't be surprised if Rivals of Ixalan was such a broken set to start another Eldrazi Winter again because it lines up with the Modern Pro Tour. Remember, that's how they sold Oath of the Gatewatch last time. Knowing Hasbro shareholders, they are gonna want this set to be so busted that it will invalidate many decks. I look forward to a 1-2 deck Modern format should they walk this path again.
I don't know if there is enough tinfoil in the world to make you a proper hat.
Eldrazi Winter happened not because WotC decided to make the set super broken because "lol Modern Pro Tour guys!?!"
Eldrazi Winter happened because R&D pushed colourless as the main mechanic for Oath of the Gatewatch. Add to this that Wizards has said on multiple occassions that they don't test for Modern, and ta-da!
I am curious as to why you play a game you seem to think us run by maniacal greedy overlords who want nothing more than to ruin your fun and yet somehow still get you to give them money.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Spell Punch!
BYAAAAAAAHHH
What would that look like? O_o
Spell Punch UR
Instant
Counter target non-creature spell. That spell's controller takes damage equal to it's converted mana cost.
Stop spelling yourself!
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Yes! Hahahahaha
I'm not going to propose a mana cost, much less a name, as of yet although UU would be a nice homage to counterspell. Given standard, with its high focus on planeswalkers, this could actually make it through development aggressively costed as such.
I suddenly wish Hero's Demise was "Destroy target Legendary non-land permanent"
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
What metagame? You mean your 100+ different deck metagame in a GP? How do you metagame that? How do I achieve the 90% win rate needed to top 8 the GP I need for the weekend? If I could play against Eldrazi Tron 15 times with Affinity in a GP, I wouldn't be having this discussion about Modern being too diverse. It's not like those MTGGoldfish metagame representation numbers are accurate, they base it mostly on MTGO decklists from comp leagues that are cherry picked. This EVOLUTION OF THE METAGAMEdoes not happen in practice the way you say it does. Unless I deliberately sink excessive amounts of cash to cleanout the community of certain cards that are favorable against my deck of choice, I cannot reliably predict what I play against in a large tournament when there are 100+ different decks that are viable and capable of winning a tournament of any size. This diversity is beneficial to the replayability of the format, but it is very detrimental to people who must win at all costs.
Simple: Practice your deck.