yeah, but i think that chalice is still more unfun than that sequence of bgx, cause what bg cannot do is prevent your topdecks, bg cannot stop you from topdecking threats/answers after all the discard spells, but chalice stops cold any future card from that CMC to resolve for the rest of the game
BGx had goyf and the only way to kill a goyf was path. Now we have push. GG goyf.
Do you really think unbanning BBE would put jund to tier1 status at 15% of the metagame? I very much doubt that. I've never played or liked playing jund, in fact I've always been on the receiving end of lilianas and discards and goyfs, but I don't think that will come again with BBE. It will probably be just another good deck. Maybe even tier1. And maybe unbanning that and SFM will change the metagame we have now. Or maybe bans would be better to change it. Whatever is better, but change this, I actually prefer the jund-twin meta from the past than this one.
Oh and storm is overpowered and the only thing that prevents it from going from tier1 to tier0 is lots of chalices and eidolons maindecks. But as soon as that changes, it will need a ban, regardless of any unbans they will make.
My buddy is a D&T player and I have played extensively with the deck so yeah, I think I know how the deck works.
D&T was an untiered deck until DS appeared on the map. DS became prevalent, D&T won two major(SCG) events. DS is slowly becoming a Tier 2 deck again, D&T is slowly fading away also. Those aren't all coincidences. Might have to do something with the sol land also which you can just throw inside and call it a day in Eldrazi and Taxes.
D&T was, is and will always be a mediocre/bad deck in Modern(at least in comparison with how it's in Legacy). It's just that with DS, it gains an extra bye matchup in the top tiers and this matchup is making the deck winning more.
In Legacy though, for a whole bunch of different reasons, it's a good deck.
I want a better DnT deck for sure, because it will make for a better format. SFM will make it into the Death and Taxes for sure, or at least it will be a good headache for the DnT players to have to go or not with.
Literally the only part of this statement that's correct is that D&T is a better deck in Legacy than Modern. Everything else is just proof that you don't know what you're talking about.
My suggestion: spend some more time in the Modern D&T thread. Maybe play fewer "Snapcaster Mage.deck" decks. Watch D&T being streamed on Twitch or sleeve it up and play at your LGS.
Honestly, I'm not sure why you think you're the authority on this. I'm a D&T pilot. I post regularly in the Modern D&T thread. D&T is listed in my signature as a deck that I play. For comparison, I'm not sure I've ever seen you in that thread and your signature literally has "Snapcaster Mage.deck" written in it.
You are the authority on this, sure. So, I will take your word on this. But let me have my opinion in that if Shadow eats a ban, D&T becomes a deck you just cant play in the meta.
Also, sorry, not changing my favourite Snapcaster Mage - Cryptic Command decks again, not for anything in the world(Infect was a nice break). Also, never playing a non-blue deck. That's just not me
So, question: Why Legacy Death and taxes always play Stoneforge Mystic, but it's not 100% maindeckable in the Modern deck? I would take the "you cant dig due to the Arbiter" argument, but your argument was that there's no Jitte and there's no space for it. I find that hard to believe though.
Finally, if D&T is becoming better and better, that's good news for Modern. We need a deck that's keeping greedy decks like Eldra Tron, Titanshift, and 3 colour decks in check. That's one of the main things Modern needs tbh.
I have been on d&t in modern and legacy for a while now. Only deck I have played more has been GR Tron.
D&T is powerful, it has the tools to handle many games from grixis, DS, storm, scapeshift, breach and vengeance, dredge, living end, and so forth. I was in a pptq last month with 100 people and ended up in the final 4, losing to affinity beating me. In the normal swiss rounds I was the one to beat that affinity deck. He beat me in our rematch but only by the skin of his teeth.
The tier lists are mostly garbage imho anyway, because it really hinges upon what is popular not on what is actually good. Prime example? Nobody's playing grave hate, and living end makes 1st place.
The reason why SFM is not an auto include in DnT but it is in Legacy is because the toolsets are different. The mana denial in legacy consists of Wasteland and Rishadan Port paired with Thalia. SFM provides a fast clock and disruption (Jitte and whatever sword they are using). Modern doesn't have the luxury of waste or port, so the deck is fundamentally altered to include arbiter and ghost quarter to get a similar effect. I'm not saying that DnT wouldn't adjust the game plan to include SFM, but it seems like that would become more of a white weeny deck than DnT.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWR Breach, UWB Esper control
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
What some players here are calling interaction are really ways to stop your opponent from doing things - counters, discard, removal. So when someone complains about chalice of the void making a non-game...well the goal of thoughtseize into goyf into LOTV is to do the exact same thing - stop your opponent from playing. It's all the same, just a matter of what sort of non-game you want to be on the end of, repeated discard and kill spells, a silver bullet sb card, or a deck that's just way faster than you.
That is an interesting viewpoint. Interaction is essentially just ways to stop your opponent from doing what they want to do. I don't see that as a bad thing though. It just means we interact. Without interaction, everyone would just race, and I don't think that kind of Magic is fun. Don't get me wrong, I like all kinds of decks, including decks that just want to race, but I don't think that kind of gameplay (everyone just trying to kill eachother as soon as possible) is all that interesting. I think we need interaction.
I also don't think interaction causes non-games. To me, a non-game occurs when you don't have any relevant decisions to make. The opponent having a hand full of removal doesn't necessarily invalidate all of my decisions (although, if the answers are extremely pushed, it could). My sequencing still matters. Maybe I hold onto my threats until I can play several in one turn, hoping to be more efficient on mana than the opponent (I've seen Infect employ this strategy to great effect against Control). Maybe I hold my threats until I can counter a removal spell in the same turn that I play one. I like what interaction does to games, because there is something to play around. You have to adapt to what your opponent is doing.
I think games of Magic are at their best when both players are trying to win while also trying to throw a wrench in the other person's plan. Storm boarding in Bolt, Burn boarding in Path, etc. Of course, I am biased as an Aggro-Control player, but I think a little back-and-forth is good for gameplay.
It's interesting that you like playing against UW Control, but don't like GBx. I agree that Thoughtseize is not fun to face, but I do think it is important for the format. The busted things we can do would be more tame without it.
Overall, I think some amount of interaction is necessary for good gameplay. Too much interaction certainly can be a bad thing, but no interaction is also bad.
I don't think anyone has bashed the notion that control and midrange are good Magic while combo and uninteractive decks are bad Magic more than me here.
It's not about that. I wouldn't like the whole format revolving around that either.
But what we have now? It sucks.
You remember those decks they nuked? Infect, DSZ, Bloo... yeah they were fast and they caused feelbads. They were, maybe, a bit too good at what they did. Maybe Push could have made it better, who knows. Point is, the matchups between those decks and the interactive decks in the format, mainly Jund/Junk but also older (worse) versions of UW and Jeskai, those were great matchups.
I agree with a lot of this. Variety is the spice of life. I want to see a Modern in which all archetypes have decent representation. As I mentioned above, I think we need some interaction for good gameplay, and if Tier 1 involved more interaction, I think the format would be better off. I like playing against Jund, DS, Tron, Burn, Storm, Infect, Control, and everything else that comes to mind. I play an interactive deck, so I don't usually care what I play against. The games are always fun because I make them fun. But linear decks are fun too, and they are good for the metagame.
I've been looking at jumping on Gifts Storm lately. It looks like it gets a lot of T3 wins. Are people generally OK with this deck? I don't see it talked about as in the ban list cross hairs a lot. Could be that Eldrazi Tron is just that much more offensive that it's been getting the attention.
My usual midrange and control strategies are bad at my LGS right now. It's been overrun by Eldrazi and Tron lands in general.
I don't find thoughtseize fun. I don't find GBx mirrors fun. I don't find it entertaining on either end to just fill a deck with the best kill spells, sit around until your opponent has no cards in hand, then swing with a raging ravine while using discard and removal TO PREVENT your opponent from doing anything. It is every bit as aggravating as playing dredge and facing a leyline of the void. What some players here are calling interaction are really ways to stop your opponent from doing things - counters, discard, removal. So when someone complains about chalice of the void making a non-game...well the goal of thoughtseize into goyf into LOTV is to do the exact same thing - stop your opponent from playing. It's all the same, just a matter of what sort of non-game you want to be on the end of, repeated discard and kill spells, a silver bullet sb card, or a deck that's just way faster than you.
I feel the same way in that respect. I always found it so odd whenever some BGx players complained that there is "no Magic being played" when their whole deck is meant to do that to the opponent via hand disruption and creature removal, then finishing you off with a super powerful beater. Now there is another beater that is half the cost and occasionally gets double the size, so it's not fair?
EDIT: I know this is not the place to express you don't like Modern so I'm done with it. I'm very pessimistic about the format.
I have been feeling this more and more from other players. It's really sad to me when I see players lose interest in Modern since it is the main format that I play and have so many cards in. I have noticed a decline in attendance locally. I don't know if it's the time of year, but you would think that Promo Fatal Push would push attendance. Nope.
For what it's worth, I will say what I have said 1,000 times here before. I do think that currently there is a real Rock/Paper/Scissors in Modern, but it just isn't enjoyable to players. I hope this is a sign to Wizards that their quest for the Holy Grail in a meta of 5% X 10 and 2.5% X 20 is not only unattainable, but could possibly NOT BE what players are looking for. I find it incredulous when someone complains about a deck that is 12% of the meta. That just blows me away. I used to play in metas where 33% of people played a certain deck and there was NO complaining. I think the more you give, the more that is asked from you. Wizards can't appease everyone. But I hoep that they try to do something to help attendance via unbans. That's what I really hope. *fingers crossed
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
For what it's worth, I will say what I have said 1,000 times here before. I do think that currently there is a real Rock/Paper/Scissors in Modern, but it just isn't enjoyable to players. I hope this is a sign to Wizards that their quest for the Holy Grail in a meta of 5% X 10 and 2.5% X 20 is not only unattainable, but could possibly NOT BE what players are looking for. I find it incredulous when someone complains about a deck that is 12% of the meta. That just blows me away. I used to play in metas where 33% of people played a certain deck and there was NO complaining.
Were these metas Standard? Because people are much more willing to accept a deck being about 30% of the format in Standard than Modern, and a big reason for that is that Standard rotates, so there's a guaranteed end to those decks. In Modern, if something is 30% of the format, there's no rotation to eventually get rid of it.
I find it strange how we can even compare chalice to something like thoughtseize, Goyf and removal
Chalice shuts down a part of your deck, depending on your deck, it can nearly shut all of it off. There's no sequencing, decision making, you're drawing and hoping to slam a card down
At least with the discard the player can choose how you're going to sequence/react. You may certainly have a subpar plan from a timely discard, but at least you aren't miserably drawing a card hoping you get to play
Maybe the creature sequencing is poor, maybe they over-extended, maybe they played the 4 drop and left the shield down for you to storm out, or have Ezuri free to win the game
...I mean, equating actual interaction with prison decks feels very wrong. It is your opinion, but I really disagree with it.
I remember when I was a kid and playing this game, I despised blue and all its counters, it felt unfair that all my fat green creatures were countered and denying me the fun of turning them sideways. As an adult, I certainly appreciate blue decks and the counters now.
I've read some of your posts for years here, but I can't help but feel as though it's linear/combo players feeling cheated and denied of their synergetic combos being ripped apart, denying them their fun of denying their opponent of having fun.
If we didn't have decks like Abzan, Jeskai, UW Control, modern would just be a race; that's less fun to me than watching GBx mirrors all day long. You see it on twitch too, the community is far more vocal of their displeasure and boredom when something like Storm v Living End is on stream.
2016 was the worst modern has ever been, first we had Eldrazi Winter, and then we had infect and dredge. Dredge literally pushed every other graveyard deck into tier 3.
Meanwhile, we had decks like suicide bloo and suicide zoo to supplement an extremely linear modern. It wasn't THAT long ago we had many people in these threads upset that modern devolved into just combo and creature aggro.
Jund is dead. It's not a deck in my eyes anymore outside of being fringe. It got worse when DRS/BBE was banned. It was damaged further by the ban of Splinter Twin, and decks like Infect and suicide Bloo not existing invalidated the decks existence.
I play Abzan now, but I honestly would not bring it to a real tournament, I can't justify playing the deck over Eldrazi Tron. At the end of the day, being a proactive deck with just enough disruption is the key to success in this format, just in case people feel I'm too much of a GBx enthusiastic.
GBx is just outdated right now, it has all these staples, but it just can't beat out the efficiency of E-Tron, Grixis Shadow or Titanshift.
I've tried very hard, but I can't bring myself to play combo, it absolutely bores me. I can deal with linear, but things like lantern, storm or Ad Naus give me no pleasure.
The meta is definitely a rock/paper/scissor format right now, and it certainly has also reached the point where you can't always meta, people play what they like and know nowadays more than what's good or bad.
On another note, modern has been super slow in stores lately, and I'm hearing this from you guys and friends too.
Maybe I'm just in the minority here, but Modern is going strong at my LGS. We have tournaments three days a week, and lately we've had some interesting decks start cropping up. I know there are problems with the top of the format, but it is difficult to come here and see it all being discussed when the tournaments I'm going to are some of the most fun I've had in Magic in quite awhile.
I agree that watching matches between Eldrazi Tron and Storm are boring as hell, and fighting Scapeshift can feel like banging your head against a wall. I've been piloting GDS for awhile now, and I enjoy the hell out of the deck. I've also got a Faeries deck that really upsets combo/big Mana decks, but loses hard to Robots and CoCo. I see people here talking about the meta, but it seems really difficult to pin down just what the meta is based on the information we have access to. I know the meta at my LGS, but Nationwide? Worldwide? Paper vs MTGO? How do we even aggregate the little bit of data we have access to?
For what it's worth, I will say what I have said 1,000 times here before. I do think that currently there is a real Rock/Paper/Scissors in Modern, but it just isn't enjoyable to players. I hope this is a sign to Wizards that their quest for the Holy Grail in a meta of 5% X 10 and 2.5% X 20 is not only unattainable, but could possibly NOT BE what players are looking for. I find it incredulous when someone complains about a deck that is 12% of the meta. That just blows me away. I used to play in metas where 33% of people played a certain deck and there was NO complaining.
Were these metas Standard? Because people are much more willing to accept a deck being about 30% of the format in Standard than Modern, and a big reason for that is that Standard rotates, so there's a guaranteed end to those decks. In Modern, if something is 30% of the format, there's no rotation to eventually get rid of it.
Actually I think the collective unconscious may have wiped their memory because looking back at meta analysis for modern in seasons past, we have indeed seen decks at 20+% meta score and people haven't batted an eyelid. The community has been burnt by a series of bans with meta share as a justification, and is now twitchy and hyper-sensitive to meta-share as a reflection of 'unhealthiness' or 'bannability' or an equivalent negative connotation. Before, this just wasn't the case, and it's actually kinda fun to look back at how people treated this data very differently and focused on other issues instead.
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
BGx had goyf and the only way to kill a goyf was path. Now we have push. GG goyf.
Do you really think unbanning BBE would put jund to tier1 status at 15% of the metagame? I very much doubt that. I've never played or liked playing jund, in fact I've always been on the receiving end of lilianas and discards and goyfs, but I don't think that will come again with BBE. It will probably be just another good deck. Maybe even tier1. And maybe unbanning that and SFM will change the metagame we have now. Or maybe bans would be better to change it. Whatever is better, but change this, I actually prefer the jund-twin meta from the past than this one.
Oh and storm is overpowered and the only thing that prevents it from going from tier1 to tier0 is lots of chalices and eidolons maindecks. But as soon as that changes, it will need a ban, regardless of any unbans they will make.
Grixis shadow is also a rough matchup, you know, that fair deck that everyone complained about for not being the right kind of fair deck?
And saying a deck is only held back by there being counters in the format is literally how a meta works. May as well say Affinity would be tier 0 if it weren't for stony silence - its a bad argument.
Maybe I'm just in the minority here, but Modern is going strong at my LGS. We have tournaments three days a week, and lately we've had some interesting decks start cropping up. I know there are problems with the top of the format, but it is difficult to come here and see it all being discussed when the tournaments I'm going to are some of the most fun I've had in Magic in quite awhile.
I agree that watching matches between Eldrazi Tron and Storm are boring as hell, and fighting Scapeshift can feel like banging your head against a wall. I've been piloting GDS for awhile now, and I enjoy the hell out of the deck. I've also got a Faeries deck that really upsets combo/big Mana decks, but loses hard to Robots and CoCo. I see people here talking about the meta, but it seems really difficult to pin down just what the meta is based on the information we have access to. I know the meta at my LGS, but Nationwide? Worldwide? Paper vs MTGO? How do we even aggregate the little bit of data we have access to?
Chalice shuts down a part of your deck, depending on your deck, it can nearly shut all of it off. There's no sequencing, decision making, you're drawing and hoping to slam a card down
At least with the discard the player can choose how you're going to sequence/react. You may certainly have a subpar plan from a timely discard, but at least you aren't miserably drawing a card hoping you get to play
Maybe the creature sequencing is poor, maybe they over-extended, maybe they played the 4 drop and left the shield down for you to storm out, or have Ezuri free to win the game
...I mean, equating actual interaction with prison decks feels very wrong. It is your opinion, but I really disagree with it.
If we didn't have decks like Abzan, Jeskai, UW Control, modern would just be a race; that's less fun to me than watching GBx mirrors all day long. You see it on twitch too, the community is far more vocal of their displeasure and boredom when something like Storm v Living End is on stream.
I see interaction vs prison basically the same way. To the credit of prison elements, you can play around them to some extent. You can try to get one mana spells out of your hand before Chalice comes down, and you can fetch conservatively to have basics for Blood Moon. However, I don't think there is nearly as much as you can do as to play around sweepers, counters, discard, etc.
Ensnaring Bridge is my least favourite card. It basically says "resolve this and empty your hand: you don't need to worry about removing creatures." I see that as a cop out to having interaction. Sure, Ensnaring Bridge decks run removal anyways, and Bridge doesn't stop utility creatures (or those with 0 power), but it basically acts as a continuous boardwipe as far as combat goes.
Contrast that with Blood Moon. There is so much more you can do to beat Blood Moon. Cast your important spells and capitalize on their tempo loss of a 3-drop that doesn't affect the board, or fetch out a couple basics and laugh at their dead card. If I could interact with problem lands the way I can creatures (not sure that would be a good thing), I probably wouldn't even want Blood Moon.
I like interaction more than prison effects because you need a series of interaction (and to sequence it properly) for it to do what some prison cards do when you just slam them on the table. Casting 3 Thoughtseize in a row can be less debilitating for the opponent than one unfortunate prison effect.
On the point of interactive mirrors and linear mirrors, I agree. I love interactive mirrors. There is an obscene amount of back-and-forth, trying to out play the opponent. It's like interactive vs linear, but takes longer. As HolyDiva mentioned, interactive vs linear is also tons of fun, and definitely more intense. I can't speak if GBx mirrors specifically (never played it), but I have heard they are especially luck dependant due to the topdeck nature of the deck.
There is nothing wrong with playing linear decks. They are fun to play against when you are running interactive decks, and we need them around. When the meta is dominated by then though, it gets a lot less interesting.
I will say, my last two losses against Grixis Shadow with my Jund deck wasn't as luck favored, and I very much lost to myself due to playing sub-optimally. Losing to yourself feels incredibly bad, but I like knowing I could have won had I played better
I agree that linear decks are a good and healthy thing to have, it did become excessive in 2016 though.
Infect dying was a huge chop to the knees of Jund though. Fatal Push was the final nail to the deck, invalidating Raging Ravine even further.
I will say, my last two losses against Grixis Shadow with my Jund deck wasn't as luck favored, and I very much lost to myself due to playing sub-optimally. Losing to yourself feels incredibly bad, but I like knowing I could have won had I played better
I agree that linear decks are a good and healthy thing to have, it did become excessive in 2016 though.
Infect dying was a huge chop to the knees of Jund though. Fatal Push was the final nail to the deck, invalidating Raging Ravine even further.
So crazy thought: do traditional aggro decks need an improvement? Which would not only be good in terms of creating decks that presumably have solid ramp matchups, but also create more "prey" for midrange?
If we can get rid of Chalice and replace it with Counterspell, modern would be 100% better
Why? Chalice is mainly played in one deck in modern
It has the occasional use from merfolk sideboards and RW Prison.
I think E-Tron falls out of tier 1 and tier 2 completely if a chalice ban occurred, it can't handle a ton of combo or aggro decks without it.
Decks that play chalice wouldn't play counterspell?
Chalice isn't an issue until multiple top tier decks play and dominate the meta. I feel as though that's similar to saying, "Blood Moon isn't fun, lets ban that."
If we can get rid of Chalice and replace it with Counterspell, modern would be 100% better
Why? Chalice is mainly played in one deck in modern
It has the occasional use from merfolk sideboards and RW Prison.
I think E-Tron falls out of tier 1 and tier 2 completely if a chalice ban occurred, it can't handle a ton of combo or aggro decks without it.
Decks that play chalice wouldn't play counterspell?
Chalice isn't an issue until multiple top tier decks play and dominate the meta. I feel as though that's similar to saying, "Blood Moon isn't fun, lets ban that."
I think the argument is, and Billiondegree can correct me if I am wrong, that if Eldrazi Tron loses Chalice, its game against burn, shadow, affinity etc goes down the toilet, opening up room however for the junds and abzans and jeskai controls that falter to the Tron deck. It doesn't kill classic green based Tron decks that can still prey on the midrangers while being vulnerable to combo, and Bant Eldrazi could still exist thanks to Temple, again a deck with a solid midrange matchup that has weaknesses.
The hybrid eldrazi tron deck splis into bant eldrazi and green tron, so the only loss of investment is in the chalice itself, which still sees a lot of play in legacy a/k/a it won't go from $75 to $7.
I will say, my last two losses against Grixis Shadow with my Jund deck wasn't as luck favored, and I very much lost to myself due to playing sub-optimally. Losing to yourself feels incredibly bad, but I like knowing I could have won had I played better
Those are the hardest losses to take. I like when I notice a misplay that decreases my chances of winning, but win anyways. Those mistakes are easy to handle. I recently 2-3ed a league because I misplayed in 2 back to back matches against Titanshift. I think they were different misplays too! That is a tougher lesson to handle. I did spend a few days practicing against Titanshift though, so I definitely think mistakes are great for learning.
On the topic of making Aggro better, is Aggro not good right now? I know it isn't especially popular, but is that just because people aren't playing it? Or are bigger Midrange decks (Shadow, Eldrazi to a lesser extent) pushing it out? Fast combo could also be hurting it, but is Kiln Fiend Combo much slower than Storm? I think Aggro-Combo looks at least decent right now (outsider perspective; could be wrong), so I'm guessing people aren't seeing it perform, so they just aren't picking it up.
Personally, I would enjoy Chalice being banned. I would also enjoy Counterspell being legal. I don't know if that is good for the format though.
As mentioned, besides E Tron, few decks play Chalice, and they aren't popular. If Simian Spirit Guide is fine due to lack of popularity, Chalice can stay. I rarely have to deal with it, and some people enjoy playing it, so why should we ruin their fun?
I do think the format would be better without chalice but with counterspell, simply because i find prison cards boring but regular counterspells more interesting
That said i would not ban anything in modern right now. I would keep my eye on storm as it can and does often win turn 3 and it is requires a lot of steps in a single turn to go off, something most opponents hate to sit through
If we could trade Storm for Twin that would be perfect.
Oh and this is coming from someone who plays Storm and will almost certainly continue to play it as his #1 choice until its banned
If Simian Spirit Guide is fine due to lack of popularity, Chalice can stay. I rarely have to deal with it, and some people enjoy playing it, so why should we ruin their fun?
I'm sorry, but there are so many degrees of separation between Chalice and SSG. SSG lets you do things 1/2 (or 3/4) turns early. It allows early Blood Moons, or combo kills in Ad Nauseam. Chalice kills entire swaths of converted mana costs, usually 1 in the current meta, which is heavily built around the most efficient 1 mana spells. Decks that "go big" play spells that are more impactful, if less efficient (though for ETron this could be argued, as their lands tycially produce more than 1 mana each), and thus have weaker early games, when those 1 drops are at their best. Having a tool that simultaneously shores up your weakest element, while at the same time halting what a large portion of the metagame is trying to do, is so much better than simply getting a single red mana for free.
Chalice and SSG are in no way in the same boat in terms of what makes them bannable. If we had a more consistent, faster combo deck than Ad Nauseam that relied on SSG to operate, I could see it being on the chopping block. For now, a weaker combo deck and fringe prison decks are the only uses for SSG.
Chalice, on the other hand, is a core tool for arguably the strongest Tier 1 deck, used as a maindeck silver bullet for its worst matchups. This is all without going into the "feelsbad" moments of not being able to do your thing because of a limiting factor of your opponent. Non-games are an issue, but not one we can ever do away with. The negative feelings that go along with Chalice only strengthen the argument for its removal, and are not the basis for that argument.
Can someone tell me what card(s) have ever been banned from Modern because they "create[d] unfun and unpopular play patterns"? I glanced over the list, and as far as I can tell, not a single card on the ban list falls into this category
Also, no love for SFM in the article :(?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
Can someone tell me what card(s) have ever been banned from Modern because they "create[d] unfun and unpopular play patterns"? I glanced over the list, and as far as I can tell, not a single card on the ban list falls into this category
Also, no love for SFM in the article :(?
It'd be easy to argue that Second Sunrise qualifies, what with Eggs and its 20-minute turns.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos-y Johnny. All will be One
Modern - Cheeri0s (building), Belcher (building), Lantern (building), UW Control (building)
RIP Magic Duels. Wizards will regret what they did to you.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you really think unbanning BBE would put jund to tier1 status at 15% of the metagame? I very much doubt that. I've never played or liked playing jund, in fact I've always been on the receiving end of lilianas and discards and goyfs, but I don't think that will come again with BBE. It will probably be just another good deck. Maybe even tier1. And maybe unbanning that and SFM will change the metagame we have now. Or maybe bans would be better to change it. Whatever is better, but change this, I actually prefer the jund-twin meta from the past than this one.
Oh and storm is overpowered and the only thing that prevents it from going from tier1 to tier0 is lots of chalices and eidolons maindecks. But as soon as that changes, it will need a ban, regardless of any unbans they will make.
I have been on d&t in modern and legacy for a while now. Only deck I have played more has been GR Tron.
D&T is powerful, it has the tools to handle many games from grixis, DS, storm, scapeshift, breach and vengeance, dredge, living end, and so forth. I was in a pptq last month with 100 people and ended up in the final 4, losing to affinity beating me. In the normal swiss rounds I was the one to beat that affinity deck. He beat me in our rematch but only by the skin of his teeth.
The tier lists are mostly garbage imho anyway, because it really hinges upon what is popular not on what is actually good. Prime example? Nobody's playing grave hate, and living end makes 1st place.
Legacy: UW RiP/Helm, UR Sneak and Show
That is an interesting viewpoint. Interaction is essentially just ways to stop your opponent from doing what they want to do. I don't see that as a bad thing though. It just means we interact. Without interaction, everyone would just race, and I don't think that kind of Magic is fun. Don't get me wrong, I like all kinds of decks, including decks that just want to race, but I don't think that kind of gameplay (everyone just trying to kill eachother as soon as possible) is all that interesting. I think we need interaction.
I also don't think interaction causes non-games. To me, a non-game occurs when you don't have any relevant decisions to make. The opponent having a hand full of removal doesn't necessarily invalidate all of my decisions (although, if the answers are extremely pushed, it could). My sequencing still matters. Maybe I hold onto my threats until I can play several in one turn, hoping to be more efficient on mana than the opponent (I've seen Infect employ this strategy to great effect against Control). Maybe I hold my threats until I can counter a removal spell in the same turn that I play one. I like what interaction does to games, because there is something to play around. You have to adapt to what your opponent is doing.
I think games of Magic are at their best when both players are trying to win while also trying to throw a wrench in the other person's plan. Storm boarding in Bolt, Burn boarding in Path, etc. Of course, I am biased as an Aggro-Control player, but I think a little back-and-forth is good for gameplay.
It's interesting that you like playing against UW Control, but don't like GBx. I agree that Thoughtseize is not fun to face, but I do think it is important for the format. The busted things we can do would be more tame without it.
Overall, I think some amount of interaction is necessary for good gameplay. Too much interaction certainly can be a bad thing, but no interaction is also bad.
I agree with a lot of this. Variety is the spice of life. I want to see a Modern in which all archetypes have decent representation. As I mentioned above, I think we need some interaction for good gameplay, and if Tier 1 involved more interaction, I think the format would be better off. I like playing against Jund, DS, Tron, Burn, Storm, Infect, Control, and everything else that comes to mind. I play an interactive deck, so I don't usually care what I play against. The games are always fun because I make them fun. But linear decks are fun too, and they are good for the metagame.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
My usual midrange and control strategies are bad at my LGS right now. It's been overrun by Eldrazi and Tron lands in general.
EDH Multiplayer: BUG Sidisi, Brood Tyrant, UWG Roon of the Hidden Realm, UG Edric - Elf Tribal
1v1 Commander: BUG Leovold, Emissary of Trest
I feel the same way in that respect. I always found it so odd whenever some BGx players complained that there is "no Magic being played" when their whole deck is meant to do that to the opponent via hand disruption and creature removal, then finishing you off with a super powerful beater. Now there is another beater that is half the cost and occasionally gets double the size, so it's not fair?
I have been feeling this more and more from other players. It's really sad to me when I see players lose interest in Modern since it is the main format that I play and have so many cards in. I have noticed a decline in attendance locally. I don't know if it's the time of year, but you would think that Promo Fatal Push would push attendance. Nope.
For what it's worth, I will say what I have said 1,000 times here before. I do think that currently there is a real Rock/Paper/Scissors in Modern, but it just isn't enjoyable to players. I hope this is a sign to Wizards that their quest for the Holy Grail in a meta of 5% X 10 and 2.5% X 20 is not only unattainable, but could possibly NOT BE what players are looking for. I find it incredulous when someone complains about a deck that is 12% of the meta. That just blows me away. I used to play in metas where 33% of people played a certain deck and there was NO complaining. I think the more you give, the more that is asked from you. Wizards can't appease everyone. But I hoep that they try to do something to help attendance via unbans. That's what I really hope. *fingers crossed
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Chalice shuts down a part of your deck, depending on your deck, it can nearly shut all of it off. There's no sequencing, decision making, you're drawing and hoping to slam a card down
At least with the discard the player can choose how you're going to sequence/react. You may certainly have a subpar plan from a timely discard, but at least you aren't miserably drawing a card hoping you get to play
Maybe the creature sequencing is poor, maybe they over-extended, maybe they played the 4 drop and left the shield down for you to storm out, or have Ezuri free to win the game
...I mean, equating actual interaction with prison decks feels very wrong. It is your opinion, but I really disagree with it.
I remember when I was a kid and playing this game, I despised blue and all its counters, it felt unfair that all my fat green creatures were countered and denying me the fun of turning them sideways. As an adult, I certainly appreciate blue decks and the counters now.
I've read some of your posts for years here, but I can't help but feel as though it's linear/combo players feeling cheated and denied of their synergetic combos being ripped apart, denying them their fun of denying their opponent of having fun.
If we didn't have decks like Abzan, Jeskai, UW Control, modern would just be a race; that's less fun to me than watching GBx mirrors all day long. You see it on twitch too, the community is far more vocal of their displeasure and boredom when something like Storm v Living End is on stream.
2016 was the worst modern has ever been, first we had Eldrazi Winter, and then we had infect and dredge. Dredge literally pushed every other graveyard deck into tier 3.
Meanwhile, we had decks like suicide bloo and suicide zoo to supplement an extremely linear modern. It wasn't THAT long ago we had many people in these threads upset that modern devolved into just combo and creature aggro.
Jund is dead. It's not a deck in my eyes anymore outside of being fringe. It got worse when DRS/BBE was banned. It was damaged further by the ban of Splinter Twin, and decks like Infect and suicide Bloo not existing invalidated the decks existence.
I play Abzan now, but I honestly would not bring it to a real tournament, I can't justify playing the deck over Eldrazi Tron. At the end of the day, being a proactive deck with just enough disruption is the key to success in this format, just in case people feel I'm too much of a GBx enthusiastic.
GBx is just outdated right now, it has all these staples, but it just can't beat out the efficiency of E-Tron, Grixis Shadow or Titanshift.
I've tried very hard, but I can't bring myself to play combo, it absolutely bores me. I can deal with linear, but things like lantern, storm or Ad Naus give me no pleasure.
The meta is definitely a rock/paper/scissor format right now, and it certainly has also reached the point where you can't always meta, people play what they like and know nowadays more than what's good or bad.
On another note, modern has been super slow in stores lately, and I'm hearing this from you guys and friends too.
I agree that watching matches between Eldrazi Tron and Storm are boring as hell, and fighting Scapeshift can feel like banging your head against a wall. I've been piloting GDS for awhile now, and I enjoy the hell out of the deck. I've also got a Faeries deck that really upsets combo/big Mana decks, but loses hard to Robots and CoCo. I see people here talking about the meta, but it seems really difficult to pin down just what the meta is based on the information we have access to. I know the meta at my LGS, but Nationwide? Worldwide? Paper vs MTGO? How do we even aggregate the little bit of data we have access to?
Actually I think the collective unconscious may have wiped their memory because looking back at meta analysis for modern in seasons past, we have indeed seen decks at 20+% meta score and people haven't batted an eyelid. The community has been burnt by a series of bans with meta share as a justification, and is now twitchy and hyper-sensitive to meta-share as a reflection of 'unhealthiness' or 'bannability' or an equivalent negative connotation. Before, this just wasn't the case, and it's actually kinda fun to look back at how people treated this data very differently and focused on other issues instead.
Grixis shadow is also a rough matchup, you know, that fair deck that everyone complained about for not being the right kind of fair deck?
And saying a deck is only held back by there being counters in the format is literally how a meta works. May as well say Affinity would be tier 0 if it weren't for stony silence - its a bad argument.
Modern is popular in my area too.
I see interaction vs prison basically the same way. To the credit of prison elements, you can play around them to some extent. You can try to get one mana spells out of your hand before Chalice comes down, and you can fetch conservatively to have basics for Blood Moon. However, I don't think there is nearly as much as you can do as to play around sweepers, counters, discard, etc.
Ensnaring Bridge is my least favourite card. It basically says "resolve this and empty your hand: you don't need to worry about removing creatures." I see that as a cop out to having interaction. Sure, Ensnaring Bridge decks run removal anyways, and Bridge doesn't stop utility creatures (or those with 0 power), but it basically acts as a continuous boardwipe as far as combat goes.
Contrast that with Blood Moon. There is so much more you can do to beat Blood Moon. Cast your important spells and capitalize on their tempo loss of a 3-drop that doesn't affect the board, or fetch out a couple basics and laugh at their dead card. If I could interact with problem lands the way I can creatures (not sure that would be a good thing), I probably wouldn't even want Blood Moon.
I like interaction more than prison effects because you need a series of interaction (and to sequence it properly) for it to do what some prison cards do when you just slam them on the table. Casting 3 Thoughtseize in a row can be less debilitating for the opponent than one unfortunate prison effect.
On the point of interactive mirrors and linear mirrors, I agree. I love interactive mirrors. There is an obscene amount of back-and-forth, trying to out play the opponent. It's like interactive vs linear, but takes longer. As HolyDiva mentioned, interactive vs linear is also tons of fun, and definitely more intense. I can't speak if GBx mirrors specifically (never played it), but I have heard they are especially luck dependant due to the topdeck nature of the deck.
There is nothing wrong with playing linear decks. They are fun to play against when you are running interactive decks, and we need them around. When the meta is dominated by then though, it gets a lot less interesting.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
I will say, my last two losses against Grixis Shadow with my Jund deck wasn't as luck favored, and I very much lost to myself due to playing sub-optimally. Losing to yourself feels incredibly bad, but I like knowing I could have won had I played better
I agree that linear decks are a good and healthy thing to have, it did become excessive in 2016 though.
Infect dying was a huge chop to the knees of Jund though. Fatal Push was the final nail to the deck, invalidating Raging Ravine even further.
So crazy thought: do traditional aggro decks need an improvement? Which would not only be good in terms of creating decks that presumably have solid ramp matchups, but also create more "prey" for midrange?
Why? Chalice is mainly played in one deck in modern
It has the occasional use from merfolk sideboards and RW Prison.
I think E-Tron falls out of tier 1 and tier 2 completely if a chalice ban occurred, it can't handle a ton of combo or aggro decks without it.
Decks that play chalice wouldn't play counterspell?
Chalice isn't an issue until multiple top tier decks play and dominate the meta. I feel as though that's similar to saying, "Blood Moon isn't fun, lets ban that."
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/35993_Problems-With-The-Modern-Banned-List.html
I think the argument is, and Billiondegree can correct me if I am wrong, that if Eldrazi Tron loses Chalice, its game against burn, shadow, affinity etc goes down the toilet, opening up room however for the junds and abzans and jeskai controls that falter to the Tron deck. It doesn't kill classic green based Tron decks that can still prey on the midrangers while being vulnerable to combo, and Bant Eldrazi could still exist thanks to Temple, again a deck with a solid midrange matchup that has weaknesses.
The hybrid eldrazi tron deck splis into bant eldrazi and green tron, so the only loss of investment is in the chalice itself, which still sees a lot of play in legacy a/k/a it won't go from $75 to $7.
Those are the hardest losses to take. I like when I notice a misplay that decreases my chances of winning, but win anyways. Those mistakes are easy to handle. I recently 2-3ed a league because I misplayed in 2 back to back matches against Titanshift. I think they were different misplays too! That is a tougher lesson to handle. I did spend a few days practicing against Titanshift though, so I definitely think mistakes are great for learning.
On the topic of making Aggro better, is Aggro not good right now? I know it isn't especially popular, but is that just because people aren't playing it? Or are bigger Midrange decks (Shadow, Eldrazi to a lesser extent) pushing it out? Fast combo could also be hurting it, but is Kiln Fiend Combo much slower than Storm? I think Aggro-Combo looks at least decent right now (outsider perspective; could be wrong), so I'm guessing people aren't seeing it perform, so they just aren't picking it up.
Personally, I would enjoy Chalice being banned. I would also enjoy Counterspell being legal. I don't know if that is good for the format though.
As mentioned, besides E Tron, few decks play Chalice, and they aren't popular. If Simian Spirit Guide is fine due to lack of popularity, Chalice can stay. I rarely have to deal with it, and some people enjoy playing it, so why should we ruin their fun?
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
I dont actually think it should be banned
I do think the format would be better without chalice but with counterspell, simply because i find prison cards boring but regular counterspells more interesting
That said i would not ban anything in modern right now. I would keep my eye on storm as it can and does often win turn 3 and it is requires a lot of steps in a single turn to go off, something most opponents hate to sit through
If we could trade Storm for Twin that would be perfect.
Oh and this is coming from someone who plays Storm and will almost certainly continue to play it as his #1 choice until its banned
I'm sorry, but there are so many degrees of separation between Chalice and SSG. SSG lets you do things 1/2 (or 3/4) turns early. It allows early Blood Moons, or combo kills in Ad Nauseam. Chalice kills entire swaths of converted mana costs, usually 1 in the current meta, which is heavily built around the most efficient 1 mana spells. Decks that "go big" play spells that are more impactful, if less efficient (though for ETron this could be argued, as their lands tycially produce more than 1 mana each), and thus have weaker early games, when those 1 drops are at their best. Having a tool that simultaneously shores up your weakest element, while at the same time halting what a large portion of the metagame is trying to do, is so much better than simply getting a single red mana for free.
Chalice and SSG are in no way in the same boat in terms of what makes them bannable. If we had a more consistent, faster combo deck than Ad Nauseam that relied on SSG to operate, I could see it being on the chopping block. For now, a weaker combo deck and fringe prison decks are the only uses for SSG.
Chalice, on the other hand, is a core tool for arguably the strongest Tier 1 deck, used as a maindeck silver bullet for its worst matchups. This is all without going into the "feelsbad" moments of not being able to do your thing because of a limiting factor of your opponent. Non-games are an issue, but not one we can ever do away with. The negative feelings that go along with Chalice only strengthen the argument for its removal, and are not the basis for that argument.
Also, no love for SFM in the article :(?
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
It'd be easy to argue that Second Sunrise qualifies, what with Eggs and its 20-minute turns.
Modern - Cheeri0s (building), Belcher (building), Lantern (building), UW Control (building)
RIP Magic Duels. Wizards will regret what they did to you.