I think they realize standard is in a better shape than modern right now, and would rather have everyone ideally switching over to that format. If they make modern too good, they may lose standard players
Sarcasm noted, but I also think you and others believe this to some extent. We should avoid these kinds of unfounded theories even as jokes. It seems far more likely they view exactly as they said they viewed it. Modern appears healthy to them and they just don't want to disrupt that.
I do believe it to some extent. Standard is still their poster-child format, is it not? Don't they make more money off of standard players than off of modern players?
If this is not true, I apologize.
I think you know very well what the problem is with your previous statement - the idea that WOTC actively wants to make other formats undesirable to drive standard demand makes absolutely no sense. First, they would need proof that such a move would actually work, and that standard was lousy enough to force five total bans in a single year contradicts that. Modern had complaints then, too, yet standard attendance was dropping fast. Second, Modern Master sets make WOTC tons of money. Monetizing eternal formats gives WOTC little reason to, as you have outright claimed, sabotage the format.
I think they realize standard is in a better shape than modern right now, and would rather have everyone ideally switching over to that format. If they make modern too good, they may lose standard players
Sarcasm noted, but I also think you and others believe this to some extent. We should avoid these kinds of unfounded theories even as jokes. It seems far more likely they view exactly as they said they viewed it. Modern appears healthy to them and they just don't want to disrupt that.
I do believe it to some extent. Standard is still their poster-child format, is it not? Don't they make more money off of standard players than off of modern players?
If this is not true, I apologize.
Yes and probably, but that doesn't remotely prove the claim you made in your post. As BlueTron said, there are a bunch of other assumptions that would need to be true for your claim to hold water, but I don't think anyone has evidence to support those assumptions.
One of the problems with Modern that some have identified is that the format FEELS unfun to certain players but the data doesn't really point to it being unhealthy overall. This creates a kind of invalidating gaslight effect where some Modern players feel like their experience doesn't matter and might not even be real. Of course, the issue there is that most data sources we have access to genuinely support the idea that Modern is healthy. Wizards basically confirmed this today.
I think the real test and potential validator will be the PT, which will theoretically expose any cracks Modern has that other data sources are missing. This is why I think ETron is imperiled (it's secretly the best deck), as well as GDS (second best by a longshot) and Storm (ceetainly top-tier, potentially a T4 rule violator). The PT will test our unstable picture of format health and either show the flaws some say are present or will show that those critics really were off base the whole time. We'll see at the PT.
I think you paint an accurate picture of what's happening, but there's an underlying implication that the available data sources are valuable enough to draw worthwhile conclusions. I'm not sure we can say that Modern is healthy (or unhealthy). The information we're using is borderline laughable. Just within the last couple pages of this thread we've had people reference mtggoldfish numbers -- data that is essentially unusable because of the curated 5-0 lists that strongly bias any population they're included in. We won't really know anything until the PT (and then that data will begin to become stale the day after).
After yesterday's daily update linked to a ban-related article, I was afraid it reflected their stance. Thankfully, common sense prevailed. Wizards announced no change, the usual suspects voiced their usual opinions.
As far as the meta goes, going over a few pages...
Tagging linear, linear, linear does not make it a dirty word and does not make it true. (What's linear? Having a decent synergistic design?) SCG modern pre-top-8 matches and top-8 matches showed storm (and affinity, and GDS) winning by fully interacting with their opponents. Listen to twitch instead of just reading top-8 deck lists.
If you expect to lose to chalice on 1, then bring hate on 2. Duh. Sideboard choices are sideboard choices and you can't build a sideboard that address every single possible matchup. If you really think ETron is the overplayed unholy beast, then target it post SB.
Banning past in flames doesn't address storm, it out right kills the deck in its current form. It implicitly gets rid of gifts ungiven, because GU was played due to PiF. Suddenly, the deck relies solely on chaining cantrips up to an impossible number if you can't flashback. I would not be surprised if they ban opt though. Or maybe serum visions to avoid looking silly.
Yeah, you don't like Eldrazi (I mean, Tron. No! Storm. Or was that affinity?) We got it.
One of the problems with Modern that some have identified is that the format FEELS unfun to certain players but the data doesn't really point to it being unhealthy overall. This creates a kind of invalidating gaslight effect where some Modern players feel like their experience doesn't matter and might not even be real. Of course, the issue there is that most data sources we have access to genuinely support the idea that Modern is healthy. Wizards basically confirmed this today.
I think the real test and potential validator will be the PT, which will theoretically expose any cracks Modern has that other data sources are missing. This is why I think ETron is imperiled (it's secretly the best deck), as well as GDS (second best by a longshot) and Storm (ceetainly top-tier, potentially a T4 rule violator). The PT will test our unstable picture of format health and either show the flaws some say are present or will show that those critics really were off base the whole time. We'll see at the PT.
Perfectly written. You addressed meta numbers indicating healthy numbers, but players feeling invalidated because the format they envision isn't fun to them
I believe that etron is far and away the best deck in modern
Grixis shadow closely behind
And storm is getting there, too.
The issue with eldrazi tron is that it's harder to hate out. It folds more to certain archetypes than hate cards itself.
Last night I watched a grixis shadow player having an elf player hellbent on an empty board, when he flipped a colossus and swings for 8 the next turn. Etron doesn't have those scenarios. I've said for a while I think it's the best deck when people said shadow or wraith should be banned.
Playing the best deck is never a good decision, playing the second or third best deck always feels like the best decision, where everyone is identifying the top dog with weaknesses to exploit
Definitely curious to see how this meta holds up when money is on the line and the greatest players in the world try to break and exploit it.
One of the problems with Modern that some have identified is that the format FEELS unfun to certain players but the data doesn't really point to it being unhealthy overall. This creates a kind of invalidating gaslight effect where some Modern players feel like their experience doesn't matter and might not even be real. Of course, the issue there is that most data sources we have access to genuinely support the idea that Modern is healthy. Wizards basically confirmed this today.
I think the real test and potential validator will be the PT, which will theoretically expose any cracks Modern has that other data sources are missing. This is why I think ETron is imperiled (it's secretly the best deck), as well as GDS (second best by a longshot) and Storm (ceetainly top-tier, potentially a T4 rule violator). The PT will test our unstable picture of format health and either show the flaws some say are present or will show that those critics really were off base the whole time. We'll see at the PT.
Perfectly written. You addressed meta numbers indicating healthy numbers, but players feeling invalidated because the format they envision isn't fun to them
I believe that etron is far and away the best deck in modern
Grixis shadow closely behind
And storm is getting there, too.
The issue with eldrazi tron is that it's harder to hate out. It folds more to certain archetypes than hate cards itself.
Last night I watched a grixis shadow player having an elf player hellbent on an empty board, when he flipped a colossus and swings for 8 the next turn. Etron doesn't have those scenarios. I've said for a while I think it's the best deck when people said shadow or wraith should be banned.
Playing the best deck is never a good decision, playing the second or third best deck always feels like the best decision, where everyone is identifying the top dog with weaknesses to exploit
Definitely curious to see how this meta holds up when money is on the line and the greatest players in the world try to break and exploit it.
I think all of this stems from Tron Lands IMO. We just don't have the tools to fight that level of acceleration that fast. Even Traditional Tron is still too polarizing IMO and I think the rest of the format is warped around it. I'm also in the camp of people who very much dislike the current Modern metagame even if the numbers say it's healthy. For reference, I have had fewer non-games of Standard in the last year than I have of Modern and that's saying something because Standard has sucked a lot in the last year. I'm really looking forward to what changes await in Feb because I hope fun can come back to modern.
Can some1 tell me how to play an interactive deck if I have to deal with:
- A large swarm of artifact creatures from affinity
- The cheap burn creatures with haste
- The storm bears that if not killed on the spot, lose me the game
- Deal with the 10 1CMC GDS fatties
- Do the things listed above without losing to T2 chalice on 1
It looks like I better play an uninteractive deck that blindly tries to win while hoping it wins before its opponent.
OR
I leave MTG until something changes. Yep. Best option so far. Won't make noise with the door.
What I HATE the most is wizard's COWARDY. THey are a bunch of freaking cowards. Hey, we put a Modern PT, so let's better not touch anything because no deck is higher than 8% of the metagame. We are lazy and don't want to mess things up before the PT. Who cares if the format sucks? Wizards your PT is gonna suck hard. I'll watch it and laugh hard at those super cool games of storm winning on turn3 on the play. And etron going T2 chalice and the opponent doing almost nothing the rest of the game while the dumdrazi "player" (if we can call that type of person a player, because a dead corpse without a brain could win with that) just plays his hand. Warning issued for flaming. Attacking users for the deck they play will not be tolerated. --CavalryWolfPack
Can some1 tell me how to play an interactive deck if I have to deal with:
- A large swarm of artifact creatures from affinity
- The cheap burn creatures with haste
- The storm bears that if not killed on the spot, lose me the game
- Deal with the 10 1CMC GDS fatties
- Do the things listed above without losing to T2 chalice on 1
It looks like I better play an uninteractive deck that blindly tries to win while hoping it wins before its opponent.
OR
I leave MTG until something changes. Yep. Best option so far. Won't make noise with the door.
What I HATE the most is wizard's COWARDY. THey are a bunch of freaking cowards. Hey, we put a Modern PT, so let's better not touch anything because no deck is higher than 8% of the metagame. We are lazy and don't want to mess things up before the PT. Who cares if the format sucks? Wizards your PT is gonna suck hard. I'll watch it and laugh hard at those super cool games of storm winning on turn3 on the play. And etron going T2 chalice and the opponent doing almost nothing the rest of the game while the dumdrazi "player" (if we can call that type of person a player, because a dead corpse without a brain could win with that) just plays his hand.
Sweepers/removal deal with affinity/aggro creatures. Fatal push will also kill storm bears, 1 cmc fatties, and make ravager look dumb. Chalice can be k-command'ed, bypassed w/ cards above 1 cmc, or you can acknowledge your opponent will not have chalice on 1 turn 2 every game.
Your post is EXTREME hyperbole and actively hurting the format. Yes, we had an event with 2 storm decks and 2 affinity decks in top 8. The big modern event before that? Jeskai flash/control mirrors. No, the sky is not falling.
Holy Diva is just a minority voice that posts in a thread about modern, threatening to quit and play standard instead or write about how bad things are.
WOTC wouldn't nuke the format like that, at that point, they would scrap the format and create one that makes them money.
I can't see WOTC making a big shakeup now, they'd want to save that just before the pro-tour
We'll probably get no changes and people angry that modern wasn't even acknowledged in the update.
I haven't "threatened" to do anything. I haven't played a single game of Modern in the last month and I've been playing Standard full time. Your sudden hostility is hilarious taking into account everything you've said in these last 2 post is literally false.
Nothing in that post was hostile, unless you believe that any sort of disagreement is hostile.
Can some1 tell me how to play an interactive deck if I have to deal with:
- A large swarm of artifact creatures from affinity
- The cheap burn creatures with haste
- The storm bears that if not killed on the spot, lose me the game
- Deal with the 10 1CMC GDS fatties
- Do the things listed above without losing to T2 chalice on 1
It looks like I better play an uninteractive deck that blindly tries to win while hoping it wins before its opponent.
OR
I leave MTG until something changes. Yep. Best option so far. Won't make noise with the door.
What I HATE the most is wizard's COWARDY. THey are a bunch of freaking cowards. Hey, we put a Modern PT, so let's better not touch anything because no deck is higher than 8% of the metagame. We are lazy and don't want to mess things up before the PT. Who cares if the format sucks? Wizards your PT is gonna suck hard. I'll watch it and laugh hard at those super cool games of storm winning on turn3 on the play. And etron going T2 chalice and the opponent doing almost nothing the rest of the game while the dumdrazi "player" (if we can call that type of person a player, because a dead corpse without a brain could win with that) just plays his hand.
Can some1 tell me how to play an interactive deck if I have to deal with:
- A large swarm of artifact creatures from affinity
- The cheap burn creatures with haste
- The storm bears that if not killed on the spot, lose me the game
- Deal with the 10 1CMC GDS fatties
- Do the things listed above without losing to T2 chalice on 1
It looks like I better play an uninteractive deck that blindly tries to win while hoping it wins before its opponent.
OR
I leave MTG until something changes. Yep. Best option so far. Won't make noise with the door.
What I HATE the most is wizard's COWARDY. THey are a bunch of freaking cowards. Hey, we put a Modern PT, so let's better not touch anything because no deck is higher than 8% of the metagame. We are lazy and don't want to mess things up before the PT. Who cares if the format sucks? Wizards your PT is gonna suck hard. I'll watch it and laugh hard at those super cool games of storm winning on turn3 on the play. And etron going T2 chalice and the opponent doing almost nothing the rest of the game while the dumdrazi "player" (if we can call that type of person a player, because a dead corpse without a brain could win with that) just plays his hand.
Sweepers/removal deal with affinity/aggro creatures. Fatal push will also kill storm bears, 1 cmc fatties, and make ravager look dumb. Chalice can be k-command'ed, bypassed w/ cards above 1 cmc, or you can acknowledge your opponent will not have chalice on 1 turn 2 every game.
Your post is EXTREME hyperbole and actively hurting the format. Yes, we had an event with 2 storm decks and 2 affinity decks in top 8. The big modern event before that? Jeskai flash/control mirrors. No, the sky is not falling.
Thank you.
He also literally just described Jund and Junk being good in those scenarios. If your meta is full of burn, storm and Affinity---play Abzan.
If you guys are that unhappy with modern...then don't play?
Sometimes I don't post on these forums because I'm bored or unhappy with MTG, or busy and preoccupied with other things, I don't post in that time. Why would I? Why are some individuals constantly voicing their displeasure for very prolonged periods of time and devoting so much time to monitoring this thread?
WOTC told you that nothing is changing for four months in modern
If you're not playing and hate the format---then...bye, Felicia?
Take a break, sometimes it's good to do that, hobbies are meant to be fun; don't burn yourself out and begrudgingly play this game until you hate it.
If you have friends, EDH is a fantastic way to play until the format is closer to your envisioned format of choice. Draft, while lucky in whats in the pack, has an intense amount of skill and strategy, give a try at that.
Maybe in four months we'll see an SFM/BBE/Twin unban. I don't imagine anything else having a chance.
Twin has been banned long enough WOTC wouldn't lose too much face bringing it back.
I honestly feel Storm is the only thing that needs to be watched, which I'm sure WOTC is doing.
i think that valakut decks are more oppresive than storm in the sense that storm has cards that completely destroys them, like rule of law and more (even with counterhate like echoing truth) but valakut decks are more free to develop it game plan without opposition
I picked that deck up a year and a half ago, and I was like, "how on earth is this a tier 3 deck? People obviously haven't realized how good it is".
The Geist deck that Rossum popularized has been around forever, it was just Angels instead of Quellers. The deck never felt tier 3 in terms of power level. Dredge was damaging for its viability though.
i think that valakut decks are more oppresive than storm in the sense that storm has cards that completely destroys them, like rule of law and more (even with counterhate like echoing truth) but valakut decks are more free to develop it game plan without opposition
Leyline of Sanctity
Runed Halo
ghost quarter
tectonic edge
field of ruin...I mean they can only play four copies of valakut.
Plus the deck can be pretty durdly. Disruption + clock like those jeskai flash decks can do the trick. There is a reason this thing isn't dominating in terms of tournament results.
What all this means is that the reason Storm doesn't kill on T3 as often as other decks did is not because it can't. It's most of the time, either because it doesn't need to, or because it doesn't want to. Which creates the perception that "it's not that fast". Now, you can argue, and you will possibly be right, that the only thing that matters is the real t3 kills that happen, and the reasons don't matter. But this idea that Storm is not that fast is just false, it will be as fast as those decks any time it either needs to, or the texture of their hand gives them a free shot (duplicate creatures in hand so they can play one in turn 2 just in case).
The Turn 4 Rule states that only decks consistently winning before turn four that are also top-tier are violators. Plenty of decks can goldfish T3 wins: Infect, Burn, Affinity, Grishoalbrand, 8-Whack, etc. That doesn't make them Turn 4 Rule violators. Since, as you said, Storm "doesn't kill on T3 as often as other decks did," then it just isn't a violator, never mind the reason.
Storm is only in danger if it starts to actually close games consistently on turn three, again for whatever reason. Wizards has the win-rate data, not us. Storm is clearly top-tier, so if Wizards is not banning Storm right now, it's because the deck wins most of its games later than turn three.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
i dont feel like ghost quarter, tectonic and maaaybe field of ruin are good against valakut, not only because they can easily recover cause they dont even need to play valakut before they shotgun you in one turn, and the strategies that can play those cards are strategies that are normaly bad against a deck that just need to make land drops to kill you
I'm not sure that using only quantitative data gathered from match/tourney/challenge/daily/etc. results is the best way to balance a format. Even if we had those numbers, I could envision a hypothetical format where one or two decks have a disproportionately high share of the metagame, but more players are having fun playing, even if they aren't winning tournaments. The only way to get those results is formal playtesting and focus groups. We lack access to that, too.
But Wizards might know. Maybe they're right, and the kinds of mechanics and interactions I liked in the past are unacceptable in Modern Magic, and the kinds of games some posters on this forum like to play aren't welcome, either.
Happy they are considering an unban. Surprised they called the format "healthy" and doubled down on that, stating a January change was not just unlikely but "extremely" unlikely.
They called Standard "Healthy" when Saheeli-Felidar Guadian & amalgamated decks were nearly 60% of Standard. I take that wording with a grain of salt.
Happy they are considering an unban. Surprised they called the format "healthy" and doubled down on that, stating a January change was not just unlikely but "extremely" unlikely.
They called Standard "Healthy" when Saheeli-Felidar Guadian & amalgamated decks were nearly 60% of Standard. I take that wording with a grain of salt.
You know very well this isn't close to the case in modern though.
Their transparency and confidence shows things are going well, where as they were scrambling to ban the combo days later after the outrage of no ban.
Happy they are considering an unban. Surprised they called the format "healthy" and doubled down on that, stating a January change was not just unlikely but "extremely" unlikely.
They called Standard "Healthy" when Saheeli-Felidar Guadian & amalgamated decks were nearly 60% of Standard. I take that wording with a grain of salt.
Where did they refer to it as healthy during that time period?
Also: What in the world do you mean by "amalgamated decks"? Do you mean other CopyCat decks? Because they never were close to 60%.
PS: People, like cfusion pm, saying that they will ban/unban something right before the PT probably proven hugely wrong today. Instead, it seems like Wizards will follow a "unban a card after the Pro Tour and ban something only if it's Eldrazi winter stuff" policy from now on. This is totally correct in my eyes.
I'll believe it when that B&R comes and goes with "no changes." It'd be easier to believe if they didn't make so many other statements, changes, and claims that were either extremely misleading or later walked back on.
But if they actually do hold to this, I feel it's almost like they would rather let another Modern PT be a miserable dumpster fire so they can justify removing it (again). Or maybe use it as a means to swoop in and be the "hero" by giving us back cards that have no business being banned as an apology for an awful PT. I mean, that's what they did in 2016 (even thought it had no meaningful impact...). They get to sit back on a "healthy" meta, do nothing, and then be the hero. Makes sense.
As far as them claiming Modern is "healthy," it looks like their definition of "healthy" is based solely on how many decks people are playing and nothing at all on the quality of gameplay or nuances and interplay of top decks. Doesn't matter that all the top decks are miserable, toxic, and narrow to play against, where most games result in wildly swingy, variance-driven outcomes. As long as there are a lot OF decks, it doesn't matter what they ARE. Very disappointed to have this fear confirmed.
I'm definitely not selling out of Modern, but at least if Modern is going to continue to be so toxic and miserable, I don't have to worry about making time to fit in FNMs until after January. More of the same is a pretty terrible place to be, IMO.
I actually don't believe there is something malicious behind this. I think after the vitriol that came from "shakeup bans," they want to leave the banlist alone for a few months. I actually am fine with the reasons given, as ignorant as it sounds. Then again, I'm not exactly the most experienced player here, so what the heck do I know?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you know very well what the problem is with your previous statement - the idea that WOTC actively wants to make other formats undesirable to drive standard demand makes absolutely no sense. First, they would need proof that such a move would actually work, and that standard was lousy enough to force five total bans in a single year contradicts that. Modern had complaints then, too, yet standard attendance was dropping fast. Second, Modern Master sets make WOTC tons of money. Monetizing eternal formats gives WOTC little reason to, as you have outright claimed, sabotage the format.
Next time, bring evidence.
Yes and probably, but that doesn't remotely prove the claim you made in your post. As BlueTron said, there are a bunch of other assumptions that would need to be true for your claim to hold water, but I don't think anyone has evidence to support those assumptions.
I think you paint an accurate picture of what's happening, but there's an underlying implication that the available data sources are valuable enough to draw worthwhile conclusions. I'm not sure we can say that Modern is healthy (or unhealthy). The information we're using is borderline laughable. Just within the last couple pages of this thread we've had people reference mtggoldfish numbers -- data that is essentially unusable because of the curated 5-0 lists that strongly bias any population they're included in. We won't really know anything until the PT (and then that data will begin to become stale the day after).
As far as the meta goes, going over a few pages...
Spirits
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
Perfectly written. You addressed meta numbers indicating healthy numbers, but players feeling invalidated because the format they envision isn't fun to them
I believe that etron is far and away the best deck in modern
Grixis shadow closely behind
And storm is getting there, too.
The issue with eldrazi tron is that it's harder to hate out. It folds more to certain archetypes than hate cards itself.
Last night I watched a grixis shadow player having an elf player hellbent on an empty board, when he flipped a colossus and swings for 8 the next turn. Etron doesn't have those scenarios. I've said for a while I think it's the best deck when people said shadow or wraith should be banned.
Playing the best deck is never a good decision, playing the second or third best deck always feels like the best decision, where everyone is identifying the top dog with weaknesses to exploit
Definitely curious to see how this meta holds up when money is on the line and the greatest players in the world try to break and exploit it.
I think all of this stems from Tron Lands IMO. We just don't have the tools to fight that level of acceleration that fast. Even Traditional Tron is still too polarizing IMO and I think the rest of the format is warped around it. I'm also in the camp of people who very much dislike the current Modern metagame even if the numbers say it's healthy. For reference, I have had fewer non-games of Standard in the last year than I have of Modern and that's saying something because Standard has sucked a lot in the last year. I'm really looking forward to what changes await in Feb because I hope fun can come back to modern.
- A large swarm of artifact creatures from affinity
- The cheap burn creatures with haste
- The storm bears that if not killed on the spot, lose me the game
- Deal with the 10 1CMC GDS fatties
- Do the things listed above without losing to T2 chalice on 1
It looks like I better play an uninteractive deck that blindly tries to win while hoping it wins before its opponent.
OR
I leave MTG until something changes. Yep. Best option so far. Won't make noise with the door.
What I HATE the most is wizard's COWARDY. THey are a bunch of freaking cowards. Hey, we put a Modern PT, so let's better not touch anything because no deck is higher than 8% of the metagame. We are lazy and don't want to mess things up before the PT. Who cares if the format sucks? Wizards your PT is gonna suck hard. I'll watch it and laugh hard at those super cool games of storm winning on turn3 on the play. And etron going T2 chalice and the opponent doing almost nothing the rest of the game while the dumdrazi "player" (if we can call that type of person a player, because a dead corpse without a brain could win with that) just plays his hand.
Warning issued for flaming. Attacking users for the deck they play will not be tolerated. --CavalryWolfPack
Sweepers/removal deal with affinity/aggro creatures. Fatal push will also kill storm bears, 1 cmc fatties, and make ravager look dumb. Chalice can be k-command'ed, bypassed w/ cards above 1 cmc, or you can acknowledge your opponent will not have chalice on 1 turn 2 every game.
Your post is EXTREME hyperbole and actively hurting the format. Yes, we had an event with 2 storm decks and 2 affinity decks in top 8. The big modern event before that? Jeskai flash/control mirrors. No, the sky is not falling.
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Nothing in that post was hostile, unless you believe that any sort of disagreement is hostile.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/modern-jeskai-tempo-40120#online
This just won a classic and is a very popular interactive list.
Thank you.
He also literally just described Jund and Junk being good in those scenarios. If your meta is full of burn, storm and Affinity---play Abzan.
If you guys are that unhappy with modern...then don't play?
Sometimes I don't post on these forums because I'm bored or unhappy with MTG, or busy and preoccupied with other things, I don't post in that time. Why would I? Why are some individuals constantly voicing their displeasure for very prolonged periods of time and devoting so much time to monitoring this thread?
WOTC told you that nothing is changing for four months in modern
If you're not playing and hate the format---then...bye, Felicia?
Take a break, sometimes it's good to do that, hobbies are meant to be fun; don't burn yourself out and begrudgingly play this game until you hate it.
If you have friends, EDH is a fantastic way to play until the format is closer to your envisioned format of choice. Draft, while lucky in whats in the pack, has an intense amount of skill and strategy, give a try at that.
Maybe in four months we'll see an SFM/BBE/Twin unban. I don't imagine anything else having a chance.
Twin has been banned long enough WOTC wouldn't lose too much face bringing it back.
I honestly feel Storm is the only thing that needs to be watched, which I'm sure WOTC is doing.
I picked that deck up a year and a half ago, and I was like, "how on earth is this a tier 3 deck? People obviously haven't realized how good it is".
The Geist deck that Rossum popularized has been around forever, it was just Angels instead of Quellers. The deck never felt tier 3 in terms of power level. Dredge was damaging for its viability though.
Leyline of Sanctity
Runed Halo
ghost quarter
tectonic edge
field of ruin...I mean they can only play four copies of valakut.
Plus the deck can be pretty durdly. Disruption + clock like those jeskai flash decks can do the trick. There is a reason this thing isn't dominating in terms of tournament results.
Storm is only in danger if it starts to actually close games consistently on turn three, again for whatever reason. Wizards has the win-rate data, not us. Storm is clearly top-tier, so if Wizards is not banning Storm right now, it's because the deck wins most of its games later than turn three.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
But Wizards might know. Maybe they're right, and the kinds of mechanics and interactions I liked in the past are unacceptable in Modern Magic, and the kinds of games some posters on this forum like to play aren't welcome, either.
They called Standard "Healthy" when Saheeli-Felidar Guadian & amalgamated decks were nearly 60% of Standard. I take that wording with a grain of salt.
You know very well this isn't close to the case in modern though.
Their transparency and confidence shows things are going well, where as they were scrambling to ban the combo days later after the outrage of no ban.
Also: What in the world do you mean by "amalgamated decks"? Do you mean other CopyCat decks? Because they never were close to 60%.
I'll believe it when that B&R comes and goes with "no changes." It'd be easier to believe if they didn't make so many other statements, changes, and claims that were either extremely misleading or later walked back on.
But if they actually do hold to this, I feel it's almost like they would rather let another Modern PT be a miserable dumpster fire so they can justify removing it (again). Or maybe use it as a means to swoop in and be the "hero" by giving us back cards that have no business being banned as an apology for an awful PT. I mean, that's what they did in 2016 (even thought it had no meaningful impact...). They get to sit back on a "healthy" meta, do nothing, and then be the hero. Makes sense.
As far as them claiming Modern is "healthy," it looks like their definition of "healthy" is based solely on how many decks people are playing and nothing at all on the quality of gameplay or nuances and interplay of top decks. Doesn't matter that all the top decks are miserable, toxic, and narrow to play against, where most games result in wildly swingy, variance-driven outcomes. As long as there are a lot OF decks, it doesn't matter what they ARE. Very disappointed to have this fear confirmed.
I'm definitely not selling out of Modern, but at least if Modern is going to continue to be so toxic and miserable, I don't have to worry about making time to fit in FNMs until after January. More of the same is a pretty terrible place to be, IMO.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate