Ignoring the fact that since its rise, Jund has fallen hard. which is huuuuuge for a deck that held the top tiers for soo long. if that isn't an indicator of broken...I don't know what is.
I'm not seeing the correlation between Eldrazi Temple and the decline of traditional Jund. Jund fragmented into multiple decks - at the minimum Jund and Jund Shadow, and if you combine them, they would be firmly tier 1. Contrast that with Grixis, which has migrated from the Control/Delver builds pretty much 100% to the Shadow variant - no fragmentation = tier 1 meta share. Abzan has been very popular, not sure how that compares to Jund's heyday, but it wouldn't shock me if Abzan had borrowed some of that share. If you combine the three most popular GBx decks, which have a similar core, they would be #1 or #2 in meta share, right there with UBx.
I'm not sure you can combine all bgx and say jund is tier 1 though.
Or say that deliver is pretty much the same thing as death shadow.
Traditional Jund went into decline as soon as Tron players figured out that they are better off playing Thought-Knot Seer on turn two instead of durdling into turn 3 Karns.
Basically they exchanged a slight portion of their late-game power for early interaction while retaining their main mana engine and adding Eldrazi Temple to make it even better in the process.
Traditional Jund is more or less done for for as long as Eldrazi Temple remains in the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my dream, the world had suffered a terrible disaster. A black haze shut out the sun, and the darkness was alive with the moans and screams of wounded people. Suddenly, a small light glowed. A candle flickered into life, symbol of hope for millions. A single tiny candle, shining in the ugly dark. I laughed and blew it out.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
While eldrazi temple and mox opal are "fine" for modern because the decks they see play in aren't overly oppressive those cards do make modern worse by increasing the amount of non games. I really wish something would just go ahead and break them so we can get them out of the format. This waiting game has gotten old
The problem is, almost every Modern deck is trying to “cheat” on mana/tempo in some form or another.
Tasigur, the Golden Fang
Gurmag Angler
Simian Spirit Guide
Goryo's Vengeance
Any 3 CMC card with cascade
Aether Vial
Collected Company
Burning Tree Emissary
Hidden Herbalists
Prized Amalgam
Bloodghast
There are a ton more, but it's essentially what every deck is trying to do. Most of the decks that make use of Opal have strategies that are hurt pretty badly by artifact hate. Temple, I can see people being justifiably upset about, since Temple is used to rush out early Thought-Knot Seer which is a preemptive answer to a lot of potential hate that could be played against Temple decks, but it just doesn't have the meta-share and wins to warrant any action.
I don't think most of the cards you listed are a good comparison to mox and temple as all the cards you listed save for simian spirit guide, and the 2 dredge creature actually cost mana
Yes, but how many times have you played against dredge where they actually cast either of those creatures? The deck is designed to put them into play without paying mana costs. (i.e. cheating on mana)
We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all
Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.
Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
While eldrazi temple and mox opal are "fine" for modern because the decks they see play in aren't overly oppressive those cards do make modern worse by increasing the amount of non games. I really wish something would just go ahead and break them so we can get them out of the format. This waiting game has gotten old
The problem is, almost every Modern deck is trying to “cheat” on mana/tempo in some form or another.
Tasigur, the Golden Fang
Gurmag Angler
Simian Spirit Guide
Goryo's Vengeance
Any 3 CMC card with cascade
Aether Vial
Collected Company
Burning Tree Emissary
Hidden Herbalists
Prized Amalgam
Bloodghast
There are a ton more, but it's essentially what every deck is trying to do. Most of the decks that make use of Opal have strategies that are hurt pretty badly by artifact hate. Temple, I can see people being justifiably upset about, since Temple is used to rush out early Thought-Knot Seer which is a preemptive answer to a lot of potential hate that could be played against Temple decks, but it just doesn't have the meta-share and wins to warrant any action.
I don't think most of the cards you listed are a good comparison to mox and temple as all the cards you listed save for simian spirit guide, and the 2 dredge creature actually cost mana
Yes, but how many times have you played against dredge where they actually cast either of those creatures? The deck is designed to put them into play without paying mana costs. (i.e. cheating on mana)
We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all
Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.
Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
The modern critics disagree that there are so many viable decks. Personally i would like a non rotating format with emphasis on midrange, control and aggro strategies. I would also like the amount of non games to be at a minimum. This would likely mean removing or nerfing certain combo and ramp strategies along with fast mana. I also believe that with these guidelines that the sideboard lottery would be drastically reduced
Ignoring the fact that since its rise, Jund has fallen hard. which is huuuuuge for a deck that held the top tiers for soo long. if that isn't an indicator of broken...I don't know what is.
I'm not seeing the correlation between Eldrazi Temple and the decline of traditional Jund. Jund fragmented into multiple decks - at the minimum Jund and Jund Shadow, and if you combine them, they would be firmly tier 1. Contrast that with Grixis, which has migrated from the Control/Delver builds pretty much 100% to the Shadow variant - no fragmentation = tier 1 meta share. Abzan has been very popular, not sure how that compares to Jund's heyday, but it wouldn't shock me if Abzan had borrowed some of that share. If you combine the three most popular GBx decks, which have a similar core, they would be #1 or #2 in meta share, right there with UBx.
I'm not sure you can combine all bgx and say jund is tier 1 though.
Or say that deliver is pretty much the same thing as death shadow.
I'm not sure you can say that I'm saying something I'm not saying. What I'm saying, which is just a statement of fact, is that the UBx camp is mostly consolidated into one deck whereas the GBx camp is fragmented so no one fragment has a large share. Traditional Jund is still doing pretty well, though not as well as GBx Shadow, and certainly a lot better than the decks that Grixis Shadow replaced.
Traditional Jund went into decline as soon as Tron players figured out that they are better off playing Thought-Knot Seer on turn two instead of durdling into turn 3 Karns.
Basically they exchanged a slight portion of their late-game power for early interaction while retaining their main mana engine and adding Eldrazi Temple to make it even better in the process.
Traditional Jund is more or less done for for as long as Eldrazi Temple remains in the format.
You really don't think the rise of Death's Shadow played a large part in the decline of traditional Jund? What do you think all the Death's Shadow players, especially the GBx ones, were playing before Death's Shadow came into prominence?
We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all
Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.
Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
The modern critics disagree that there are so many viable decks. Personally i would like a non rotating format with emphasis on midrange, control and aggro strategies. I would also like the amount of non games to be at a minimum. This would likely mean removing or nerfing certain combo and ramp strategies along with fast mana. I also believe that with these guidelines that the sideboard lottery would be drastically reduced
This just results in midrange and control decks duking it out and pushing away all other stratgeies, likely with a best deck emerging over time that lacks bad matchups. It's what some pros want, because it makes Modern much easier to metagame and prepare for, but it's not what Wizards wants. Ramp is the foil for midrange and control. It means fair decks can't just emerge as 50/50+ against the field, and that's what we see in Modern today. You can even play two top-tier fair decks with good ramp matchcups: UW Control and GDS!
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
I think the complaint on "non-interactive" stems more from the massive feelbads of so many non-games in Modern. At least that was has dissuaded me from playing nearly as much as I used to and has pushed most of my focus elsewhere. Win or lose, so many games of Modern don't actually feel like games. They feel like landslide victories or insurmountable defeats with very little in between. There are a few really rich, engaging, and enjoyable games in between, but they appear to be the exception instead of the rule, especially with random and erratic FNM metas. It feels as though consequences for bad hands and rewards for good hands are so much greater than they probably should be. That leads to increased variance in match outcome and "more exciting top decks," like what we saw in the final round(s) of GP Vegas. I think a lot of this is pushed by the fact that the best decks in the format generally either want to do their own thing and ignore you; killing as quickly or efficiently as possible, do their own thing and ignore you; killing through many levels of hate, or load up on their own targeted hate and hope to win the matchup lottery. That does not seem fun or healthy at all.
We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all
Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.
Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
The modern critics disagree that there are so many viable decks. Personally i would like a non rotating format with emphasis on midrange, control and aggro strategies. I would also like the amount of non games to be at a minimum. This would likely mean removing or nerfing certain combo and ramp strategies along with fast mana. I also believe that with these guidelines that the sideboard lottery would be drastically reduced
This just results in midrange and control decks duking it out and pushing away all other stratgeies, likely with a best deck emerging over time that lacks bad matchups. It's what some pros want, because it makes Modern much easier to metagame and prepare for, but it's not what Wizards wants. Ramp is the foil for midrange and control. It means fair decks can't just emerge as 50/50+ against the field, and that's what we see in Modern today. You can even play two top-tier fair decks with good ramp matchcups: UW Control and GDS!
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
I'm not disagreeing that control and midrange would be better than other types of decks but I'm okay with that if it means the majority of games are of a high quality. I value game quality higher than deck diversity. I love how you keep telling the modern critics what they want though
We play enough to be continually disappointed. I wonder how many people that actually praise modern play on a regular basis, some do but not all
Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.
Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
The modern critics disagree that there are so many viable decks. Personally i would like a non rotating format with emphasis on midrange, control and aggro strategies. I would also like the amount of non games to be at a minimum. This would likely mean removing or nerfing certain combo and ramp strategies along with fast mana. I also believe that with these guidelines that the sideboard lottery would be drastically reduced
This just results in midrange and control decks duking it out and pushing away all other stratgeies, likely with a best deck emerging over time that lacks bad matchups. It's what some pros want, because it makes Modern much easier to metagame and prepare for, but it's not what Wizards wants. Ramp is the foil for midrange and control. It means fair decks can't just emerge as 50/50+ against the field, and that's what we see in Modern today. You can even play two top-tier fair decks with good ramp matchcups: UW Control and GDS!
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
I'm not disagreeing that control and midrange would be better than other types of decks but I'm okay with that if it means the majority of games are of a high quality. I value game quality higher than deck diversity. I love how you keep telling the modern critics what they want though
Considering he used to be the moderator for these threads, I'd say he's heard enough of the critics to have a pretty fair grasp of what they want.
What you want is for midrange and control to be the only viable deck types. That thankfully isn't what Wizards wants from Modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.
Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
The modern critics disagree that there are so many viable decks. Personally i would like a non rotating format with emphasis on midrange, control and aggro strategies. I would also like the amount of non games to be at a minimum. This would likely mean removing or nerfing certain combo and ramp strategies along with fast mana. I also believe that with these guidelines that the sideboard lottery would be drastically reduced
This just results in midrange and control decks duking it out and pushing away all other stratgeies, likely with a best deck emerging over time that lacks bad matchups. It's what some pros want, because it makes Modern much easier to metagame and prepare for, but it's not what Wizards wants. Ramp is the foil for midrange and control. It means fair decks can't just emerge as 50/50+ against the field, and that's what we see in Modern today. You can even play two top-tier fair decks with good ramp matchcups: UW Control and GDS!
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
I'm not disagreeing that control and midrange would be better than other types of decks but I'm okay with that if it means the majority of games are of a high quality. I value game quality higher than deck diversity. I love how you keep telling the modern critics what they want though
Considering he used to be the moderator for these threads, I'd say he's heard enough of the critics to have a pretty fair grasp of what they want.
What you want is for midrange and control to be the only viable deck types. That thankfully isn't what Wizards wants from Modern.
Not trying to take a shot at the mods but being a mod doesn't really mean much. Heck I used to moderate the modernmagic subreddit. I never said that I wanted control and midrange should be the only viable decks I said that midrange control and aggro would be focal point
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
I think the complaint on "non-interactive" stems more from the massive feelbads of so many non-games in Modern. At least that was has dissuaded me from playing nearly as much as I used to and has pushed most of my focus elsewhere. Win or lose, so many games of Modern don't actually feel like games. They feel like landslide victories or insurmountable defeats with very little in between. There are a few really rich, engaging, and enjoyable games in between, but they appear to be the exception instead of the rule, especially with random and erratic FNM metas. It feels as though consequences for bad hands and rewards for good hands are so much greater than they probably should be. That leads to increased variance in match outcome and "more exciting top decks," like what we saw in the final round(s) of GP Vegas. I think a lot of this is pushed by the fact that the best decks in the format generally either want to do their own thing and ignore you; killing as quickly or efficiently as possible, do their own thing and ignore you; killing through many levels of hate, or load up on their own targeted hate and hope to win the matchup lottery. That does not seem fun or healthy at all.
I think these are fair concerns to have abstractly, but don't see these playing out in the current metagame. For instance, if we look at CeaselessHunger's breakdown, we see about half of the Tier 1-2 decks are interactive and half are not. That's identical to the breakdown in December 2015, which I know you have previously cited as a prime example of a diverse and interactive Modern. I agree it could be a bit better, and I think SFM would facilitate that. But I think many of the critics make out the current metagame to be significantly worse than it really is, when in reality, both the overall metagame and the individual event T8s-T16s attest to a much more interactive format than the critics want to admit.
I'm not disagreeing that control and midrange would be better than other types of decks but I'm okay with that if it means the majority of games are of a high quality. I value game quality higher than deck diversity. I love how you keep telling the modern critics what they want though
I am going to keep telling the critics what they "want" because they aren't drawing out their desires to their logical conclusion. They want midrange and control at the top, but don't realize this will almost definitely mean a deck will almost certainly emerge as the best in the format with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Or worse, they realize this and don't care. This has happened historically in every recent format where you didn't have diversity. Diversity is a check on metagame dominance. Low diversity almost always indicates a deck is the best, with 50/50+ matchups across the board.
At least here in the quoted post, you admit that what you personally want is incongruent with what Wizards wants for Modern. It's also incongruent with the direction Wizards has taken with every competitive format. Given these major disconnects, I don't see these criticisms as very valid. It would be like me saying I want more fast mana in Modern because I think Legacy doesn't let me play my fast combo decks due to lots of FoW and Daze. Or me saying "Ban Thoughtseize because it ruins my Cheeri0s experience." Those might be personal desires someone could have, but they're not something Wizards is going to base a policy or format change on. They aren't great arguments.
Contrast those "personal desire" arguments with the "policy-aligned" arguments others make. For instance, consider when someone says "unban SFM; Wizards cited color diversity as an ongoing issue and SFM addresses that." That argument is totally aligned with Wizards' format aims, and is much more reasonable than someone saying "reduce Modern diversity so we have a few best decks with interactive gameplay." The latter is a personal fantasy. The former is in dialogue with the format's and game's evolution and direction.
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
As apparent by my previous post about non-games, I personally would love to see more 50/50 decks. Decks which are true tests of play skill and not matchup lotteries. I personally have no problems with having horrible matchups, so long as it's relatively evenly compensated with favorable matchups. That should be the risk/reward of playing decks like that. The problem I have personally encountered isn't that bad matchups are bad, it's that the bad matchups are really bad and the good matchups aren't even that good. What incentive does that give to play a deck like that? Why is it so awful to have 50/50 decks? Do people really enjoy losing to the pairings board?
Not trying to take a shot at the mods but being a mod doesn't really mean much. Heck I used to moderate the modernmagic subreddit. I never said that I wanted control and midrange should be the only viable decks I said that midrange control and aggro would be focal point
Between modding here, doing the Nexus analyses, and being pretty plugged into the wider Modern community, I know that the "make interactive decks better" camp knowingly/unknowingly just wants control/midrange decks with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Aggro is not present in that metagame because midrange/control are so good. Do you see aggro checking midrange/control in Modern? Absolutely not. Ramp checks those decks. Or, if they over-prepare for ramp, then other decks can come in (aggro or combo). In a midrange/control/aggro metagame, there really isn't any aggro because the midrange/control decks can easily hedge against them. So then you just have a midrange/control metagame where one deck will eventually emerge as the best. No thank you. Wizards has no interest in that metagame in any competitive format, which leads me to believe most players don't want it either.
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
As apparent by my previous post about non-games, I personally would love to see more 50/50 decks. Decks which are true tests of play skill and not matchup lotteries. I personally have no problems with having horrible matchups, so long as it's relatively evenly compensated with favorable matchups. That should be the risk/reward of playing decks like that. The problem I have personally encountered isn't that bad matchups are bad, it's that the bad matchups are really bad and the good matchups aren't even that good. What incentive does that give to play a deck like that? Why is it so awful to have 50/50 decks? Do people really enjoy losing to the pairings board?
If you can think of small adjustments to make more matchups close to 45/55 instead of 40/60, I'm all ears and I'm sure Wizards would be too. But most of the suggestions I see in this thread are thinly veiled attempts to remove all the matchups worse than 50/50 for people's pet interactive decks.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
I think the complaint on "non-interactive" stems more from the massive feelbads of so many non-games in Modern. At least that was has dissuaded me from playing nearly as much as I used to and has pushed most of my focus elsewhere. Win or lose, so many games of Modern don't actually feel like games. They feel like landslide victories or insurmountable defeats with very little in between. There are a few really rich, engaging, and enjoyable games in between, but they appear to be the exception instead of the rule, especially with random and erratic FNM metas. It feels as though consequences for bad hands and rewards for good hands are so much greater than they probably should be. That leads to increased variance in match outcome and "more exciting top decks," like what we saw in the final round(s) of GP Vegas. I think a lot of this is pushed by the fact that the best decks in the format generally either want to do their own thing and ignore you; killing as quickly or efficiently as possible, do their own thing and ignore you; killing through many levels of hate, or load up on their own targeted hate and hope to win the matchup lottery. That does not seem fun or healthy at all.
I think these are fair concerns to have abstractly, but don't see these playing out in the current metagame. For instance, if we look at CeaselessHunger's breakdown, we see about half of the Tier 1-2 decks are interactive and half are not. That's identical to the breakdown in December 2015, which I know you have previously cited as a prime example of a diverse and interactive Modern. I agree it could be a bit better, and I think SFM would facilitate that. But I think many of the critics make out the current metagame to be significantly worse than it really is, when in reality, both the overall metagame and the individual event T8s-T16s attest to a much more interactive format than the critics want to admit.
I'm not disagreeing that control and midrange would be better than other types of decks but I'm okay with that if it means the majority of games are of a high quality. I value game quality higher than deck diversity. I love how you keep telling the modern critics what they want though
I am going to keep telling the critics what they "want" because they aren't drawing out their desires to their logical conclusion. They want midrange and control at the top, but don't realize this will almost definitely mean a deck will almost certainly emerge as the best in the format with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Or worse, they realize this and don't care. This has happened historically in every recent format where you didn't have diversity. Diversity is a check on metagame dominance. Low diversity almost always indicates a deck is the best, with 50/50+ matchups across the board.
At least here in the quoted post, you admit that what you personally want is incongruent with what Wizards wants for Modern. It's also incongruent with the direction Wizards has taken with every competitive format. Given these major disconnects, I don't see these criticisms as very valid. It would be like me saying I want more fast mana in Modern because I think Legacy doesn't let me play my fast combo decks due to lots of FoW and Daze. Or me saying "Ban Thoughtseize because it ruins my Cheeri0s experience." Those might be personal desires someone could have, but they're not something Wizards is going to base a policy or format change on. They aren't great arguments.
Contrast those "personal desire" arguments with the "policy-aligned" arguments others make. For instance, consider when someone says "unban SFM; Wizards cited color diversity as an ongoing issue and SFM addresses that." That argument is totally aligned with Wizards' format aims, and is much more reasonable than someone saying "reduce Modern diversity so we have a few best decks with interactive gameplay." The latter is a personal fantasy. The former is in dialogue with the format's and game's evolution and direction.
I have never said diversity is inherently a bad thing. Taking a diversity above all else approach does have some very real negatives though. I real don't care about tagging along with wizards approach to modern. I'm more interested in seeing modern be the best It can be from my view point
I see aggro checking control, control checking midrange, and midrange checking aggro but I'm not the mind reader you are. It does depend on what kind of control, aggro and midrange decks there are though to see if the checks would work
I have never said diversity is inherently a bad thing. Taking a diversity above all else approach does have some very real negatives though. I real don't care about tagging along with wizards approach to modern. I'm more interested in seeing modern be the best It can be from my view point
Why does your viewpoint get to trump anyone else's? People enjoy various different types of decks and want those decks to be viable in the format. Why should the combo player have any less of a say? Why should ramp players not be allowed? Wizards is never going to manage the format this way and thank goodness for that. Your ideal meta frankly sounds super boring.
I see aggro checking control, control checking midrange, and midrange checking aggro but I'm not the mind reader you are. It does depend on what kind of control, aggro and midrange decks there are though to see if the checks would work
I'm not a mind reader. That skill also wouldn't be too helpful for making metagame predictions. That said, I do know Magic history, and this hasn't happened in years and definitely hasn't happened in Modern and Legacy. Aggro hasn't checked a powerful midrange or control deck for a long time. It wouldn't suddenly start in this fantasy three-archetype metagame.
I have never said diversity is inherently a bad thing. Taking a diversity above all else approach does have some very real negatives though. I real don't care about tagging along with wizards approach to modern. I'm more interested in seeing modern be the best It can be from my view point
Why does your viewpoint get to trump anyone else's? People enjoy various different types of decks and want those decks to be viable in the format. Why should the combo player have any less of a say? Why should ramp players not be allowed? Wizards is never going to manage the format this way and thank goodness for that. Your ideal meta frankly sounds super boring.
I never said it should Trump anyone else's ideas on what the meta should be like. I am simply expressing what I would like modern to be like. I also never said ramp or combo wouldn't be allowed but that aggro, midrange, and control would be the primary archetypes
Not trying to take a shot at the mods but being a mod doesn't really mean much. Heck I used to moderate the modernmagic subreddit. I never said that I wanted control and midrange should be the only viable decks I said that midrange control and aggro would be focal point
Between modding here, doing the Nexus analyses, and being pretty plugged into the wider Modern community, I know that the "make interactive decks better" camp knowingly/unknowingly just wants control/midrange decks with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Aggro is not present in that metagame because midrange/control are so good. Do you see aggro checking midrange/control in Modern? Absolutely not. Ramp checks those decks. Or, if they over-prepare for ramp, then other decks can come in (aggro or combo). In a midrange/control/aggro metagame, there really isn't any aggro because the midrange/control decks can easily hedge against them. So then you just have a midrange/control metagame where one deck will eventually emerge as the best. No thank you. Wizards has no interest in that metagame in any competitive format, which leads me to believe most players don't want it either.
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
As apparent by my previous post about non-games, I personally would love to see more 50/50 decks. Decks which are true tests of play skill and not matchup lotteries. I personally have no problems with having horrible matchups, so long as it's relatively evenly compensated with favorable matchups. That should be the risk/reward of playing decks like that. The problem I have personally encountered isn't that bad matchups are bad, it's that the bad matchups are really bad and the good matchups aren't even that good. What incentive does that give to play a deck like that? Why is it so awful to have 50/50 decks? Do people really enjoy losing to the pairings board?
If you can think of small adjustments to make more matchups close to 45/55 instead of 40/60, I'm all ears and I'm sure Wizards would be too. But most of the suggestions I see in this thread are thinly veiled attempts to remove all the matchups worse than 50/50 for people's pet interactive decks.
I actually think the people that want unbans don't feel that way. I know I don't, I have about 10 modern decks of all sorts and I just want even more cards to be available because I like innovation and brewing as much as playing t1 decks.
While eldrazi temple and mox opal are "fine" for modern because the decks they see play in aren't overly oppressive those cards do make modern worse by increasing the amount of non games. I really wish something would just go ahead and break them so we can get them out of the format. This waiting game has gotten old
The problem is, almost every Modern deck is trying to “cheat” on mana/tempo in some form or another.
Tasigur, the Golden Fang
Gurmag Angler
Simian Spirit Guide
Goryo's Vengeance
Any 3 CMC card with cascade
Aether Vial
Collected Company
Burning Tree Emissary
Hidden Herbalists
Prized Amalgam
Bloodghast
There are a ton more, but it's essentially what every deck is trying to do. Most of the decks that make use of Opal have strategies that are hurt pretty badly by artifact hate. Temple, I can see people being justifiably upset about, since Temple is used to rush out early Thought-Knot Seer which is a preemptive answer to a lot of potential hate that could be played against Temple decks, but it just doesn't have the meta-share and wins to warrant any action.
I don't think most of the cards you listed are a good comparison to mox and temple as all the cards you listed save for simian spirit guide, and the 2 dredge creature actually cost mana
Yes, but how many times have you played against dredge where they actually cast either of those creatures? The deck is designed to put them into play without paying mana costs. (i.e. cheating on mana)
I think you are misreading what I wrote
I did not.
You said that the dredge creatures actually cost mana. The point of those creatures is that you almost never cast them. Bloodghast enters the battlefield for free when you simply play a land. So those little black mana symbols become irrelevant. Same with amalgam.
Your other point of the comparisons not being on par with opal and temple is perhaps true, but only because of the speed at which they come down. My point was that ALL decks are attempting to undercut normal mana costs
I never said it should Trump anyone else's ideas on what the meta should be like. I am simply expressing what I would like modern to be like. I also never said ramp or combo wouldn't be allowed but that aggro, midrange, and control would be the primary archetypes
Are they not though?
EDIT: To clarify, just because some people do not like the other hybrid/fusion/uncommon types, midrange, aggro, and control are the primary decks of the format unless you call things like Burn, Combo.
Or say that deliver is pretty much the same thing as death shadow.
decks playing:
none
Basically they exchanged a slight portion of their late-game power for early interaction while retaining their main mana engine and adding Eldrazi Temple to make it even better in the process.
Traditional Jund is more or less done for for as long as Eldrazi Temple remains in the format.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Yes, but how many times have you played against dredge where they actually cast either of those creatures? The deck is designed to put them into play without paying mana costs. (i.e. cheating on mana)
Well, I'm playing plenty pretty much every weekend on MTGO, so I can't speak for others but can speak for my own positive experience. Given how the recent major events (GP, Classics, Challenges, Opens) mirror my experience, the critics either aren't playing or are playing metagames that aren't representative of the general format. I really don't think any metagame short of a Legacy one would satisfy many critics, but thankfully, Wizards has moved away from that kind of format so the critics just need to adjust and/or move on.
Related: I don't know what the critics even realistically want. There are so many viable top-tier interactive decks they can play. Just pick one and stop complaining.
To be clear, I do think there are things in Modern worth criticizing. For example, white could be better. But this myth about a format of non-interactive decks hasn't been true since January 2017 and it needs to stop.
I think you are misreading what I wrote
The modern critics disagree that there are so many viable decks. Personally i would like a non rotating format with emphasis on midrange, control and aggro strategies. I would also like the amount of non games to be at a minimum. This would likely mean removing or nerfing certain combo and ramp strategies along with fast mana. I also believe that with these guidelines that the sideboard lottery would be drastically reduced
I'm not sure you can say that I'm saying something I'm not saying. What I'm saying, which is just a statement of fact, is that the UBx camp is mostly consolidated into one deck whereas the GBx camp is fragmented so no one fragment has a large share. Traditional Jund is still doing pretty well, though not as well as GBx Shadow, and certainly a lot better than the decks that Grixis Shadow replaced.
You really don't think the rise of Death's Shadow played a large part in the decline of traditional Jund? What do you think all the Death's Shadow players, especially the GBx ones, were playing before Death's Shadow came into prominence?
This just results in midrange and control decks duking it out and pushing away all other stratgeies, likely with a best deck emerging over time that lacks bad matchups. It's what some pros want, because it makes Modern much easier to metagame and prepare for, but it's not what Wizards wants. Ramp is the foil for midrange and control. It means fair decks can't just emerge as 50/50+ against the field, and that's what we see in Modern today. You can even play two top-tier fair decks with good ramp matchcups: UW Control and GDS!
As I've said before and I'll say again, many Modern critics just want to play a fair deck with no bad matchups. They're cool with other decks having bad matchups, as long as their deck doesn't have them and is 50/50+ against everything else. Not all critics want this, mind you, but many do. It's totally out of alignment with Wizards' aims for EVERY format, let alone Modern, and doesn't actually make for a healthy or fun metagame for most players.
I think the complaint on "non-interactive" stems more from the massive feelbads of so many non-games in Modern. At least that was has dissuaded me from playing nearly as much as I used to and has pushed most of my focus elsewhere. Win or lose, so many games of Modern don't actually feel like games. They feel like landslide victories or insurmountable defeats with very little in between. There are a few really rich, engaging, and enjoyable games in between, but they appear to be the exception instead of the rule, especially with random and erratic FNM metas. It feels as though consequences for bad hands and rewards for good hands are so much greater than they probably should be. That leads to increased variance in match outcome and "more exciting top decks," like what we saw in the final round(s) of GP Vegas. I think a lot of this is pushed by the fact that the best decks in the format generally either want to do their own thing and ignore you; killing as quickly or efficiently as possible, do their own thing and ignore you; killing through many levels of hate, or load up on their own targeted hate and hope to win the matchup lottery. That does not seem fun or healthy at all.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'm not disagreeing that control and midrange would be better than other types of decks but I'm okay with that if it means the majority of games are of a high quality. I value game quality higher than deck diversity. I love how you keep telling the modern critics what they want though
Considering he used to be the moderator for these threads, I'd say he's heard enough of the critics to have a pretty fair grasp of what they want.
What you want is for midrange and control to be the only viable deck types. That thankfully isn't what Wizards wants from Modern.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Not trying to take a shot at the mods but being a mod doesn't really mean much. Heck I used to moderate the modernmagic subreddit. I never said that I wanted control and midrange should be the only viable decks I said that midrange control and aggro would be focal point
I think these are fair concerns to have abstractly, but don't see these playing out in the current metagame. For instance, if we look at CeaselessHunger's breakdown, we see about half of the Tier 1-2 decks are interactive and half are not. That's identical to the breakdown in December 2015, which I know you have previously cited as a prime example of a diverse and interactive Modern. I agree it could be a bit better, and I think SFM would facilitate that. But I think many of the critics make out the current metagame to be significantly worse than it really is, when in reality, both the overall metagame and the individual event T8s-T16s attest to a much more interactive format than the critics want to admit.
I am going to keep telling the critics what they "want" because they aren't drawing out their desires to their logical conclusion. They want midrange and control at the top, but don't realize this will almost definitely mean a deck will almost certainly emerge as the best in the format with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Or worse, they realize this and don't care. This has happened historically in every recent format where you didn't have diversity. Diversity is a check on metagame dominance. Low diversity almost always indicates a deck is the best, with 50/50+ matchups across the board.
At least here in the quoted post, you admit that what you personally want is incongruent with what Wizards wants for Modern. It's also incongruent with the direction Wizards has taken with every competitive format. Given these major disconnects, I don't see these criticisms as very valid. It would be like me saying I want more fast mana in Modern because I think Legacy doesn't let me play my fast combo decks due to lots of FoW and Daze. Or me saying "Ban Thoughtseize because it ruins my Cheeri0s experience." Those might be personal desires someone could have, but they're not something Wizards is going to base a policy or format change on. They aren't great arguments.
Contrast those "personal desire" arguments with the "policy-aligned" arguments others make. For instance, consider when someone says "unban SFM; Wizards cited color diversity as an ongoing issue and SFM addresses that." That argument is totally aligned with Wizards' format aims, and is much more reasonable than someone saying "reduce Modern diversity so we have a few best decks with interactive gameplay." The latter is a personal fantasy. The former is in dialogue with the format's and game's evolution and direction.
As apparent by my previous post about non-games, I personally would love to see more 50/50 decks. Decks which are true tests of play skill and not matchup lotteries. I personally have no problems with having horrible matchups, so long as it's relatively evenly compensated with favorable matchups. That should be the risk/reward of playing decks like that. The problem I have personally encountered isn't that bad matchups are bad, it's that the bad matchups are really bad and the good matchups aren't even that good. What incentive does that give to play a deck like that? Why is it so awful to have 50/50 decks? Do people really enjoy losing to the pairings board?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Between modding here, doing the Nexus analyses, and being pretty plugged into the wider Modern community, I know that the "make interactive decks better" camp knowingly/unknowingly just wants control/midrange decks with 50/50+ matchups across the board. Aggro is not present in that metagame because midrange/control are so good. Do you see aggro checking midrange/control in Modern? Absolutely not. Ramp checks those decks. Or, if they over-prepare for ramp, then other decks can come in (aggro or combo). In a midrange/control/aggro metagame, there really isn't any aggro because the midrange/control decks can easily hedge against them. So then you just have a midrange/control metagame where one deck will eventually emerge as the best. No thank you. Wizards has no interest in that metagame in any competitive format, which leads me to believe most players don't want it either.
If you can think of small adjustments to make more matchups close to 45/55 instead of 40/60, I'm all ears and I'm sure Wizards would be too. But most of the suggestions I see in this thread are thinly veiled attempts to remove all the matchups worse than 50/50 for people's pet interactive decks.
I have never said diversity is inherently a bad thing. Taking a diversity above all else approach does have some very real negatives though. I real don't care about tagging along with wizards approach to modern. I'm more interested in seeing modern be the best It can be from my view point
Why does your viewpoint get to trump anyone else's? People enjoy various different types of decks and want those decks to be viable in the format. Why should the combo player have any less of a say? Why should ramp players not be allowed? Wizards is never going to manage the format this way and thank goodness for that. Your ideal meta frankly sounds super boring.
I'm not a mind reader. That skill also wouldn't be too helpful for making metagame predictions. That said, I do know Magic history, and this hasn't happened in years and definitely hasn't happened in Modern and Legacy. Aggro hasn't checked a powerful midrange or control deck for a long time. It wouldn't suddenly start in this fantasy three-archetype metagame.
I never said it should Trump anyone else's ideas on what the meta should be like. I am simply expressing what I would like modern to be like. I also never said ramp or combo wouldn't be allowed but that aggro, midrange, and control would be the primary archetypes
I actually think the people that want unbans don't feel that way. I know I don't, I have about 10 modern decks of all sorts and I just want even more cards to be available because I like innovation and brewing as much as playing t1 decks.
I did not.
You said that the dredge creatures actually cost mana. The point of those creatures is that you almost never cast them. Bloodghast enters the battlefield for free when you simply play a land. So those little black mana symbols become irrelevant. Same with amalgam.
Your other point of the comparisons not being on par with opal and temple is perhaps true, but only because of the speed at which they come down. My point was that ALL decks are attempting to undercut normal mana costs
Are they not though?
EDIT: To clarify, just because some people do not like the other hybrid/fusion/uncommon types, midrange, aggro, and control are the primary decks of the format unless you call things like Burn, Combo.
Spirits