"save for simian spirit guide, and the 2 dredge creature actually cost mana"
I am excluding ssg and the 2 dredge creatures from that comparison if I wasn't clear
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.
Not in my opinion we are seeing meta of ramp/big mana and aggro with 1 control deck and 1 or 2 midrange decks depending on who you ask
Some are weird obviously, but looking at that list...its Aggro, Midrange, Control, with some Ramp/Combo. As expected?
How on earth are the DS decks aggro? I understand the Tribal Flames/domain version being aggro, but not JDS and certainly not GDS. It's either protect-the-queen style midrange or tempo.
I can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck
Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.
As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.
Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
I can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck
Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.
As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.
Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
Sure it's not full on ramp or big mana but at the end of the day it's playing 20 lands that produce 2 or 3 mana
Some are weird obviously, but looking at that list...its Aggro, Midrange, Control, with some Ramp/Combo. As expected?
How on earth are the DS decks aggro? I understand the Tribal Flames/domain version being aggro, but not JDS and certainly not GDS. It's either protect-the-queen style midrange or tempo.
Because if we label Death Shadow decks as "aggro", a certain subset of players on here can claim there isn't anything close to a blue control deck in Tier 1, and therefore...
Well, we've been down this road before, haven't we?
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.
Some are weird obviously, but looking at that list...its Aggro, Midrange, Control, with some Ramp/Combo. As expected?
How on earth are the DS decks aggro? I understand the Tribal Flames/domain version being aggro, but not JDS and certainly not GDS. It's either protect-the-queen style midrange or tempo.
Because if we label Death Shadow decks as "aggro", a certain subset of players on here can claim there isn't anything close to a blue control deck in Tier 1, and therefore...
Well, we've been down this road before, haven't we?
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 can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck
Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.
As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.
Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
I completely agree with this analysis, though it still doesn't answer why the format is better off with a midrange deck packed to the brim with Ancient Tombs.
To be clear tron lands are perfectly fine, as they require you to put in work for the extra mana. Eldrazi Temple just requires mulligan skills.
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.
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.
so your saying that your weekend mtg games carry more weight than stats and other players experience? Ones that may be playing the game alot more than yourself?
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.
so your saying that your weekend mtg games carry more weight than stats and other players experience? Ones that may be playing the game alot more than yourself?
Given that you continue to claim in your signature that you aren't playing any Modern any more, I could ask you the same question?
Cuts both ways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Well, I can saw a woman in two, but you won't wanna look in the box when I'm through.
completely disagree with that articles application of the term "mid-range", Mid-Range has and remains a Phase of game play. While Jund mid-range could simply slam a T2 Gofy and ride it all the way, that really wasn't the primary plan of the deck. That is the Primary plan of GDS, you wan't to deploy your threat as early as possible and protect it long enough for it take you to promised land.
Game phases tell a lot about what a decks primary goal is sure, 1-3 aggro/ 3-6 mid-range/ 6 and beyond long game, this doesn't though tell us what the strategy of the deck is. Lots of decks in Modern are decks that look to deploy its primary win-con in the Mid-range phase of the game but simply because a deck posses the ability to "grind" if it has to in no way means that is its primary designed strategy. Look at the most recent top preforming GDS decks, the ones that have preformed better are the ones that have shifted cards like Lilly's and such to the SB and this is because that is where Aggro decks have always kept their "grindy" cards, it made sense for GDS to main deck those types of cards when the Mirror was super prevalent but now that the meta has adapted to the deck it is rewarding the players who have refocused back towards more streamlined Aggro/control builds. This makes absolute sense when you consider that decks like UW control that are strong against GDS have a sliding scale towards victory against the deck, the longer the game goes the more favored the deck is to win GDS can easily deal with T2-3 paths with its discard and denial protection its once UW gets into Verdict range that the odds start simply fall off for the GDS player. Sure you can still win but it is often a far more up hill battle and this is a expected characteristic of a Aggro deck.
Calling a deck "mid-range" is about as informative as calling Goryo's Vengeance decks a "Early Game" deck, it only informs you as to at what phase of the game the deck is looking to do whatever it is that the deck is designed to do to begin winning the game.
I can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck
Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.
As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.
Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
Interested in debating where you see the midrange versus ramp/big mana line (BTW I'm using both of these terms interchangeably despite very slight differences on how I perceive them)
C'mon now ktkenshinx while the plan is midrange (big dumb dudes, as you said) the plan is also definitely get a boat load of mana as fast as possible. Eldrazi Tron runs more sol lands than any other deck in the format. I agree it's not as 'big mana' as traditional Tron but it's still a ramp/big mana deck.
In response to you believing people miss categorise this deck your point seems to counter itself. Traditional Tron ramps using lands too (so is it not a ramp deck?) and Titan(Scape)shift decks win with Valakut (combo which relies on having lots of lands) or beats with a green fatty.
If WotC suddenly took away Valakut and printed a mountain forest that tapped for 2 if you use that mana to cast giant spells there is no doubt that you'd be able to compare Titanshift and E-Tron much better and it's be clear they're both doing a similar thing. The reason E-Tron is doing other things too is that it doesn't need to utilise all it's spells to ramp so can game 2 equally powerful game plans (It also isn't packing a combo win con).
I can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck
Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.
As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.
Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
Interested in debating where you see the midrange versus ramp/big mana line (BTW I'm using both of these terms interchangeably despite very slight differences on how I perceive them)
C'mon now ktkenshinx while the plan is midrange (big dumb dudes, as you said) the plan is also definitely get a boat load of mana as fast as possible. Eldrazi Tron runs more sol lands than any other deck in the format. I agree it's not as 'big mana' as traditional Tron but it's still a ramp/big mana deck.
In response to you believing people miss categorise this deck your point seems to counter itself. Traditional Tron ramps using lands too (so is it not a ramp deck?) and Titan(Scape)shift decks win with Valakut (combo which relies on having lots of lands) or beats with a green fatty.
If WotC suddenly took away Valakut and printed a mountain forest that tapped for 2 if you use that mana to cast giant spells there is no doubt that you'd be able to compare Titanshift and E-Tron much better and it's be clear they're both doing a similar thing. The reason E-Tron is doing other things too is that it doesn't need to utilise all it's spells to ramp so can game 2 equally powerful game plans (It also isn't packing a combo win con).
Isn't Untaidake, the Cloud Keeper the only other "Sol Land" in the format? could be wrong might be a third that I am not aware of.
I think the the reason E-Tron is able to afford not dedicating as much space to finding its Urza lands etc.. is that its Threats are not embarrassing if played on curve. While not Ideal T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TKS T5 Reality Smasher etc... is still a very powerful line of play which backed up by Chalice on 1 T2 can give most other color Shard decks fits to deal with.
E-Tron is not going as big as classic Tron, E-Tron is running what 4 total 7 drops split between Karn and All is Dust while Classic Tron decks are running 10+ cards =/< than 7. Even with that difference the difference between them in regards to how many cards they run dedicated to "ramping" is not that as high as your post seems to be leading people to think, 6 on average in E-Tron 4 maps, 2 Mind Stone compared to only 8 dedicated Ramp Spells in classic Tron decks 4 map/ 4 Sylvan Scrying, Im purposefully not including Stirrings which while it can find a land isn't dedicated to that purpose also excluding the egg's in the deck as they are also not dedicated to finding lands but instead serve multiple purposes with in the deck. So in reality the difference between the two decks "dedicated" ramp cards is only 2 more in the classic Tron decks. The far more significant element in each deck is the strategy it is employing in tandem with the ramp.
E-Tron is playing a Aggro/Attrition plan like Jund Mid-range
Classic Tron is playing a much more dedicated long game Control plan.
Both are Mid-range decks as that is the phase of the game in which they both intend to deploy their pivotal cards, but they are deploying wildly different strategies once at that phase.
I do agree that it isn't really a great comparison to draw between Valakut and E-Tron, both are Mid-Range decks but Valakut is is very much a Ramp/Aggro/Combo Mid-Range deck.
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.
There ya go.
The problem isn't Eldrazi Temple. The problem is the idea that modern is a format all about playing on curve. This is a hyper efficient format where you are going to have to cheat mana somehow. Hell this list didn't even mention the Tron lands or Storms mana reducers.
Mana efficiency is always the name of the game and that's exactly why Eldrazi Temple is too good for this format. Not going into specifics here, regardless of how warranted they are as quite a few of them are straw-man arguments (some are actually amusingly wrong), all of the cards listed here have very real costs when it comes to deck construction, most if not all of them can be interacted with on the stack or with graveyard/artifact hate and almost none of them provide near as plentiful, quick and resilient mana acceleration as Eldrazi Temple does (heck some of the cards listed don't even make mana!). How do you interact with a turn two Thought-Knot Seer on the play? Thoughtseize it and pray they don't peel another one? Even if they played it on turn 3 you should be sweating bullets since you can't attack their acceleration and the mana disadvantage that implies will become more significant as the game progresses.
Tron has to go through nigh infinite hoops and has to make very significant deck building restrictions just to be able to, on turn 3, do something decks with Eldrazi Temple can lucksack into naturally on turn 2; play high impact threats way ahead of curve without suffering any card disadvantage and retain the ability to do so for the rest of the game.
I repeat, this isn't about meta shares. Those are important but they aren't the only factor (just ask storm players when Seething Song got the chop). Ancient Tombs shouldn't be Modern legal, especially if the format has close to no ways to interact with said lands in the early game in a meaningful way. I would go so far as to say that it is the single most powerful mana producer the format has, especially in multiples.
exactly this. but people will keep bringing up that its only tier 1 not 0, and that its meta shares are fine ect ect.
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.
Some actual indicators of broken:
1. Violating the turn 4 rule with relative frequency.
2. Dominating the metagame shares (tier zero)
3. Pushing out all other viable strategies (eldrazi tron is the only grindy eldrazi deck)
Those are some real examples. Jund midrange has no right to exist in any format. Abzan is better for BGx midrange and is very viable. Jund Shadow is a jund deck but has a different game plan. Again, I keep saying this and I have yet to see a valid argument, but Jund not being tier 1 isn't a sign of broken...unless you spent two grand on jund or more foiling it out and want to protect your "investment."
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.
so your saying that your weekend mtg games carry more weight than stats and other players experience? Ones that may be playing the game alot more than yourself?
Because my experience aligns with the overall metagame stats AND the recent major events. I literally said this in the quoted post. If mine aligns with that very broad picture and someone else's experience does not, of course I'm going to think their's isn't representative of what ia going on in Modern, That, or they aren't really playing. Both of those scenarios are far likelier than the alternative: that the metagame stats and major event picture is somehow not representative of the experience for average Modern players.
I have become very skeptical of and annoyed with many critics in this thread because their claims consistently lack support. It started with the "blue sucks" camp, which drove me to play blue decks in May to see if blue really did suck. I realized they had totally mis-evaluated decks like UW Control, and then UW Control hit Tier 1. This showed how wrong the "blue sucks" camp had been. Now we have critics who claim the meta isn't interactive when it has the same split as the late 2015 metagame, which I know was idealized as a perfect Modern meta. Or critics who want E-Tron banned when it isn't even the most-played deck and is barely 8% of the format or less. All of this suggests to me that the hyper-vocal, hyper minority is not in dialogue with what is actually going on in Modern. They have personal visions of the format that are heavily biased and they willfully present those visions without evidence and in opposition to Wizards' stated goals.
Not all critics do this. Those arguing for BBE or SFM or other unbans are generally much more evidence-based. But other critics are just expressing personal fantasies of their perfect Modern, and it's often not productive or engaged with reality.
And why are there so many ways to "cheat" mana in the first place?
There's an unwritten rule that Modern decks should not be able to consistently win before turn 4. If a deck emerges that can win before turn 4, Wizards of the Coast bans the offending card.
There are ways to "cheat" because it makes the game more interesting and fun. If everyone was just playing lands and casting spells on curve the game would be rather dull, and the meta would be less diverse.
Players who want a slow, on-curve format have Standard to play.
And why are there so many ways to "cheat" mana in the first place?
T4 rule states that TOP-TIER decks can't CONSISTENTLY win before T4. Note the emphasis on those terms. If a deck is not top-tier or consistent, it can't be touched under the T4 rule.
As for cheating on mana, this is a powerful, non-rotating format that uses cards that are almost across the board too powerful for Standard. You see the same thing in Legacy and Vintage, and it's just an inevitable consequence of decks/cards doing very powerful things. If that isn't one's cup of tea, Standard and Limited are more appropriate for them. I'll also say you don't need to cheat on mana to play top-tier Modern. See UW Control, BW Pox, Abzan/Jund, Jeskai Queller, and others.
And why are there so many ways to "cheat" mana in the first place?
T4 rule states that TOP-TIER decks can't CONSISTENTLY win before T4. Note the emphasis on those terms. If a deck is not top-tier or consistent, it can't be touched under the T4 rule.
As for cheating on mana, this is a powerful, non-rotating format that uses cards that are almost across the board too powerful for Standard. You see the same thing in Legacy and Vintage, and it's just an inevitable consequence of decks/cards doing very powerful things. If that isn't one's cup of tea, Standard and Limited are more appropriate for them. I'll also say you don't need to cheat on mana to play top-tier Modern. See UW Control, BW Pox, Abzan/Jund, Jeskai Queller, and others.
Oh I see, the names threw me off haha, Modern makes me think "oh okay this is the format that is current" but cool thanks for the reply!
I was gonna say I've never seen any decks win even on turn 4 where I live!
I can already tell we are going to have trouble labeling some of these decks. For instance I consider eldrazi tron a big mana deck
Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.
As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.
Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
Interested in debating where you see the midrange versus ramp/big mana line (BTW I'm using both of these terms interchangeably despite very slight differences on how I perceive them)
C'mon now ktkenshinx while the plan is midrange (big dumb dudes, as you said) the plan is also definitely get a boat load of mana as fast as possible. Eldrazi Tron runs more sol lands than any other deck in the format. I agree it's not as 'big mana' as traditional Tron but it's still a ramp/big mana deck.
In response to you believing people miss categorise this deck your point seems to counter itself. Traditional Tron ramps using lands too (so is it not a ramp deck?) and Titan(Scape)shift decks win with Valakut (combo which relies on having lots of lands) or beats with a green fatty.
If WotC suddenly took away Valakut and printed a mountain forest that tapped for 2 if you use that mana to cast giant spells there is no doubt that you'd be able to compare Titanshift and E-Tron much better and it's be clear they're both doing a similar thing. The reason E-Tron is doing other things too is that it doesn't need to utilise all it's spells to ramp so can game 2 equally powerful game plans (It also isn't packing a combo win con).
Isn't Untaidake, the Cloud Keeper the only other "Sol Land" in the format? could be wrong might be a third that I am not aware of.
I think the the reason E-Tron is able to afford not dedicating as much space to finding its Urza lands etc.. is that its Threats are not embarrassing if played on curve. While not Ideal T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TKS T5 Reality Smasher etc... is still a very powerful line of play which backed up by Chalice on 1 T2 can give most other color Shard decks fits to deal with.
E-Tron is not going as big as classic Tron, E-Tron is running what 4 total 7 drops split between Karn and All is Dust while Classic Tron decks are running 10+ cards =/< than 7. Even with that difference the difference between them in regards to how many cards they run dedicated to "ramping" is not that as high as your post seems to be leading people to think, 6 on average in E-Tron 4 maps, 2 Mind Stone compared to only 8 dedicated Ramp Spells in classic Tron decks 4 map/ 4 Sylvan Scrying, Im purposefully not including Stirrings which while it can find a land isn't dedicated to that purpose also excluding the egg's in the deck as they are also not dedicated to finding lands but instead serve multiple purposes with in the deck. So in reality the difference between the two decks "dedicated" ramp cards is only 2 more in the classic Tron decks. The far more significant element in each deck is the strategy it is employing in tandem with the ramp.
E-Tron is playing a Aggro/Attrition plan like Jund Mid-range
Classic Tron is playing a much more dedicated long game Control plan.
Both are Mid-range decks as that is the phase of the game in which they both intend to deploy their pivotal cards, but they are deploying wildly different strategies once at that phase.
I do agree that it isn't really a great comparison to draw between Valakut and E-Tron, both are Mid-Range decks but Valakut is is very much a Ramp/Aggro/Combo Mid-Range deck.
Was that was a reply to me or ktkenshinx? I don't think I've misrepresented anything here? I've been very clear that E-Tron isn't as all in as Gx Tron.
I used sol land here to mean a 'land that taps for more than 1 mana' i.e. there are 12 in Tron (the urza lands) and 16 in E-Tron (the urza lands + temple).
Example Tron list - https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/691337#paper This deck has 12 cmc 7+ cards in the 75. (Topping out at Ulamog)
E-Tron (lists vary) personally I play 2 Karn, 1 Ugin, 2 Dust and 1 Ulamog (others have 2 Ulamog but no Ugin for example) in the 75 - but a few lists are basically 6 cmc 7+ cards in the 75.
Totally agree that E-Tron 'feels' much less big mana than traditional Tron, but only because it can use temple to enact a plan B (And as a result is far more successful in the meta).
The part I'm interested in is - Where is the line? What makes a deck ramp/big mana? Is it simply the number of 7+ cost cards?
For me the line is your optimum start (i.e. Plan A) and both decks have a similar start and can make 8 mana on turn 3. This is why I would put the two into the same category.
To the Titanshift deck I still consider it Ramp/Combo so would also put it into the big mana bracket despite having a very different game plan.
I understand what a "Sol land" implies I was simply pointing out that the only other to my knowledge in the format is a land that literally see's no play and just find it odd that you bring up that it plays more than any other deck as though non-Eldrazi decks are running any similar type of land.
I disagree that it Temple is what enables the deck to be so successful in the Meta. I think it is that it essentially just plays alot of really good cards that even at "full cost" are great play's. Sure TKS on T2/3 is ideal but a T4 TKS is not bad by any measure, Reality Smasher is still fine on T5 etc.... This is not as True for Classic Tron decks Karn is strong at seven but the deck does little to nothing between the beginning of the game and Karn so if you are hard casting it with out Tron assembled you are very likely in a very bad spot, this isn't true for E-Tron every thing they play is reasonable even if you have to cast it for full cost.
While you might run more top end cards like Ulamog that is not the norm for E-Tron, most lists top out at Karn/all is dust split in the main. I think its the quality threat heavy aspect of the deck that really makes it so good, it just runs playsets of awesome Mid-Range creatures and can accelerate them out 1/2 turns ahead depending on their draw, but is not contingent on that to be a solid deck, T2 chalice, T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TSK etc.... are all still very powerful plays which are only made better with Temple or a Mind Stone or assembling Tron.
I think the difference between a Ramp deck and a Big Mana deck are what are your intentions with the ramping. Pretty much every "big mana" deck is a Ramp deck but not every Ramp deck is looking to play 7,8,9,10 drops etc.... Valukut is a Ramp deck but its most expensive card is 6c.c. its not really looking to Spend big mana its looking to enable its combo kill. Classic Tron is a big mana deck, it is looking to play very expensive things early always it is the classic mid-range Ramp/Control deck essentially looking to do the kinds of things that a traditional draw-go control deck would do but ramping them out 2-3 turns earlier than a traditional control deck can. I think the major difference is that Ramp is a design guideline while "big mana" is the strategy for exploiting the early mana, E-Tron Titainshift are both perfectly fine only netting -1 turn on the c.c. of their business spells TKS on 3, Reality of 4 Titan on 5 etc... Tron on the other hand is having a terrible match up if all they gained was Karn on 6.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am excluding ssg and the 2 dredge creatures from that comparison if I wasn't clear
Not in my opinion we are seeing meta of ramp/big mana and aggro with 1 control deck and 1 or 2 midrange decks depending on who you ask
GDS - Aggro
Eldrazi - Midrange
Dredge - Aggro ?
Titanshift - Ramp
Affinity - Aggro
DSJ - Aggro
Now thats the T1 on this board. T2 has.
Saheeli - Control/Combo
Jeskai Control - Control
Knightfall - Midrange/Combo
Humans - Aggro
Junk - Midrange
Gx Tron - Ramp
UW Control - Control
Storm - Combo
Elves - Aggro/Combo
DnT - Aggro/Control?
Living End - Combo?
Some are weird obviously, but looking at that list...its Aggro, Midrange, Control, with some Ramp/Combo. As expected?
Spirits
How on earth are the DS decks aggro? I understand the Tribal Flames/domain version being aggro, but not JDS and certainly not GDS. It's either protect-the-queen style midrange or tempo.
Eldrazi Tron is midrange. Karn and E-Map are the only rampy cards in the deck, and most E-Tron builds don't even run the full Karn playset. Everything else is good, old-fashioned midrange with big dumb dudes, disruption, valuable creatures, etc. E-Tron just happens to do midrange better than many other midrange decks, and that mana efficiency makes people call it a big mana deck. Incidentally, cards that are good against big mana tend to be less good against E-Tron. Spreading Seas and Ghost Quarter, for example, are sweet against Gx Tron but really not spectacular against E-Tron. They help, sure, but not the same way they ruin Gx Tron. By contrast, many cards that aren't good against big mana are great against E-Tron. See Verdict.
As multiple posters said earlier, and as recent articles have talked about, many successful Modern decks do so by cheating on mana in various ways. E-Tron happens to do this with lands, as opposed to GDS doing it with casting costs or Dredge doing it with a mechanic. This use of lands makes many people incorrectly label the deck as ramp. But E-Tron plays out as midrange, despite lands being its source of mana cheating: disrupt the opponent with Chalice/TKS/Dismember/All Is Dust and then win with mana-efficient monsters. Also as with midrange, E-Tron can switch between an aggressive role with Smashers and TKS or a more controlling route with Ballista.
Just compare the real ramp decks like Gx Tron and Titanshift to E-Tron and the difference is very clear. The decks have little in common.
Sure it's not full on ramp or big mana but at the end of the day it's playing 20 lands that produce 2 or 3 mana
Because if we label Death Shadow decks as "aggro", a certain subset of players on here can claim there isn't anything close to a blue control deck in Tier 1, and therefore...
Well, we've been down this road before, haven't we?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Spirits
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Its a creature beats deck, how about that?
I know what it isnt, and thats Combo/Control. So I'm out.
Spirits
I completely agree with this analysis, though it still doesn't answer why the format is better off with a midrange deck packed to the brim with Ancient Tombs.
To be clear tron lands are perfectly fine, as they require you to put in work for the extra mana. Eldrazi Temple just requires mulligan skills.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
decks playing:
none
Given that you continue to claim in your signature that you aren't playing any Modern any more, I could ask you the same question?
Cuts both ways.
Game phases tell a lot about what a decks primary goal is sure, 1-3 aggro/ 3-6 mid-range/ 6 and beyond long game, this doesn't though tell us what the strategy of the deck is. Lots of decks in Modern are decks that look to deploy its primary win-con in the Mid-range phase of the game but simply because a deck posses the ability to "grind" if it has to in no way means that is its primary designed strategy. Look at the most recent top preforming GDS decks, the ones that have preformed better are the ones that have shifted cards like Lilly's and such to the SB and this is because that is where Aggro decks have always kept their "grindy" cards, it made sense for GDS to main deck those types of cards when the Mirror was super prevalent but now that the meta has adapted to the deck it is rewarding the players who have refocused back towards more streamlined Aggro/control builds. This makes absolute sense when you consider that decks like UW control that are strong against GDS have a sliding scale towards victory against the deck, the longer the game goes the more favored the deck is to win GDS can easily deal with T2-3 paths with its discard and denial protection its once UW gets into Verdict range that the odds start simply fall off for the GDS player. Sure you can still win but it is often a far more up hill battle and this is a expected characteristic of a Aggro deck.
Calling a deck "mid-range" is about as informative as calling Goryo's Vengeance decks a "Early Game" deck, it only informs you as to at what phase of the game the deck is looking to do whatever it is that the deck is designed to do to begin winning the game.
Interested in debating where you see the midrange versus ramp/big mana line (BTW I'm using both of these terms interchangeably despite very slight differences on how I perceive them)
C'mon now ktkenshinx while the plan is midrange (big dumb dudes, as you said) the plan is also definitely get a boat load of mana as fast as possible. Eldrazi Tron runs more sol lands than any other deck in the format. I agree it's not as 'big mana' as traditional Tron but it's still a ramp/big mana deck.
In response to you believing people miss categorise this deck your point seems to counter itself. Traditional Tron ramps using lands too (so is it not a ramp deck?) and Titan(Scape)shift decks win with Valakut (combo which relies on having lots of lands) or beats with a green fatty.
If WotC suddenly took away Valakut and printed a mountain forest that tapped for 2 if you use that mana to cast giant spells there is no doubt that you'd be able to compare Titanshift and E-Tron much better and it's be clear they're both doing a similar thing. The reason E-Tron is doing other things too is that it doesn't need to utilise all it's spells to ramp so can game 2 equally powerful game plans (It also isn't packing a combo win con).
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Isn't Untaidake, the Cloud Keeper the only other "Sol Land" in the format? could be wrong might be a third that I am not aware of.
I think the the reason E-Tron is able to afford not dedicating as much space to finding its Urza lands etc.. is that its Threats are not embarrassing if played on curve. While not Ideal T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TKS T5 Reality Smasher etc... is still a very powerful line of play which backed up by Chalice on 1 T2 can give most other color Shard decks fits to deal with.
E-Tron is not going as big as classic Tron, E-Tron is running what 4 total 7 drops split between Karn and All is Dust while Classic Tron decks are running 10+ cards =/< than 7. Even with that difference the difference between them in regards to how many cards they run dedicated to "ramping" is not that as high as your post seems to be leading people to think, 6 on average in E-Tron 4 maps, 2 Mind Stone compared to only 8 dedicated Ramp Spells in classic Tron decks 4 map/ 4 Sylvan Scrying, Im purposefully not including Stirrings which while it can find a land isn't dedicated to that purpose also excluding the egg's in the deck as they are also not dedicated to finding lands but instead serve multiple purposes with in the deck. So in reality the difference between the two decks "dedicated" ramp cards is only 2 more in the classic Tron decks. The far more significant element in each deck is the strategy it is employing in tandem with the ramp.
E-Tron is playing a Aggro/Attrition plan like Jund Mid-range
Classic Tron is playing a much more dedicated long game Control plan.
Both are Mid-range decks as that is the phase of the game in which they both intend to deploy their pivotal cards, but they are deploying wildly different strategies once at that phase.
I do agree that it isn't really a great comparison to draw between Valakut and E-Tron, both are Mid-Range decks but Valakut is is very much a Ramp/Aggro/Combo Mid-Range deck.
Some actual indicators of broken:
1. Violating the turn 4 rule with relative frequency.
2. Dominating the metagame shares (tier zero)
3. Pushing out all other viable strategies (eldrazi tron is the only grindy eldrazi deck)
Those are some real examples. Jund midrange has no right to exist in any format. Abzan is better for BGx midrange and is very viable. Jund Shadow is a jund deck but has a different game plan. Again, I keep saying this and I have yet to see a valid argument, but Jund not being tier 1 isn't a sign of broken...unless you spent two grand on jund or more foiling it out and want to protect your "investment."
And why are there so many ways to "cheat" mana in the first place?
Because my experience aligns with the overall metagame stats AND the recent major events. I literally said this in the quoted post. If mine aligns with that very broad picture and someone else's experience does not, of course I'm going to think their's isn't representative of what ia going on in Modern, That, or they aren't really playing. Both of those scenarios are far likelier than the alternative: that the metagame stats and major event picture is somehow not representative of the experience for average Modern players.
I have become very skeptical of and annoyed with many critics in this thread because their claims consistently lack support. It started with the "blue sucks" camp, which drove me to play blue decks in May to see if blue really did suck. I realized they had totally mis-evaluated decks like UW Control, and then UW Control hit Tier 1. This showed how wrong the "blue sucks" camp had been. Now we have critics who claim the meta isn't interactive when it has the same split as the late 2015 metagame, which I know was idealized as a perfect Modern meta. Or critics who want E-Tron banned when it isn't even the most-played deck and is barely 8% of the format or less. All of this suggests to me that the hyper-vocal, hyper minority is not in dialogue with what is actually going on in Modern. They have personal visions of the format that are heavily biased and they willfully present those visions without evidence and in opposition to Wizards' stated goals.
Not all critics do this. Those arguing for BBE or SFM or other unbans are generally much more evidence-based. But other critics are just expressing personal fantasies of their perfect Modern, and it's often not productive or engaged with reality.
There's an unwritten rule that Modern decks should not be able to consistently win before turn 4. If a deck emerges that can win before turn 4, Wizards of the Coast bans the offending card.
There are ways to "cheat" because it makes the game more interesting and fun. If everyone was just playing lands and casting spells on curve the game would be rather dull, and the meta would be less diverse.
Players who want a slow, on-curve format have Standard to play.
T4 rule states that TOP-TIER decks can't CONSISTENTLY win before T4. Note the emphasis on those terms. If a deck is not top-tier or consistent, it can't be touched under the T4 rule.
As for cheating on mana, this is a powerful, non-rotating format that uses cards that are almost across the board too powerful for Standard. You see the same thing in Legacy and Vintage, and it's just an inevitable consequence of decks/cards doing very powerful things. If that isn't one's cup of tea, Standard and Limited are more appropriate for them. I'll also say you don't need to cheat on mana to play top-tier Modern. See UW Control, BW Pox, Abzan/Jund, Jeskai Queller, and others.
I was gonna say I've never seen any decks win even on turn 4 where I live!
Was that was a reply to me or ktkenshinx? I don't think I've misrepresented anything here? I've been very clear that E-Tron isn't as all in as Gx Tron.
I used sol land here to mean a 'land that taps for more than 1 mana' i.e. there are 12 in Tron (the urza lands) and 16 in E-Tron (the urza lands + temple).
Example Tron list - https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/691337#paper This deck has 12 cmc 7+ cards in the 75. (Topping out at Ulamog)
E-Tron (lists vary) personally I play 2 Karn, 1 Ugin, 2 Dust and 1 Ulamog (others have 2 Ulamog but no Ugin for example) in the 75 - but a few lists are basically 6 cmc 7+ cards in the 75.
Totally agree that E-Tron 'feels' much less big mana than traditional Tron, but only because it can use temple to enact a plan B (And as a result is far more successful in the meta).
The part I'm interested in is - Where is the line? What makes a deck ramp/big mana? Is it simply the number of 7+ cost cards?
For me the line is your optimum start (i.e. Plan A) and both decks have a similar start and can make 8 mana on turn 3. This is why I would put the two into the same category.
To the Titanshift deck I still consider it Ramp/Combo so would also put it into the big mana bracket despite having a very different game plan.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
I understand what a "Sol land" implies I was simply pointing out that the only other to my knowledge in the format is a land that literally see's no play and just find it odd that you bring up that it plays more than any other deck as though non-Eldrazi decks are running any similar type of land.
I disagree that it Temple is what enables the deck to be so successful in the Meta. I think it is that it essentially just plays alot of really good cards that even at "full cost" are great play's. Sure TKS on T2/3 is ideal but a T4 TKS is not bad by any measure, Reality Smasher is still fine on T5 etc.... This is not as True for Classic Tron decks Karn is strong at seven but the deck does little to nothing between the beginning of the game and Karn so if you are hard casting it with out Tron assembled you are very likely in a very bad spot, this isn't true for E-Tron every thing they play is reasonable even if you have to cast it for full cost.
While you might run more top end cards like Ulamog that is not the norm for E-Tron, most lists top out at Karn/all is dust split in the main. I think its the quality threat heavy aspect of the deck that really makes it so good, it just runs playsets of awesome Mid-Range creatures and can accelerate them out 1/2 turns ahead depending on their draw, but is not contingent on that to be a solid deck, T2 chalice, T3 Matter Reshaper, T4 TSK etc.... are all still very powerful plays which are only made better with Temple or a Mind Stone or assembling Tron.
I think the difference between a Ramp deck and a Big Mana deck are what are your intentions with the ramping. Pretty much every "big mana" deck is a Ramp deck but not every Ramp deck is looking to play 7,8,9,10 drops etc.... Valukut is a Ramp deck but its most expensive card is 6c.c. its not really looking to Spend big mana its looking to enable its combo kill. Classic Tron is a big mana deck, it is looking to play very expensive things early always it is the classic mid-range Ramp/Control deck essentially looking to do the kinds of things that a traditional draw-go control deck would do but ramping them out 2-3 turns earlier than a traditional control deck can. I think the major difference is that Ramp is a design guideline while "big mana" is the strategy for exploiting the early mana, E-Tron Titainshift are both perfectly fine only netting -1 turn on the c.c. of their business spells TKS on 3, Reality of 4 Titan on 5 etc... Tron on the other hand is having a terrible match up if all they gained was Karn on 6.