Screw it, I want unbans. I want to be able to play with the cards they print. Unban BBE, SFM, JTMS, Voldemort, Pod, DTT, and maybe a few others. See what happens.
sisicat, while you are entitled to want out of magic what you want as much as anyone else, I am very glad that modern (or even legacy) does not cater to your style of play. your desires would lead to an incredibly boring format for everyone else who couldn't afford the "best deck" and would probably end up with the format dying.
(incidentally if you think Lands is tier 0 you don't know anything about the legacy meta. it has good matchups, but it also has enough terrible ones that calling it tier 0 is incredibly silly)
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.
Modern needs more cards like the Tarkir command cycle. Choices make very interesting game play.
I agree but I doubt they will be effective enough to solve some of the tougher issues modern is facing because you can't make modal cards too cheap.
Dromoka's Command and Atarka's Command are both 2 mana. Kolaghan's Command is 3 mana. It's entirely possible to make good modal cards at reasonable prices, even if one or more of the modes is almost never used. I would love to see this in enemy cycles and salivate over a possible 2cmc UR Command that upgrades the fairly mediocre Izzet Charm.
The words non-creature and discard 2 on that card upset me greatly. If it just said counter spell unless 2 mana is paid or draw 2 discard 1 it would be so much closer to playable.
I'm still confused to why there is no 2 mana instant or sorcery draw 2 cards in blue. Black has Night's Whisper and Sign in Blood why doesn't the colour of card draw have an equivalent? :/
@Zora
I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread
Convince me to care about all the stuff you just mentioned
Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.
Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.
@Zora
I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread
Convince me to care about all the stuff you just mentioned
Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.
Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.
Those data point are often flawed. Not to long ago we had a discussion on how mtgo data is borderline worthless due to the wotc policy change.
@Zora
I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread
Convince me to care about all the stuff you just mentioned
Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.
Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.
Those data point are often flawed. Not to long ago we had a discussion on how mtgo data is borderline worthless due to the wotc policy change.
All data is flawed. That doesn't mean we abandond data and stick in the realm of subjective personal opinion. We address flaws by using the best data we have with large Ns (old MN datasets, CeaselessHunger's current dataset), discussing how we can mitigate flaws, and drawing conclusions only as strong as the data allows. But none of that means making arguments with no data whatsoever, which is largely what the critics have done for many pages.
The lists that 5-0 are more or less worthless as a means of gaining an accurate picture of the meta, yes. However, the challenges, in which they post all the lists that did above a certain cut-off point without vetting are much more applicable to using as a means of getting a picture of the metagame. Same with paper tournaments - they post all the lists that reach a certain cut off point, and sometimes include stuff like day 1 percentages and conversion rates. This makes them much more useful to the analyst than the vetted 5-0 lists WotC has moved too now.
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.
@Zora
I agree that's a problem because it means your arguments are totally out of dialogue with the overall metagame stats, their historical context relative to other Modern metagames, the recent major event finishes, and the last two years of Wizards' quotes/actions/policies. It is very problematic that a group of Modern critics don't want to engage any of that and would rather advance only their personal views and beliefs without any appeal to the vast body of evidence and information we have. This "my beliefs > evidence" stance makes it very hard to have meaningful conversations in this thread
Convince me to care about all the stuff you just mentioned
Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.
Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.
Those data point are often flawed. Not to long ago we had a discussion on how mtgo data is borderline worthless due to the wotc policy change.
All data is flawed. That doesn't mean we abandond data and stick in the realm of subjective personal opinion. We address flaws by using the best data we have with large Ns (old MN datasets, CeaselessHunger's current dataset), discussing how we can mitigate flaws, and drawing conclusions only as strong as the data allows. But none of that means making arguments with no data whatsoever, which is largely what the critics have done for many pages.
That makes sense but magic is a game of personal experiences and data won't be able to justify everything so there is going to be a certian level of subjectivity.
To be clear. I've handed out like... 5 cards due to the recent hostility in this thread, resulting in 2 bans. I don't like doing that. This red text is a clear message now. Follow the rules (Yes, all of them, and yes, I do read the post, so simply not saying a word isnt good enough if you are talking about twin.) and be civil, or you will be infracted, and eventually banned if you keep it up.
This thread is a place for the free exchange of ideas, and a place of debate. Not attacks and not a place where you shout your opinion and don't listen to others. If you don't follow those rules, don't post here.
[quote from="BlueTronFTW »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/780164-temporary-state-of-the-meta-thread-rules-update-7?comment=470"]
says the guy whose name is blue tron....I wonder if there is any bias in your words.
jund has been tier 1, forever, most of the time. and now it isnt, because of eldrazi. which is a deck that slams fatties way ahead of curve. that is not the direction I think modern should head if we want a balance between broken and fair. but im sure you are on the side of broken, so im not going to argue with you anymore.
Strawmanning again, as has been pointed out already. Your arguments consist entirely of personal opinions (I want deck X to be tier 1), or fallacies (strawmans).
It doesn't matter how long jund has been tier 1. Interactive decks are very viable in modern. Grixis Shadow, Abzan midrange, and UW control chief among them. Eldrazi Tron has interaction as well. With that being made clear, your argument is now that ONE PARTICULAR deck needs to exist as a sign of format health, and I don't buy it.
So tell us, why does jund midrange have to exist for modern to be good?
</blockquote>
It doesn't but people want some form of stability in their non rotating formats and jund was a pillar for most of modern existence. If something takes away a deck that was a pillar for so long that stability is shaken.
To expand on this with my own thoughts, nobody cares that Jund isn't Tier 1 and nobody is saying that Jund needs to be Tier 1. I'm a Jund player. I'm not crying, I'm adapting. That's the nature of metagames.
BUT, the fact that Jund was able to survive so many prior meta shifts but not the latest is a very interesting fact and one that is worth probing into. That's not the same as saying it needs to be Tier 1. It's just saying that it's worth it to understand why it's no longer Tier 1.
The biggest reason for that is Fatal Push. A secondary reason is the Delve creatures. It makes no sense to play Tarmogoyf right now when a one mana black spell kills it so easily. It also doesn't make sense to play Lightning Bolt right now when so many creatures have 4+ toughness. If you can't play goyf and bolt, why play Jund? Grixis just has a better selection of cards right now.
I don't think people appreciate how format warping Fatal Push has become.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WoTC, thank you for finally announcing the Modern format, an eternal format where everyone can participate.
The lists that 5-0 are more or less worthless as a means of gaining an accurate picture of the meta, yes. However, the challenges, in which they post all the lists that did above a certain cut-off point without vetting are much more applicable to using as a means of getting a picture of the metagame. Same with paper tournaments - they post all the lists that reach a certain cut off point, and sometimes include stuff like day 1 percentages and conversion rates. This makes them much more useful to the analyst than the vetted 5-0 lists WotC has moved too now.
Yes, it's a very "careful what you wish for" kind of scenario for some I think. I love push and am so glad it was printed, but its contribution to the fall of jund is a very good example for the unforeseen cascading consequences of powerful, format defining answers entering the cardpool. I think the very people who are most upset by the changes it has ushered are those who advocate more strongly for stronger answers to begin with.
I've seen your thread, and it's good. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that's fine.
Perhaps you should include a link to it in your signature?
Thanks. Yeah, maybe a link would be helpful.
Disagreement is good, I have no problem with that. The data is what it is, but interpretations are human. Experience also counts for a whole lot and can't be captured in numbers. I had added some thoughts about the meta in that thread, but I'm gonna keep my opinions in this thread for now on and use that one just for updates on the analysis or discussion of the process.
Yes, it's a very "careful what you wish for" kind of scenario for some I think. I love push and am so glad it was printed, but its contribution to the fall of jund is a very good example for the unforeseen cascading consequences of powerful, format defining answers entering the cardpool. I think the very people who are most upset by the changes it has ushered are those who advocate more strongly for stronger answers to begin with.
Agreed, push has 100% changed modern no doubt. Jund was excited to get it and I don't think they realized just how much it it would push them out of the format. It does make me wonder when we will see push hit it's peak and more decks just try to blank creature removal/discard altogether, like the white prison deck seems to be trying to do.
Yes, it's a very "careful what you wish for" kind of scenario for some I think. I love push and am so glad it was printed, but its contribution to the fall of jund is a very good example for the unforeseen cascading consequences of powerful, format defining answers entering the cardpool. I think the very people who are most upset by the changes it has ushered are those who advocate more strongly for stronger answers to begin with.
Agreed, push has 100% changed modern no doubt. Jund was excited to get it and I don't think they realized just how much it it would push them out of the format. It does make me wonder when we will see push hit it's peak and more decks just try to blank creature removal/discard altogether, like the white prison deck seems to be trying to do.
Well we are already seeing decks that blank fatal push trending upwards. Decks like titan shift seem to be a prime example. Granted that is not the obly reasons it is seeing more play
Yes, it's a very "careful what you wish for" kind of scenario for some I think. I love push and am so glad it was printed, but its contribution to the fall of jund is a very good example for the unforeseen cascading consequences of powerful, format defining answers entering the cardpool. I think the very people who are most upset by the changes it has ushered are those who advocate more strongly for stronger answers to begin with.
Agreed, push has 100% changed modern no doubt. Jund was excited to get it and I don't think they realized just how much it it would push them out of the format. It does make me wonder when we will see push hit it's peak and more decks just try to blank creature removal/discard altogether, like the white prison deck seems to be trying to do.
Well we are already seeing decks that blank fatal push trending upwards. Decks like titan shift seem to be a prime example. Granted that is not the obly reasons it is seeing more play
Right, next step is blanking being targeted by hand disruption.
Honestly the thing this format needs more than bans/unbans is just more general answers. I've been a part of the more answers camp for years and hope that eventually Wizards gets their act together and prints better answers to both help standard (they sure as hell need it with how bad it's been within the last year) and maybe a few trickle into modern as well. I'm not saying we need drastic answers like Force of Will or anything but more cards in higher color varieties like Push and even Kommand that are either very efficient or are general enough to answer a multitude of threats will help out the format way more than unbanning (or certainly banning) any single card. Sure there are a few cards that Wizards finds questionable but can come off the ban list. Chances are with their pattern though it won't (just being realistic here).
I just wish Wizards added new cards to non-standard legal supplemental products like MM that they could also deem Modern legal. There are plenty of tame cards they could try adding like Prohibit and Opt and maybe they can even try throwing in some curveballs like Baleful Strix, Pyrokinesis and Contagion if they want. Though for more land hate they would have to create a whole new card that some people have suggested is a mix between Wasteland and Ghost Quarter. The whole issue of threats massively outweighing the answers has made the format so proactive so it wouldn't hurt to see some stuff come from the other direction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern URBSome variant of Death's Shadow URB Grixis Control (Chapin Version) JFM Storm / Treasure Cruise Delver / Splinter Twin / Infect
I'm very sceptical of the Modern pt announcement. Given the history of those events it's more then likely they will mess something up with the banned list.
On the other hand if a skewed pt is what it takes to finally finish cleaning up the aftermath of Eldrazi Winter then so be it. I'm aware that E-Tron isn't the monstrosity we had last year but does it really have to be to prove the point that Eldrazi Temple is an unfair and unbalanced card? Even if by some weird logic Ancient Tomb is a fair card for Modern having it relegated to a single deck is far from fair.
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.
I would like too see the ban list shrink. So other than obvious cards people have been talking about (BBE, GSZ, SFM, Jace, Ponder, Preordain). I have been thinking about other cards. I don't see some of these happening as wizards tends be pretty conservative with unbanning cards.
Artifact Land Cycle (Verdict atleast 2, but perhaps 3)
Lets start off Tree of Tales. There is not really any thing that this one land would enable that is broken. Ancient Den, can see a little more play and maybe enable some cool cards like Tempered Steel or a white equipment deck. Vault of Whispers this does match up with cranial plating attach cost. So I am on the fence on this one, but maybe. However, Seat of the Synod and Great Furnace are the big players here. There are a lot of red and blue cards that interact with artifacts. The riskiest of these two would the seat, but I would put furnace not too far behind. However, there is no reason for the entire cycle to be on the ban list.
Gixtaxian Probe (Verdict: Yes)
I know this was just recently banned, and is unlikely to change. However, I still felt the reasoning was pretty weak, and will add this ban surprised me.
Chrome Mox (Verdict uncertain, but perhaps)
I will say Chrome mox seems to be in a weird spot. It might push some decks fast than we or wizards would want or it might not. However, we don't really have any data points on if it would be bad for the meta. Afinity really does not want it. You have to pitch a colored card. Storm would prefer to pitch a land, but it is not a mox diamond so it would have to pitch a can-trip or ritual. The only deck that worries me is Ad Nauseam, and I would rather just ban Ad nauseam. I did try proxing up some belcher lists and concluded that there is not enough fast mana to make it consistently explosive. I don't really see Chrome Mox breaking the meta though. I could be wrong. However, I see it more like Goryo's Vengeance, and would probably not push the meta in bad direction. However, the plus side is that other interesting brews could use potentially use it.
Punishing Fire (Verdict Probably Not)
I really like punishing jund in legacy. It would be cool to see that in modern, but I feel it might push creatures with less than 2 toughness out of the meta that don't have an immediate pay off. I am not sure we need more people playing tasigurs and gurmag anglers, and goyfs. It would also probably affect affinity quite a bit. However, graveyard hate dose stop the engine so I am hesitant to just say no. However, modern sadly does not have wasteland and that gives other decks in legacy a different avenue of interaction with punishing fire.
Glimpse of Nature. (Verdict probably too risky)
So wizards printed beck // call a few years ago. The card see marginal/fringe play at best in modern. Glimpse of Nature while being the same effect. (besides cast vs enter for the effect) I am not sure what deck it would go right into other than elves. Perhaps Cheerios, but they are pretty much a blue/red storm deck with a different engine. It would also loose a lot of the zero drops. They have to be creatures. So cards like Burning-tree emissary would be needed instead. Cheerios in legacy is not that great of a deck, and further we don't have as many cards like land grant and elvish spirit guide. Legacy cheerios also looses to it's self quite few times. So I guess it's probably not that large of a threat in cheerios. However, how big of a monster would elves become with glimpse? Especially with cards like pyroclasm being legal. However, Shaman of the Pack could be a problem then, and make it even more unlikely. Is there an other decks that I missing?
The only cards after these that I feel could also merit discussion are Umezawa's Jitte, Seething Song, Deathrite Shaman, Dig Through Time and redacted. Past that we start getting into cards that modern can't really deal with and probably never will have the tools to do so. I will say depending on how modern evolves we should hopefully be able trim the ban list down. The riskiest of the cards I mentioned in my opinion is probably glimpse, but I could be wrong. However, some these cards we just don't have great data for so it makes hard to really know.
~edit~ it's 2:00 am please bear with any typos, and lack of proof reading.
I'm very sceptical of the Modern pt announcement. Given the history of those events it's more then likely they will mess something up with the banned list.
On the other hand if a skewed pt is what it takes to finally finish cleaning up the aftermath of Eldrazi Winter then so be it. I'm aware that E-Tron isn't the monstrosity we had last year but does it really have to be to prove the point that Eldrazi Temple is an unfair and unbalanced card? Even if by some weird logic Ancient Tomb is a fair card for Modern having it relegated to a single deck is far from fair.
It's better than ancient tomb for eldrazi. However, I would be sad to see an other card on the banned list. We really just need something close to wasteland perhaps costing one mana to use.
Artifact lands are never coming off the banned list. Ever. Apart from the fact each of them is a pseudo Ancient Tomb with affinity mechanic cards, they give an unhealthy power boost to current Affinity decks.
Think of what those cards do for ravager, plating, etched champion, galvanic blast and mox opal. Then think about master of etherium, myr enforcer and disciple of the vault. If you think all of those would be kept in check by a few more hate cards out of the board you are badly mistaken...
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.
I think I would say that Fatal Push is perhaps why Jund Shadow isn't seeing as much play as it did - all of its threats get Pushed.
Add in that when you have a threat out Stubborn Denial is a hard counter to more or less any answer people have for your threats and the fact that at least half the threats in GDS can't be pushed anyway, you start to see that the meta is much more skewed towards Grixis Shadow than Jund Shadow, or even Jund.
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.
In regards to people suggesting that Fatal Push has been the thing responsible for pushing Jund out of the top tier, I respectfully disagree - to an extent anyway. Jund had been struggling since well before Push was released - anyone who plays Jund can attest to this fact. Essentially, Push became the straw that broke the camels' back - so to speak. Push delivered the finishing shot to Jund inasmuch as the metagame had to adjust to Push being in the format and then forgo/reduce the number of creatures that die to it leaving Jund at an even steeper disadvantage against the field at large - seeing how Jund is both designed to fight, and fights upon, this axis it became a problem. I believe it is the metagame as a whole which is responsible for Jund having such a rough time. GDS has essentially taken up Junds spot inasmuch as it is better against all of Junds bad MUs and performs a similar function as Jund against Junds strong MUs.
Kinda feels like agreeing to me. Push sending decks to bigger (cheated) creatures (eldrazi/delve) made bolt basically worthless as well as push. Then all junds creatures died to push. Jund dealing with all the gy hate was bad enough but then to have its removal blanked (including decay/k command) and creatures basically no longer pass the bolt test was too much imo. I'd be interested to see where the format would be at if probe had still gotten banned but push wasn't printed.
Jund first fell out of tier 1 during the Trakir set. Some of that had to do with Siege Rhino coming out, and Junk taking over, and some of that had to do with Collected Company, which Jund has a hard time answering.
Another thing is a lot of Jund players switched to Junk when Fatal Push and Blooming Marsh came out, since the argument to play Junk over Jund was Lingering Souls, path to exile, and SB cards, and the argument to play Jund over Junk was lightning bolt and blackcleave cliffs.
What's the reason to play Jund over Junk?
What's the reason to play Jund DS over Grixis DS?
Jund has simply been replaced with other midrange decks, but I'd still like to see a reprint of BBE. I think Jund would still have a lot of issues with BBE, and would still have trouble out grinding Junk and Grixis, trouble with ramp, trouble with Collected Company, trouble with affinity, trouble with burn, etc.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
(incidentally if you think Lands is tier 0 you don't know anything about the legacy meta. it has good matchups, but it also has enough terrible ones that calling it tier 0 is incredibly silly)
The words non-creature and discard 2 on that card upset me greatly. If it just said counter spell unless 2 mana is paid or draw 2 discard 1 it would be so much closer to playable.
I'm still confused to why there is no 2 mana instant or sorcery draw 2 cards in blue. Black has Night's Whisper and Sign in Blood why doesn't the colour of card draw have an equivalent? :/
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Metagame stats, tournament finishes, historical data, and Wizards quotations/articles are objective data points we can use as a shared language of Modern understanding. If we don't use those, it's just subjective experience vs. subjective experience and we're stuck on every argument. Currently, many critics refuse to cite any of those data points to make their arguments. This suggests their arguments aren't actually grounded in the data, and are therefore probably suspect, misinformed, and/or just plain wrong.
Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain why we should all do our best to draw on data and the most objective data points we can find. That's how we build consensus, dispel myths, and improve our understanding of the format.
Those data point are often flawed. Not to long ago we had a discussion on how mtgo data is borderline worthless due to the wotc policy change.
All data is flawed. That doesn't mean we abandond data and stick in the realm of subjective personal opinion. We address flaws by using the best data we have with large Ns (old MN datasets, CeaselessHunger's current dataset), discussing how we can mitigate flaws, and drawing conclusions only as strong as the data allows. But none of that means making arguments with no data whatsoever, which is largely what the critics have done for many pages.
That makes sense but magic is a game of personal experiences and data won't be able to justify everything so there is going to be a certian level of subjectivity.
This thread is a place for the free exchange of ideas, and a place of debate. Not attacks and not a place where you shout your opinion and don't listen to others. If you don't follow those rules, don't post here.
The biggest reason for that is Fatal Push. A secondary reason is the Delve creatures. It makes no sense to play Tarmogoyf right now when a one mana black spell kills it so easily. It also doesn't make sense to play Lightning Bolt right now when so many creatures have 4+ toughness. If you can't play goyf and bolt, why play Jund? Grixis just has a better selection of cards right now.
I don't think people appreciate how format warping Fatal Push has become.
Did you see my thread here?
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/780304-mtg-modern-competitive-meta-analysis-and-tier-list
Sorry if you already knew about it, but I did an analysis on all the data sources you mentioned, so I thought I'd point it out.
I've seen your thread, and it's good. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that's fine.
Perhaps you should include a link to it in your signature?
U Merfolk
UB Tezzerator
UB Mill
Thanks. Yeah, maybe a link would be helpful.
Disagreement is good, I have no problem with that. The data is what it is, but interpretations are human. Experience also counts for a whole lot and can't be captured in numbers. I had added some thoughts about the meta in that thread, but I'm gonna keep my opinions in this thread for now on and use that one just for updates on the analysis or discussion of the process.
Agreed, push has 100% changed modern no doubt. Jund was excited to get it and I don't think they realized just how much it it would push them out of the format. It does make me wonder when we will see push hit it's peak and more decks just try to blank creature removal/discard altogether, like the white prison deck seems to be trying to do.
Well we are already seeing decks that blank fatal push trending upwards. Decks like titan shift seem to be a prime example. Granted that is not the obly reasons it is seeing more play
Right, next step is blanking being targeted by hand disruption.
I just wish Wizards added new cards to non-standard legal supplemental products like MM that they could also deem Modern legal. There are plenty of tame cards they could try adding like Prohibit and Opt and maybe they can even try throwing in some curveballs like Baleful Strix, Pyrokinesis and Contagion if they want. Though for more land hate they would have to create a whole new card that some people have suggested is a mix between Wasteland and Ghost Quarter. The whole issue of threats massively outweighing the answers has made the format so proactive so it wouldn't hurt to see some stuff come from the other direction.
URB Some variant of Death's Shadow
URB Grixis Control (Chapin Version)
JFM Storm / Treasure Cruise Delver / Splinter Twin / InfectCommander/EDH
This pile of cards when I feel like it
Death's Shadow discord link
On the other hand if a skewed pt is what it takes to finally finish cleaning up the aftermath of Eldrazi Winter then so be it. I'm aware that E-Tron isn't the monstrosity we had last year but does it really have to be to prove the point that Eldrazi Temple is an unfair and unbalanced card? Even if by some weird logic Ancient Tomb is a fair card for Modern having it relegated to a single deck is far from fair.
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Artifact Land Cycle (Verdict atleast 2, but perhaps 3)
Lets start off Tree of Tales. There is not really any thing that this one land would enable that is broken. Ancient Den, can see a little more play and maybe enable some cool cards like Tempered Steel or a white equipment deck. Vault of Whispers this does match up with cranial plating attach cost. So I am on the fence on this one, but maybe. However, Seat of the Synod and Great Furnace are the big players here. There are a lot of red and blue cards that interact with artifacts. The riskiest of these two would the seat, but I would put furnace not too far behind. However, there is no reason for the entire cycle to be on the ban list.
Gixtaxian Probe (Verdict: Yes)
I know this was just recently banned, and is unlikely to change. However, I still felt the reasoning was pretty weak, and will add this ban surprised me.
Chrome Mox (Verdict uncertain, but perhaps)
I will say Chrome mox seems to be in a weird spot. It might push some decks fast than we or wizards would want or it might not. However, we don't really have any data points on if it would be bad for the meta. Afinity really does not want it. You have to pitch a colored card. Storm would prefer to pitch a land, but it is not a mox diamond so it would have to pitch a can-trip or ritual. The only deck that worries me is Ad Nauseam, and I would rather just ban Ad nauseam. I did try proxing up some belcher lists and concluded that there is not enough fast mana to make it consistently explosive. I don't really see Chrome Mox breaking the meta though. I could be wrong. However, I see it more like Goryo's Vengeance, and would probably not push the meta in bad direction. However, the plus side is that other interesting brews could use potentially use it.
Punishing Fire (Verdict Probably Not)
I really like punishing jund in legacy. It would be cool to see that in modern, but I feel it might push creatures with less than 2 toughness out of the meta that don't have an immediate pay off. I am not sure we need more people playing tasigurs and gurmag anglers, and goyfs. It would also probably affect affinity quite a bit. However, graveyard hate dose stop the engine so I am hesitant to just say no. However, modern sadly does not have wasteland and that gives other decks in legacy a different avenue of interaction with punishing fire.
Glimpse of Nature. (Verdict probably too risky)
So wizards printed beck // call a few years ago. The card see marginal/fringe play at best in modern. Glimpse of Nature while being the same effect. (besides cast vs enter for the effect) I am not sure what deck it would go right into other than elves. Perhaps Cheerios, but they are pretty much a blue/red storm deck with a different engine. It would also loose a lot of the zero drops. They have to be creatures. So cards like Burning-tree emissary would be needed instead. Cheerios in legacy is not that great of a deck, and further we don't have as many cards like land grant and elvish spirit guide. Legacy cheerios also looses to it's self quite few times. So I guess it's probably not that large of a threat in cheerios. However, how big of a monster would elves become with glimpse? Especially with cards like pyroclasm being legal. However, Shaman of the Pack could be a problem then, and make it even more unlikely. Is there an other decks that I missing?
The only cards after these that I feel could also merit discussion are Umezawa's Jitte, Seething Song, Deathrite Shaman, Dig Through Time and
redacted. Past that we start getting into cards that modern can't really deal with and probably never will have the tools to do so. I will say depending on how modern evolves we should hopefully be able trim the ban list down. The riskiest of the cards I mentioned in my opinion is probably glimpse, but I could be wrong. However, some these cards we just don't have great data for so it makes hard to really know.~edit~ it's 2:00 am please bear with any typos, and lack of proof reading.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
It's better than ancient tomb for eldrazi. However, I would be sad to see an other card on the banned list. We really just need something close to wasteland perhaps costing one mana to use.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
Think of what those cards do for ravager, plating, etched champion, galvanic blast and mox opal. Then think about master of etherium, myr enforcer and disciple of the vault. If you think all of those would be kept in check by a few more hate cards out of the board you are badly mistaken...
Many thanks to HotP Studios. Special thanks to DNC for this great sig.
Add in that when you have a threat out Stubborn Denial is a hard counter to more or less any answer people have for your threats and the fact that at least half the threats in GDS can't be pushed anyway, you start to see that the meta is much more skewed towards Grixis Shadow than Jund Shadow, or even Jund.
Kinda feels like agreeing to me. Push sending decks to bigger (cheated) creatures (eldrazi/delve) made bolt basically worthless as well as push. Then all junds creatures died to push. Jund dealing with all the gy hate was bad enough but then to have its removal blanked (including decay/k command) and creatures basically no longer pass the bolt test was too much imo. I'd be interested to see where the format would be at if probe had still gotten banned but push wasn't printed.
Another thing is a lot of Jund players switched to Junk when Fatal Push and Blooming Marsh came out, since the argument to play Junk over Jund was Lingering Souls, path to exile, and SB cards, and the argument to play Jund over Junk was lightning bolt and blackcleave cliffs.
What's the reason to play Jund over Junk?
What's the reason to play Jund DS over Grixis DS?
Jund has simply been replaced with other midrange decks, but I'd still like to see a reprint of BBE. I think Jund would still have a lot of issues with BBE, and would still have trouble out grinding Junk and Grixis, trouble with ramp, trouble with Collected Company, trouble with affinity, trouble with burn, etc.
JundBGR
RW Blood MoonRW
Pauper
Delver U
Elves G
Control B
Commander
Edgar Markov BRW
Captain Sisay GW
Niv-Mizzet, Parun UR
Tymna and Ravos WB