It feels like you want midrange to dominate the format. That was my sense of it when you disliked the idea of a draw go control deck as tier 1 (which GBx is awful against).
Your vision of modern looks---selfish? I don't know how to word it better, I'm really not throwing that out as an insult.
It feels like you want midrange to dominate the format. That was my sense of it when you disliked the idea of a draw go control deck as tier 1 (which GBx is awful against).
Your vision of modern looks---selfish? I don't know how to word it better, I'm really not throwing that out as an insult.
I actually think a meta with control being a large chunk in it would be great.
And I know midrange wouldn't push it out for your mentioned reasons.
If you look at it as:"I want midrange the gathering so my jund deck can beat everyone" of course that looks selfish. But that's your view on it and its incorrect.
In my modern ideal world there would be equality in linearity it wouldn't dominate but it would still be good.
Where merfolk and humans elves ect where the aggro decks
Bgx and urx where control and midrange ect
And infect
Coco
Dredge
Boggles
Ad nauseam
Ect where combo
The fact is there are soo much decks in modern. It's foolish to think there wouldn't be others to rise in Thier place.
And I truly feel affinity is too much of a sideboard battle for soo many decks
Storm wins way too quick
Tron and Eldrazi and valakut(ie big mana) don't have adequate hate vs them so they just stomp slower decks.
I don't find that healthy....
If I was bias id be not complaining about affinity and storm cuz I play interactive decks wouldn't I? Ask yourself that.
I literally played every tier 1 to 3 deck intimately and have tried even the ones I hate. So that I can get an intimate understanding of modern. I've logged hours in the thousands in modern.
And in my travels I looked for the more skilled player winning more often. I did not find this enough. Instead I commonly found matchups and sideboards to often dictating the tide of the games. This is the core to what I find unhealthy.
Big picture man..
It feels like you want midrange to dominate the format. That was my sense of it when you disliked the idea of a draw go control deck as tier 1 (which GBx is awful against).
Your vision of modern looks---selfish? I don't know how to word it better, I'm really not throwing that out as an insult.
I actually think a meta with control being a large chunk in it would be great.
And I know midrange wouldn't push it out for your mentioned reasons.
If you look at it as:"I want midrange the gathering so my jund deck can beat everyone" of course that looks selfish. But that's your view on it and its incorrect.
In my modern ideal world there would be equality in linearity it wouldn't dominate but it would still be good.
Where merfolk and humans elves ect where the aggro decks
Bgx and urx where control and midrange ect
And infect
Coco
Dredge
Boggles
Ad nauseam
Ect where combo
The fact is there are soo much decks in modern. It's foolish to think there wouldn't be others to rise in Thier place.
And I truly feel affinity is too much of a sideboard battle for soo many decks
Storm wins way too quick
Tron and Eldrazi and valakut(ie big mana) don't have adequate hate vs them so they just stomp slower decks.
I don't find that healthy....
If I was bias id be not complaining about affinity and storm cuz I play interactive decks wouldn't I? Ask yourself that.
I literally played every tier 1 to 3 deck intimately and have tried even the ones I hate. So that I can get an intimate understanding of modern. I've logged hours in the thousands in modern.
And in my travels I looked for the more skilled player winning more often. I did not find this enough. Instead I commonly found matchups and sideboards to often dictating the tide of the games. This is the core to what I find unhealthy.
Big picture man..
One question: do you primarily play modern on paper or online?
It feels like you want midrange to dominate the format. That was my sense of it when you disliked the idea of a draw go control deck as tier 1 (which GBx is awful against).
Your vision of modern looks---selfish? I don't know how to word it better, I'm really not throwing that out as an insult.
I actually think a meta with control being a large chunk in it would be great.
And I know midrange wouldn't push it out for your mentioned reasons.
If you look at it as:"I want midrange the gathering so my jund deck can beat everyone" of course that looks selfish. But that's your view on it and its incorrect.
In my modern ideal world there would be equality in linearity it wouldn't dominate but it would still be good.
Where merfolk and humans elves ect where the aggro decks
Bgx and urx where control and midrange ect
And infect
Coco
Dredge
Boggles
Ad nauseam
Ect where combo
The fact is there are soo much decks in modern. It's foolish to think there wouldn't be others to rise in Thier place.
And I truly feel affinity is too much of a sideboard battle for soo many decks
Storm wins way too quick
Tron and Eldrazi and valakut(ie big mana) don't have adequate hate vs them so they just stomp slower decks.
I don't find that healthy....
If I was bias id be not complaining about affinity and storm cuz I play interactive decks wouldn't I? Ask yourself that.
I literally played every tier 1 to 3 deck intimately and have tried even the ones I hate. So that I can get an intimate understanding of modern. I've logged hours in the thousands in modern.
And in my travels I looked for the more skilled player winning more often. I did not find this enough. Instead I commonly found matchups and sideboards to often dictating the tide of the games. This is the core to what I find unhealthy.
Big picture man..
One question: do you primarily play modern on paper or online?
I've played in paper for years in fnms ptqs pptqs. And magic online aswell.
So, back onto the productive topic, I think after some consideration, I may be incorrect as far as the purest definition of "linear" with regards to decks. I'll also restate some things as well to ensure cohesiveness. I would not be surprised if there may be some more accurate adjustments as well.
A deck can be best classified by the following characteristics:
How many branches are designed into a deck's decision tree? The more branches, the better it will be able to adapt to variable changes in the gamestate, as even as some number of branches are pruned, the remaining branches may be relied upon to reach the end node(s) - The designed win condition(s).
How healthy (or, unique) are the branches designed into a deck's decision tree? The more unique those branches are, the less likely that a single card, or series of cards, can prune or wither multiple branches at once. For example, if a large number of nodes on connecting branches rely on casting 1cmc spells, then a single Chalice of the Void can prune/wither multiple branches simultaneously. Another example would be if a large number of nodes on connecting branches rely on chaining spells together to reach the end node (i.e. - the storm mechanic), then cards like Rule of Law or Ethersworn Canonist may be able to prune or wither those branches.
How effective is the deck at pruning and/or withering multiple branches on an opposing deck's decision tree?
The first two characteristics might help define how linear a deck is, combined with the number of end nodes. Sometimes, if all end nodes are cut off with a single characteristic from an opposing deck (maybe a single card or restrictive effect), then there is a single dimension by which the deck is weak to: The single effect that is pruning those end nodes from being possible. Sometimes that characteristic is a card, sometimes it is sheer acceleration through branches and intermediate nodes. I think it is important to recognize that the term "linear" is probably best used as comparative: Simply stating that a deck is "linear" isn't enough. It is more or less linear than another specific deck.
The last characteristic defines how interactive it is. Again, we have to be aware, and wary, when we are inclined to define interaction in a self-centered fashion. If we choose to define interaction as "how does a deck interact with me", then that is a self-centered definition. A better definition is "how does the deck interact with the gamestate?" If a deck effectively interacts with a gamestate in such a way as to prune or wither branches from an opposing deck's decision tree, then it is interacting with the opponent - by pruning and/or withering branches from the opponent's decision tree. Sometimes it is more subtle than we are willing to observe and understand. This seems to stem from that sense of entitlement, in which many players may feel that opponents should only be able to interact in terms that allow those players further (significant) interaction. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what an effective deck is designed to do. The first two characteristics listed explain exactly this point.
I've seen claims about how Modern is a "turn X format". I think that this kind of misses the point about how decks are designed to work as well, when used as a reason to criticize the format without considering the alternate argument(s). An effective deck is designed to attempt to prune/wither opponents' branches on their decision tree before they are available, while protecting their own decision tree branches. If a deck is designed to simply durdle, and not effectively prune branches, then the designer and pilot is essentially begging to lose.
It would be as if two competing forces in chess, or war, or a fight, were to meet, and one starts to deliver a strike or move and the other simply sits there without a block and/or counter, then are we really to resort to complaining about the defender "not being ready"? Is there any valid reason why the defender couldn't be ready? In Magic the Gathering, how ready the defender is relies on the cards chosen in the deck designed to deal with an early attack. If it simply isn't designed to defend its branches and nodes, then we have to ask ourselves some questions. For example, are there any other decks able to defend against early attacks? Is this problem unique to a majority of the metagame? In some cases this is true (i.e. - Eldrazi Winter). In other cases, it's just the accepted design of that particular deck, an accepted weakness built in.
Another complaint that I've seen is that "games are decided by sideboards". Sideboards are part of the game for the very reason as to shore up matchups, so they aren't entirely lopsided. If we did not accept the purpose of sideboards, what are the repercussions of sideboards being ineffective? Why even have a sideboard if they're designed to be ineffective? And if we increase the sizes of sideboards, how balanced would matchups then be? When we make these complaints, it might benefit us to first consider the alternatives, before simply posting an opinion to a forum. Otherwise, we're not really having a constructive conversation. And if a deck is designed with decision trees that are not unique enough, then yes, that deck is designed to lose to potential sideboard cards. That is the risk that the designer and pilot must be willing to accept. Complaining about this isn't acceptance of risk.
And there's the complaint about the "metagame is too wide open". Again, it might serve us to consider the alternative. For this one, I would even say that it might serve us to use some introspective study. Do we really want a metagame that is defined by a small number of viable decks? What about the people who enjoy playing their own decks? Just because they don't enjoy playing the game the same way as some of us doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to. This wide open metagame allows for a healthy metagame, with plenty of diversity. This also helps the game itself, as it becomes appealing to a larger audience. The more players we have, the more likely the game will survive. There may be some interesting reasoning for making the argument that the metagame is too wide. As far as considering the alternative, I rarely find these same people are willing to explain what decks (by specific name and lists, not vague archtype) should be allowed in their imagined perfect metagame, and at what percentages those decks should be. This is very revealing of the motivations behind their arguments.
There are some people who feel entitled to winning more than they are. Do they deserve those wins, though? Have they put in the reps, or the work to study the metagame, or the work to study the underlying principles and concepts of the game to earn those wins? Are they able to pilot their deck well enough to adapt to a diverse number of opposing decks? What, exactly, entitles these people to winning more? Can they even state the answer, without realizing how ridiculous and selfish the answer might sound?
It's easy to say, "yeah, I've put in the reps", or, "yeah, I studied the crap out of the game". Anyone can make the claim. Anyone can state their opinion in a forum and feel that their opinion is entitled to homage and respect. But what qualifies that opinion? Can another person come in and use the same arguments for the opposing opinion (the "nuh-uh" effect")?
Something that I've come to appreciate about studying the concepts behind this game is understanding human behavior as well. I feel that it's taught me how to understand the motivations of some people, through their methods of argument and expression of opinion.
Between the top two tiers, we literally have creature based aggro, ramp, control, tempo, midrange, and spell combo. And they all have some bad matchups, there's no 50/50 plus vs the field deck out there. I didn't play in 2015, but this is the most fun modern has been since I started nearly two years ago. Even decks I hated like Infect and Dredge are capable picks.
This whole "linear" thing reminds me of when I would play league of legends, and anyone who lost would just gripe that someone was playing "an easy champ," as if they were obligated to play something more difficult. As Al Davis said, just win baby.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
The format's in the state it's in because of how Wizard's didn't stick to the game's design structure. The best of every type of card in Modern cost between 1-3 mana. In a game where it's based on resources to cast spells, incremental mana development is almost useless in Modern. Who needs a four mana version of a card when a one mana version is far superior? Raw Power is easily accessed.
Don't be fooled by anyone that says "2015 was great for modern." I will give you my 2cents on the format from those days. Actually I will even go a little further back than that to 2013. So in 2013 the only deck worth playing was Jund, that was it, Jund or something built specifically to counter it. Then came the DRS ban and the format was 100% dominated by three decks, Pod, Twin and Afinity. Anything else was just hoping that you either hit specific match-ups of those 3 or dodged them. It was a little more diverse than before, but not much better. Then came the pod ban and we were essentially just left with Twin and Afinity. BGx still existed since it had a mediocre match-up against twin, but twin being the "plays control turns 1-3 then wins the game on turn 4 deck" was not fun for anyone involved since the entirety of the format was "build your deck to beat twin and sideboard for afinity."
Modern today is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in 2015. You can play more than just three decks and still be relevant. A decent portion of the top decks are still interactive, you can play pure UW control to reasonable success, there is only 1 top tier combo deck unlike the days of Pod/Twin where you had 2 that sucked up around 1/3 of the large tournaments if not more. We have Grixis death's shadow which is way more interactive than Twin was. I will also mention twin's renowned interaction is greatly overstated, playing remand on turn 2, then EoT pestermite into splintertwin is not my idea of interaction.
My only suggestion for moving forward is a ban on mox opal. I think that card is what makes afinity too fast and was part of the big 3 from 2014 and has continued to dog the format ever-since. It is basically the dredge of legacy.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
So, back onto the productive topic, I think after some consideration, I may be incorrect as far as the purest definition of "linear" with regards to decks. I'll also restate some things as well to ensure cohesiveness. I would not be surprised if there may be some more accurate adjustments as well.
A deck can be best classified by the following characteristics:
How many branches are designed into a deck's decision tree? The more branches, the better it will be able to adapt to variable changes in the gamestate, as even as some number of branches are pruned, the remaining branches may be relied upon to reach the end node(s) - The designed win condition(s).
How healthy (or, unique) are the branches designed into a deck's decision tree? The more unique those branches are, the less likely that a single card, or series of cards, can prune or wither multiple branches at once. For example, if a large number of nodes on connecting branches rely on casting 1cmc spells, then a single Chalice of the Void can prune/wither multiple branches simultaneously. Another example would be if a large number of nodes on connecting branches rely on chaining spells together to reach the end node (i.e. - the storm mechanic), then cards like Rule of Law or Ethersworn Canonist may be able to prune or wither those branches.
How effective is the deck at pruning and/or withering multiple branches on an opposing deck's decision tree?
The first two characteristics might help define how linear a deck is, combined with the number of end nodes. Sometimes, if all end nodes are cut off with a single characteristic from an opposing deck (maybe a single card or restrictive effect), then there is a single dimension by which the deck is weak to: The single effect that is pruning those end nodes from being possible. Sometimes that characteristic is a card, sometimes it is sheer acceleration through branches and intermediate nodes. I think it is important to recognize that the term "linear" is probably best used as comparative: Simply stating that a deck is "linear" isn't enough. It is more or less linear than another specific deck.
The last characteristic defines how interactive it is. Again, we have to be aware, and wary, when we are inclined to define interaction in a self-centered fashion. If we choose to define interaction as "how does a deck interact with me", then that is a self-centered definition. A better definition is "how does the deck interact with the gamestate?" If a deck effectively interacts with a gamestate in such a way as to prune or wither branches from an opposing deck's decision tree, then it is interacting with the opponent - by pruning and/or withering branches from the opponent's decision tree. Sometimes it is more subtle than we are willing to observe and understand. This seems to stem from that sense of entitlement, in which many players may feel that opponents should only be able to interact in terms that allow those players further (significant) interaction. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what an effective deck is designed to do. The first two characteristics listed explain exactly this point.
I've seen claims about how Modern is a "turn X format". I think that this kind of misses the point about how decks are designed to work as well, when used as a reason to criticize the format without considering the alternate argument(s). An effective deck is designed to attempt to prune/wither opponents' branches on their decision tree before they are available, while protecting their own decision tree branches. If a deck is designed to simply durdle, and not effectively prune branches, then the designer and pilot is essentially begging to lose.
It would be as if two competing forces in chess, or war, or a fight, were to meet, and one starts to deliver a strike or move and the other simply sits there without a block and/or counter, then are we really to resort to complaining about the defender "not being ready"? Is there any valid reason why the defender couldn't be ready? In Magic the Gathering, how ready the defender is relies on the cards chosen in the deck designed to deal with an early attack. If it simply isn't designed to defend its branches and nodes, then we have to ask ourselves some questions. For example, are there any other decks able to defend against early attacks? Is this problem unique to a majority of the metagame? In some cases this is true (i.e. - Eldrazi Winter). In other cases, it's just the accepted design of that particular deck, an accepted weakness built in.
Another complaint that I've seen is that "games are decided by sideboards". Sideboards are part of the game for the very reason as to shore up matchups, so they aren't entirely lopsided. If we did not accept the purpose of sideboards, what are the repercussions of sideboards being ineffective? Why even have a sideboard if they're designed to be ineffective? And if we increase the sizes of sideboards, how balanced would matchups then be? When we make these complaints, it might benefit us to first consider the alternatives, before simply posting an opinion to a forum. Otherwise, we're not really having a constructive conversation. And if a deck is designed with decision trees that are not unique enough, then yes, that deck is designed to lose to potential sideboard cards. That is the risk that the designer and pilot must be willing to accept. Complaining about this isn't acceptance of risk.
And there's the complaint about the "metagame is too wide open". Again, it might serve us to consider the alternative. For this one, I would even say that it might serve us to use some introspective study. Do we really want a metagame that is defined by a small number of viable decks? What about the people who enjoy playing their own decks? Just because they don't enjoy playing the game the same way as some of us doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to. This wide open metagame allows for a healthy metagame, with plenty of diversity. This also helps the game itself, as it becomes appealing to a larger audience. The more players we have, the more likely the game will survive. There may be some interesting reasoning for making the argument that the metagame is too wide. As far as considering the alternative, I rarely find these same people are willing to explain what decks (by specific name and lists, not vague archtype) should be allowed in their imagined perfect metagame, and at what percentages those decks should be. This is very revealing of the motivations behind their arguments.
There are some people who feel entitled to winning more than they are. Do they deserve those wins, though? Have they put in the reps, or the work to study the metagame, or the work to study the underlying principles and concepts of the game to earn those wins? Are they able to pilot their deck well enough to adapt to a diverse number of opposing decks? What, exactly, entitles these people to winning more? Can they even state the answer, without realizing how ridiculous and selfish the answer might sound?
It's easy to say, "yeah, I've put in the reps", or, "yeah, I studied the crap out of the game". Anyone can make the claim. Anyone can state their opinion in a forum and feel that their opinion is entitled to homage and respect. But what qualifies that opinion? Can another person come in and use the same arguments for the opposing opinion (the "nuh-uh" effect")?
Something that I've come to appreciate about studying the concepts behind this game is understanding human behavior as well. I feel that it's taught me how to understand the motivations of some people, through their methods of argument and expression of opinion.
I'd generally agree with most of what you've stated here. I'd be amiss though if I didn't point out that there's a certain condescension that surfaces at times in your responses. I'm not trying to knock you down a peg, just share how it comes across. And I feel pretty comfortable identifying that tone since it's one I'm prone to myself.
Obviously several posters appreciate the intellectual bent you bring to the conversation (and it's sparked a interesting train of replies). But you have to understand that asking an anonymous internet poster to outline his preferred meta by deck and percentages is more than a little silly. Some players don't want intellectual rigor or theory, they want a fun game (with "fun" often defined in an ambiguous, personal way). Calling those players "selfish" is a conversational dead-end. Like a counter war on the stack, pick the exchanges where there's a chance of something productive.
I could just as easily replace all of your yes's with nos and vice versa with no explination as well. What you are essentially suggesting is we ban out the entire format, but only the decks you don't like. However, what happens when all of the current top decks don't exist anymore and all of the current fringe decks become T1, do we just ban all of them again? You arn't making any logical sense. All of those statements are being extremely silly especially when you say things like "thoughtseize isn't broken" compared to every other thing listed.
It is almost like you have some specific pet-deck that you want to be t1 and isn't so you are complaining about it... wait let me guess... complaining about tron thinking... you want jund to be T1 again.
@Darkest_before_dawn, That's a fair point. I suppose that I do lose patience after a while, when there is an attempt at a constructive discussion and it is met with those who seem prone to espouse opinions with little or no effort to actually contribute to the progression of the discussion. I do feel that it's fair to request that, if someone claims that there is a problem with the current decks, and percentages of those decks, in the metagame, they then provide what they think it should be. I feel that simply coming in to complain with little or no effort to provide their own perspective of what it should be (being specific, not vague so as to avoid doing real work to support their arguments) is not only silly, but counter-productive and juvenile.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
No one wants to feel like a burn player just casted a few spells with no thought and lost
Or Valakut just ramped and played their win con hoping it wouldn't be countered or discarded in the process
GBx has some auto wins too, some decks can't beat turn 1 discard, turn 2 Goyf, turn 3 LOTV--that can be auto cruise with no thought, too.
I do dislike when a linear game occurs and it feels like, "better to be lucky than good".
That isn't at all applying to every linear deck or game, I'm talking about those certain games where the deck played itself to victory.
Except those claims of "no thought" really shouldn't matter. First, often it is subjective whether someone let a deck play itself or not, usually from salty players. I've gone against plenty of people on rogue decks, win with storm, then hear gripes about how I'm playing the easy route because that's how they feel better about themselves in a loss in a game which honestly, really shouldn't affect anyone at a core emotional level. Second, I see nowhere in the game rules that says you have to interact on the stack once per game in order to attack or anything.
And again, prior to storm I played grixis delver. Before that it was kiln fiend OHKO. Before that was blue tron. I've been all over the map. It sucks to lose to infect turn 3, or lose because a piece of hate arrived turn 2 that shut down my deck or something. I am also an adult, who understands that any deck I play will come with particular risks. If you want to play jund, understand ramp will often run you over. Play Affinity? Sure, just accept that occasional fast stony silence. In fact, I'd argue the best way to pick a deck is to not only consider how you like to play, but how you would least like to lose and find a deck that overlaps.
@Darkest_before_dawn, That's a fair point. I suppose that I do lose patience after a while, when there is an attempt at a constructive discussion and it is met with those who seem prone to espouse opinions with little or no effort to actually contribute to the progression of the discussion. I do feel that it's fair to request that, if someone claims that there is a problem with the current decks, and percentages of those decks, in the metagame, they then provide what they think it should be. I feel that simply coming in to complain with little or no effort to provide their own perspective of what it should be (being specific, not vague so as to avoid doing real work to support their arguments) is not only silly, but counter-productive and juvenile.
I gave you a constructive answer the best that could be explained in a simple way, and you answer it with a condescending and impossible question.
the perspective has been provided. and asking enough questions to write a book in a single post is something few people with lives have time for.
I know you think your theory is god. but honestly unless you can prove to me mathematically right now and apply it to modern and then disprove my points with it, then we are both just as theoretical and anecdotal as each other.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
Okay quick reminder folks:
Splinter Twin is not a fair friggin' deck.
That is all.
ah but when you combine things like linearity and interactivity into the discussion things change.
and shouldnt you like twin? your a spike who plays broken decks.
Public Mod Note
(Ulka):
Infraction for Flaming, Trolling and Twin Talk
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
Wizards just said the format was healthy and they only mentioned unbans. I know you don't like something about the format landscape and I see where your arguments come from. But I think it is actually you in the minority here and it seems very unlikely that Wizards and most players share this view. Look at the metagame in early October: that is Wizards' view of healthy. It's actually more diverse now with even more interactive decks than October. I just don't see any traction to these format complaints.
Again, I think there's a legitimate worry about what the PT is going to look like. But that's not on the table right now.
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Not sure where you're going with that list of what's broken and what's not. Of course a single Bolt in a vacuum isn't as broken as a combination of multiple cards that result in a T2-3 8/8 or a T3 Karn.
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
and thats why the people in charge should deal with the problem instead of let the whole format become this way.
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
Wizards just said the format was healthy and they only mentioned unbans. I know you don't like something about the format landscape and I see where your arguments come from. But I think it is actually you in the minority here and it seems very unlikely that Wizards and most players share this view. Look at the metagame in early October: that is Wizards' view of healthy. It's actually more diverse now with even more interactive decks than October. I just don't see any traction to these format complaints.
Again, I think there's a legitimate worry about what the PT is going to look like. But that's not on the table right now.
I partially disagree with what wizards considers healthy. Seeing as thought a part of healthy Imo isnt majority linear top tiers.
Where is jund in the top tier? It's interactive and powerful and stomps creature based decks.? And even does fine vs shadow decks.
Why is white the only colour that can deal with any eldrazi creature for 1 mana?
And why haven't we gotten SFM Jace and bbe yet?
As If they are more powerful than what can be done by turn 3 in modern.
I'd be with you on no bans. But unfortunately my faith in wizards giving us those 3 cards is nil.
You shouldn't have to wait a year everytime there is a ban or unban. It's ridiculous really.
I think we all should agree that when a format has a thread going that is called the sate of Modern and it fills up with thousands of post the format is far from healthy and perfect.
I started playing Legacy because I just got sick of Modern being, for a big part, a lottery on what deck you are facing and more of a sideboard battle.
I got days when I get my good matchups and stomp everyone and other days, even when my deck is working for me, I got the bad matchups and just get completely stomped.
Of course I know that a deck should not have good matchups or 50/50 matchups against the whole field but in Modern the difference is just to big if you ask me.
Also the constant complaining about what to ban, when to ban it and waht and when to unban it has pushed me away from Modern. Don`t get me wrong Legacy is also not perfect but there is a lot less complaining going on in that format. People just play the game and they are having fun doing it.
I been playing Modern since the first year it started, wich was also the first time I started playing Magic so I been through a lot of meta`s and chanced and you name it.
But I also noticed that if Legacy was more easily accecable and cheaper Modern would not even be discussed like this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
Those 'free wins' are what determine are the best decks in the format however. 'Fair Magic' is not what most high end players look for in a deck. This was commonly being discussed on twitter months and months ago.
this is the core of my issue.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
Well, yeah if they could make modern less broken we would probably all be happier. The trouble is that they basically can't without invalidating everyones current multi-hundred dollar deck that is literally only propped up by the fact that they have some metric of performance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Your vision of modern looks---selfish? I don't know how to word it better, I'm really not throwing that out as an insult.
And I know midrange wouldn't push it out for your mentioned reasons.
If you look at it as:"I want midrange the gathering so my jund deck can beat everyone" of course that looks selfish. But that's your view on it and its incorrect.
In my modern ideal world there would be equality in linearity it wouldn't dominate but it would still be good.
Where merfolk and humans elves ect where the aggro decks
Bgx and urx where control and midrange ect
And infect
Coco
Dredge
Boggles
Ad nauseam
Ect where combo
The fact is there are soo much decks in modern. It's foolish to think there wouldn't be others to rise in Thier place.
And I truly feel affinity is too much of a sideboard battle for soo many decks
Storm wins way too quick
Tron and Eldrazi and valakut(ie big mana) don't have adequate hate vs them so they just stomp slower decks.
I don't find that healthy....
If I was bias id be not complaining about affinity and storm cuz I play interactive decks wouldn't I? Ask yourself that.
I literally played every tier 1 to 3 deck intimately and have tried even the ones I hate. So that I can get an intimate understanding of modern. I've logged hours in the thousands in modern.
And in my travels I looked for the more skilled player winning more often. I did not find this enough. Instead I commonly found matchups and sideboards to often dictating the tide of the games. This is the core to what I find unhealthy.
Big picture man..
decks playing:
none
One question: do you primarily play modern on paper or online?
decks playing:
none
A deck can be best classified by the following characteristics:
The first two characteristics might help define how linear a deck is, combined with the number of end nodes. Sometimes, if all end nodes are cut off with a single characteristic from an opposing deck (maybe a single card or restrictive effect), then there is a single dimension by which the deck is weak to: The single effect that is pruning those end nodes from being possible. Sometimes that characteristic is a card, sometimes it is sheer acceleration through branches and intermediate nodes. I think it is important to recognize that the term "linear" is probably best used as comparative: Simply stating that a deck is "linear" isn't enough. It is more or less linear than another specific deck.
The last characteristic defines how interactive it is. Again, we have to be aware, and wary, when we are inclined to define interaction in a self-centered fashion. If we choose to define interaction as "how does a deck interact with me", then that is a self-centered definition. A better definition is "how does the deck interact with the gamestate?" If a deck effectively interacts with a gamestate in such a way as to prune or wither branches from an opposing deck's decision tree, then it is interacting with the opponent - by pruning and/or withering branches from the opponent's decision tree. Sometimes it is more subtle than we are willing to observe and understand. This seems to stem from that sense of entitlement, in which many players may feel that opponents should only be able to interact in terms that allow those players further (significant) interaction. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what an effective deck is designed to do. The first two characteristics listed explain exactly this point.
I've seen claims about how Modern is a "turn X format". I think that this kind of misses the point about how decks are designed to work as well, when used as a reason to criticize the format without considering the alternate argument(s). An effective deck is designed to attempt to prune/wither opponents' branches on their decision tree before they are available, while protecting their own decision tree branches. If a deck is designed to simply durdle, and not effectively prune branches, then the designer and pilot is essentially begging to lose.
It would be as if two competing forces in chess, or war, or a fight, were to meet, and one starts to deliver a strike or move and the other simply sits there without a block and/or counter, then are we really to resort to complaining about the defender "not being ready"? Is there any valid reason why the defender couldn't be ready? In Magic the Gathering, how ready the defender is relies on the cards chosen in the deck designed to deal with an early attack. If it simply isn't designed to defend its branches and nodes, then we have to ask ourselves some questions. For example, are there any other decks able to defend against early attacks? Is this problem unique to a majority of the metagame? In some cases this is true (i.e. - Eldrazi Winter). In other cases, it's just the accepted design of that particular deck, an accepted weakness built in.
Another complaint that I've seen is that "games are decided by sideboards". Sideboards are part of the game for the very reason as to shore up matchups, so they aren't entirely lopsided. If we did not accept the purpose of sideboards, what are the repercussions of sideboards being ineffective? Why even have a sideboard if they're designed to be ineffective? And if we increase the sizes of sideboards, how balanced would matchups then be? When we make these complaints, it might benefit us to first consider the alternatives, before simply posting an opinion to a forum. Otherwise, we're not really having a constructive conversation. And if a deck is designed with decision trees that are not unique enough, then yes, that deck is designed to lose to potential sideboard cards. That is the risk that the designer and pilot must be willing to accept. Complaining about this isn't acceptance of risk.
And there's the complaint about the "metagame is too wide open". Again, it might serve us to consider the alternative. For this one, I would even say that it might serve us to use some introspective study. Do we really want a metagame that is defined by a small number of viable decks? What about the people who enjoy playing their own decks? Just because they don't enjoy playing the game the same way as some of us doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to. This wide open metagame allows for a healthy metagame, with plenty of diversity. This also helps the game itself, as it becomes appealing to a larger audience. The more players we have, the more likely the game will survive. There may be some interesting reasoning for making the argument that the metagame is too wide. As far as considering the alternative, I rarely find these same people are willing to explain what decks (by specific name and lists, not vague archtype) should be allowed in their imagined perfect metagame, and at what percentages those decks should be. This is very revealing of the motivations behind their arguments.
There are some people who feel entitled to winning more than they are. Do they deserve those wins, though? Have they put in the reps, or the work to study the metagame, or the work to study the underlying principles and concepts of the game to earn those wins? Are they able to pilot their deck well enough to adapt to a diverse number of opposing decks? What, exactly, entitles these people to winning more? Can they even state the answer, without realizing how ridiculous and selfish the answer might sound?
It's easy to say, "yeah, I've put in the reps", or, "yeah, I studied the crap out of the game". Anyone can make the claim. Anyone can state their opinion in a forum and feel that their opinion is entitled to homage and respect. But what qualifies that opinion? Can another person come in and use the same arguments for the opposing opinion (the "nuh-uh" effect")?
Something that I've come to appreciate about studying the concepts behind this game is understanding human behavior as well. I feel that it's taught me how to understand the motivations of some people, through their methods of argument and expression of opinion.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
This whole "linear" thing reminds me of when I would play league of legends, and anyone who lost would just gripe that someone was playing "an easy champ," as if they were obligated to play something more difficult. As Al Davis said, just win baby.
No one wants to feel like a burn player just casted a few spells with no thought and lost
Or Valakut just ramped and played their win con hoping it wouldn't be countered or discarded in the process
GBx has some auto wins too, some decks can't beat turn 1 discard, turn 2 Goyf, turn 3 LOTV--that can be auto cruise with no thought, too.
I do dislike when a linear game occurs and it feels like, "better to be lucky than good".
That isn't at all applying to every linear deck or game, I'm talking about those certain games where the deck played itself to victory.
Spirits
Modern today is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in 2015. You can play more than just three decks and still be relevant. A decent portion of the top decks are still interactive, you can play pure UW control to reasonable success, there is only 1 top tier combo deck unlike the days of Pod/Twin where you had 2 that sucked up around 1/3 of the large tournaments if not more. We have Grixis death's shadow which is way more interactive than Twin was. I will also mention twin's renowned interaction is greatly overstated, playing remand on turn 2, then EoT pestermite into splintertwin is not my idea of interaction.
My only suggestion for moving forward is a ban on mox opal. I think that card is what makes afinity too fast and was part of the big 3 from 2014 and has continued to dog the format ever-since. It is basically the dredge of legacy.
Modern needs to be less broken Imo. Otherwise it's a Game of who can play the more broken deck.
Is thoughtsieze broken? No
Is snappy broken? No
Is Bolt broken? No
Push? No
Is a turn 2-3 1 mana 8/8 broken? Yes
Is a turn 3 karn broken? Yes
Is dumping your entire affinity hand pretty much making it impossible for the opponent to catch up broken? Yes
Is a Turn 2 tks or reality smasher broken? Yes
Is a turn 4 grapeshot lethal broken? Hell yes
People will say: but it's a small percentage that happens.
But combined with all the decks it happens more than I feel is healthy. Not to mention highroll magic is not a test of skill but rather a test of luck in which you pretty much auto lose that game no matter how good the answers are.
decks playing:
none
I'd generally agree with most of what you've stated here. I'd be amiss though if I didn't point out that there's a certain condescension that surfaces at times in your responses. I'm not trying to knock you down a peg, just share how it comes across. And I feel pretty comfortable identifying that tone since it's one I'm prone to myself.
Obviously several posters appreciate the intellectual bent you bring to the conversation (and it's sparked a interesting train of replies). But you have to understand that asking an anonymous internet poster to outline his preferred meta by deck and percentages is more than a little silly. Some players don't want intellectual rigor or theory, they want a fun game (with "fun" often defined in an ambiguous, personal way). Calling those players "selfish" is a conversational dead-end. Like a counter war on the stack, pick the exchanges where there's a chance of something productive.
It is almost like you have some specific pet-deck that you want to be t1 and isn't so you are complaining about it... wait let me guess... complaining about tron thinking... you want jund to be T1 again.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
As for the "game of who can play the more broken deck" comment, what format in any TCG isn't a battle of broken versus broken? Competitive environments will always drive players to either play the most broken decks or create decks that break the broken decks, which either become broken themselves or get beat by a different slew of broken decks it can't deal with.
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
Except those claims of "no thought" really shouldn't matter. First, often it is subjective whether someone let a deck play itself or not, usually from salty players. I've gone against plenty of people on rogue decks, win with storm, then hear gripes about how I'm playing the easy route because that's how they feel better about themselves in a loss in a game which honestly, really shouldn't affect anyone at a core emotional level. Second, I see nowhere in the game rules that says you have to interact on the stack once per game in order to attack or anything.
And again, prior to storm I played grixis delver. Before that it was kiln fiend OHKO. Before that was blue tron. I've been all over the map. It sucks to lose to infect turn 3, or lose because a piece of hate arrived turn 2 that shut down my deck or something. I am also an adult, who understands that any deck I play will come with particular risks. If you want to play jund, understand ramp will often run you over. Play Affinity? Sure, just accept that occasional fast stony silence. In fact, I'd argue the best way to pick a deck is to not only consider how you like to play, but how you would least like to lose and find a deck that overlaps.
the perspective has been provided. and asking enough questions to write a book in a single post is something few people with lives have time for.
I know you think your theory is god. but honestly unless you can prove to me mathematically right now and apply it to modern and then disprove my points with it, then we are both just as theoretical and anecdotal as each other.
decks playing:
none
and I honestly wouldnt be asking for these insane bans if wizards would make fair decks just as powerful and prevalent as the linear broken ones.
its why I think we either level the playing field in 2 different ways.
multiple bans
or multiple unbans
decks playing:
none
Okay quick reminder folks:
Splinter Twin is not a fair friggin' deck.
That is all.
ah but when you combine things like linearity and interactivity into the discussion things change.
and shouldnt you like twin? your a spike who plays broken decks.
decks playing:
none
Wizards just said the format was healthy and they only mentioned unbans. I know you don't like something about the format landscape and I see where your arguments come from. But I think it is actually you in the minority here and it seems very unlikely that Wizards and most players share this view. Look at the metagame in early October: that is Wizards' view of healthy. It's actually more diverse now with even more interactive decks than October. I just don't see any traction to these format complaints.
Again, I think there's a legitimate worry about what the PT is going to look like. But that's not on the table right now.
Where is jund in the top tier? It's interactive and powerful and stomps creature based decks.? And even does fine vs shadow decks.
Why is white the only colour that can deal with any eldrazi creature for 1 mana?
And why haven't we gotten SFM Jace and bbe yet?
As If they are more powerful than what can be done by turn 3 in modern.
I'd be with you on no bans. But unfortunately my faith in wizards giving us those 3 cards is nil.
You shouldn't have to wait a year everytime there is a ban or unban. It's ridiculous really.
decks playing:
none
I started playing Legacy because I just got sick of Modern being, for a big part, a lottery on what deck you are facing and more of a sideboard battle.
I got days when I get my good matchups and stomp everyone and other days, even when my deck is working for me, I got the bad matchups and just get completely stomped.
Of course I know that a deck should not have good matchups or 50/50 matchups against the whole field but in Modern the difference is just to big if you ask me.
Also the constant complaining about what to ban, when to ban it and waht and when to unban it has pushed me away from Modern. Don`t get me wrong Legacy is also not perfect but there is a lot less complaining going on in that format. People just play the game and they are having fun doing it.
I been playing Modern since the first year it started, wich was also the first time I started playing Magic so I been through a lot of meta`s and chanced and you name it.
But I also noticed that if Legacy was more easily accecable and cheaper Modern would not even be discussed like this.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
Well, yeah if they could make modern less broken we would probably all be happier. The trouble is that they basically can't without invalidating everyones current multi-hundred dollar deck that is literally only propped up by the fact that they have some metric of performance.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!