Your definition seems to be basically "linearity = number of decisions". Furthermore you go deeper than this and you actually look at each card and see in what ways it can be used, so for example Ravager gets a high amount of decisions and in your work would indicate that it is an "non-linear" card when in reality it is one of the lynchpins of the marquee linear deck of modern.
I don't disagree, which was actually one of the problems I listed at the end of that post. I think there's still a way to account for this while de-weighting cards like Ravager or weighting other interactive cards more. In a later post, I talked about one way to do this which would account for the differences between a card like Ravager and a card like Cryptic. http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?page=40#c978
Linearity usually means however that you're focused on a given theme or that you have a given goal that you want to accomplish each game and rarely deviate from it. DSG can win in many different ways and the texture of what it wants to accomplish is different in every game and in any given context. Meanwhile affinity (and ravager) wants to employ the same strategy each time and very rarely wants to deviate from it.
I think you can quantify this by quantifying card interactions within a deck. For example, if we used the scoring system I proposed in the linked post above, we would find the method scores decks like GDS much higher than Affinity, despite possible Ravager interactions. A card like Kolaghan's/Cryptic Command alone would be worth many times that of Ravager by that scoring method, and this would definitely capture the deck's overall goal.
It seems that you take your approach to just have something that you can quantify. While it is theoretically possible that you could quantify "linearity" you want to quantify a collection of cards, not the sum of individual cards so to speak. Most of non-linearity does not come from individual cards text box but rather what strategical implications and decisions you make in the game. This is something you omit entirely.
It's not omitted at all; see the values for card interactions with each other. For instance, GDS got huge bonus points for interactions between Snapcaster and its other cards. So did Ravager. I probably missed interactions, but as I said in the post, it was just a first take on things. I think linearity is definitely quantifiable but we just need to refine the method. I was pretty clear in that post that I wasn't proposing a final method, just a draft of a possible method.
EDIT: I'll also add I'm not sure if this method measures linearity, interactivity, or both. We never settle on good definitions of those terms, which as other users have posted, makes it hard to discuss them.
Still in the no unbans camp. It figures Big Tron would wipe a meta completely unprepared for it, and filled with grindy decks like Jeskai/UW Control. The meta will correct itself and faster decks that can go under Tron will go under Tron.
As always, instead of old and problematic cards, I'm in the camp of just waiting for new cards to roll into modern. We've seen Search for Azcanta and Opt make it into many blue lists this weekend. Slowly but surely Wizards is printing tools for those decks. An unban like Jace (senseless as that is with it helping none of the unfair matches) just limits the tools they can potentially print for modern.
So, Starcity had jund with BBE and Jeskai with Mind Sculptor
BBE downright looked embarrassing at some points, seeing as how not every cascade trigger is the dream of Goyf/LOTV/K-Command
It's seriously laughable that this banned, especially when cards like Collected Company exist. WOTC, it's time to unban the card.
Jace---well, I think he need stop stay banned. Stevens clearly never casted the card before and was just manhandling Brad Nelson. Once Jace landed the game was over. They both agreed, BBE is not even half of what Jace is, and this argument that BBE is his counter is definitely not true.
I'm not surprised, I think Jace needs to stay banned from modern for the foreseeable future.
I just watched that video too, and while I agree on your assessment of BBE, I don't think the video tells us much definitively about Jace. Yes, Todd manhandles Brad in the first three games, but he never played a Jace in two of those games, and the game he did play one it died immediately. In the fourth game, the Jace stuck around for several turns and Todd lost anyway. In the final game, the Jace stuck around and Brad conceded way too early, so it wasn't really apparent if it was going to win the game or not. The video more just shows that Jeskai control is heavily favored against Jund. I was also super impressed with Search for Azcanta, that was the real all-star card to me from Todd's deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Search for Azcanta singlehandedly is man handling all Shadow and GBx decks. It's brutally good. It's like a Bob that can't be killed.
It's super good for sure, but as soon as you see a fulminator mage or literally any "4x field of ruin" deck you really struggle to stay ahead. It's why things like AV, revelation, or even cruel ultimatum are powerful card draw pseudo-finishers because it's rare that your opponent can stop them. Azcanta is dreadfully slow and can be blown up and even revoker/needled. The card is powerful but VERY far from unanswerable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And on that day, Garfield said unto the world "Go ye forth and durdle!"
It's super good for sure, but as soon as you see a fulminator mage or literally any "4x field of ruin" deck you really struggle to stay ahead. It's why things like AV, revelation, or even cruel ultimatum are powerful card draw pseudo-finishers because it's rare that your opponent can stop them. Azcanta is dreadfully slow and can be blown up and even revoker/needled. The card is powerful but VERY far from unanswerable.
Ok here it comes; You have no idea what you're talking about.
Search for Azcanta cannot be pithing needled. The land part can, but let's just say you named the land. I don't even have to flip the Azcanta. Enchantments are some of the most dubious permanents to answer. We have very little tools aside from cards like Abrupt Decay, Wear//Tear, and Karn Liberated.
Search for Azcanta essentially lets you Scry 1, and fuel strategies every upkeep. The card is severely underrated, and lack of experience playing against it results in posts like the one I quoted.
It's super good for sure, but as soon as you see a fulminator mage or literally any "4x field of ruin" deck you really struggle to stay ahead. It's why things like AV, revelation, or even cruel ultimatum are powerful card draw pseudo-finishers because it's rare that your opponent can stop them. Azcanta is dreadfully slow and can be blown up and even revoker/needled. The card is powerful but VERY far from unanswerable.
Ok here it comes; You have no idea what you're talking about.
Search for Azcanta cannot be pithing needled. The land part can, but let's just say you named the land. I don't even have to flip the Azcanta. Enchantments are some of the most dubious permanents to answer. We have very little tools aside from cards like Abrupt Decay, Wear//Tear, and Karn Liberated.
Search for Azcanta essentially lets you Scry 1, and fuel strategies every upkeep. The card is severely underrated, and lack of experience playing against it results in posts like the one I quoted.
Jesus dude chill out, no need to be rude. You are correct that the enchantment part isn't easily answered, but a graveyard scry each turn is nothing impressive and certainty isn't going to let you run away with the game. The mild increase in draw step quality is not worth a card and never has been without it doing something else powerful. I've been playing with and against it since the card was released in both standard and modern and not once was I worried about an unflipped search. If I hit a flipped search with a GQ or a fulminator they get to activate it which is a nice 2for1 on their end but still not something that's going to bury me. So yes it can be easily answered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And on that day, Garfield said unto the world "Go ye forth and durdle!"
While he was a little rude in how he responded I do agree with his sentiment. If you're bringing in wear//tear or not killing my win con with fulminators I'm ok with that. Decay is decent against geist jeskai but if you're keeping that in against me as the draw go version I'm thrilled, it means your hands will match up worse against me.
Karn is a whole other matter. Tron is killing me in other ways.
I think you're underestimating how devastating this card is in Grindy matchups
While he was a little rude in how he responded I do agree with his sentiment. If you're bringing in wear//tear or not killing my win con with fulminators I'm ok with that. Decay is decent against geist jeskai but if you're keeping that in against me as the draw go version I'm thrilled, it means your hands will match up worse against me.
Karn is a whole other matter. Tron is killing me in other ways.
I think you're underestimating how devastating this card is in Grindy matchups
I haven't said once that the card isn't obscenely powerful. I've been saying the opposite several times lol, you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm merely pointing out that it isn't some battle of wits effect where you win the game on your upkeep that can't be answered outside of super narrow cards. LD effects like field of ruin, GQ, and fulminator are commonly played cards and are already good against control decks that would be interested in search.
As for using LD on your draw engine rather than your man lands, that is a different story. If you're at a point where you're ok with activating colonnade or tar pits you're almost always in a winning position and SfA is the reason that you got to that position in the first place. If they pop your search with a GQ or spreading seas then it is going to be much harder for you to get to a position where you can attack without being vulnerable. It's perfectly fine to have SfA as your primary draw engine, but you still need some kind of back up plan like Kommand+snaps or singleton big hit spells like keranos, rev, or cruel.
TL:DR; The card is very powerful, stop saying I don't understand that. It is also answerable by commonly played cards that are run main and are typically boarded in against you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And on that day, Garfield said unto the world "Go ye forth and durdle!"
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
I agree that Wizards does weigh the PTs very heavily, but I disagree we hav eno clue about the MTGO meta. We have sites like MTGGoldfish that give approximate meta percentages, and Tron and Scapeshift don't currently have a dangerous meta share, or even are close to it.
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
Let's take a second and assume PT T8 is going to be something like:
Tron x 3
Storm x 2
Scapeshift
GDS
random non interactive/linear deck
Which seems about the worst(For the record, this is just a hypothesis).
If WOTC makes something stupid, what would the announcement look like? I mean, what would the reasoning be behind the ban, what kind of metric or criterion would it violate? Also, would this trim our chances of seeing an unban and delay them for another 3 months?
if that was the result, it would still not be as bad as Pro Tour Oath with 6 or 7 eldrazi in the top 8
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
I agree that Wizards does weigh the PTs very heavily, but I disagree we hav eno clue about the MTGO meta. We have sites like MTGGoldfish that give approximate meta percentages, and Tron and Scapeshift don't currently have a dangerous meta share, or even are close to it.
Goldfish's numbers use the curated league data though, which makes their online numbers completely inaccurate. I seriously doubt Temur Energy is anywhere close to only 23% of the Standard meta given its paper performance
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
I agree that Wizards does weigh the PTs very heavily, but I disagree we hav eno clue about the MTGO meta. We have sites like MTGGoldfish that give approximate meta percentages, and Tron and Scapeshift don't currently have a dangerous meta share, or even are close to it.
Goldfish's numbers use the curated league data though, which makes their online numbers completely inaccurate. I seriously doubt Temur Energy is anywhere close to only 23% of the Standard meta given its paper performance
We also shouldnt take 1 single tournament's top 8, which was vastly different than the top 32, to make claims about the meta either, which I see a lot of people doing about the current meta
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
Let's take a second and assume PT T8 is going to be something like this
Tron x 3
Storm x 2
Scapeshift
GDS
random non interactive/linear deck
Which seems about the worst(For the record, this is just a hypothesis).
If WOTC makes something stupid, what would the announcement look like? I mean, what would the reasoning be behind the ban, what kind of metric or criterion would it violate? Also, would this trim our chances of seeing an unban and delay them for another 3 months?
This is exactly the thinking we need.
Look at how Wizards has skewed the Standard Metagame results in the matter of a single week. It used to border 46%, now it's less than 25%. That doesn't happen overnight. Also, Mono Red metagame percentage dropped in Standard, by almost 7%. Where did these percentages go?
Jeskai overall is not a good deck, It had inflated ratings and most likely prayed on playing against affinity and humans. Not a single Island based deck, won on Camera vs any single fast mana strategy. There is no 50/50 matchup here. It's just a complete slaughter.
I know there are tons of arguments out there like "They don't always have their combo on turn 2-3" and that may be true, but what you are all not completely understanding, is that these decks are fundamentally built on having their god draw on turns 2-3-4. Look at how Tron is constructed, it has just AS MANY LANDS AS GRIXIS DEATHS SHADOW.
That turn 3 Karn Liberated, comes from a 19 land deck.
Let that sink in. This Metagame needs a Green Sun's Zenith into a Gaddock Teeg with some backup Wasteland. Those SCG videos prove that BBE banning has been a joke since 2013.
so let me understand - Tron... Good old-fashioned, metagame pendulum tron which cycles from being completely unplayable to decent almost as regularly as clockwork. that tron, which has been nigh-useless for maybe 8 months - has a decent showing at one tournament, and now suddenly it's a huge problem and we need wasteland and green sun's zenith all at once.
i'm not sure I can take this seriously. Was that really your point?
tron is like almost no other deck in modern in that is regularly, reliably swings between tier 1 and essentially-tier-3. it does nothing for ages, people stop packing hate for it and bam! it does well for a month or so. then it swings away for a few months, decks change, the format evolves and bam! another surprise hit. within a month it's gone again. there are always 'diehards' who play the deck no matter what, but even those invested tron players will back me up, that true success with this deck comes in slow, pendulous waves as the metagames shift around them and switches between hostile and accessible.
'sky is falling' knee-jerk comments about tron are lacking in historical understanding of both the format and the deck. If anyone else is considering advocating any kind of action against this deck, get a little perspective first before posting something that will be meaningless in a month's time.
Some of you guys say sometime ago:"eldrazi tron killed old fashion tron, ban eldrazi"...now eldrazi is bad vs. Old tron and all say: " bun oldstyle tron"? Really?? How often Guys we need this banroulette?
Haven`t you noticed that whis whole thread is full of those talks.
Everytime a deck does well in a tournament people are screaming for bans and it is getting old really fast now.
You still remember when Grixis Death Shadow was putting up a lot of good results? How many replies in here were about banning Death Shadow or some other key piece in the deck. People just did not know how to play against it because it iwas new. Now people know how to beat it and it is not a big problem anymore.
It is just the nature of a lot of the Modern players. I have no idea what it is but if you got the answer why they complain so much please enlighten me mate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
Let's take a second and assume PT T8 is going to be something like this
Tron x 3
Storm x 2
Scapeshift
GDS
random non interactive/linear deck
Which seems about the worst(For the record, this is just a hypothesis).
If WOTC makes something stupid, what would the announcement look like? I mean, what would the reasoning be behind the ban, what kind of metric or criterion would it violate? Also, would this trim our chances of seeing an unban and delay them for another 3 months?
This is exactly the thinking we need.
Look at how Wizards has skewed the Standard Metagame results in the matter of a single week. It used to border 46%, now it's less than 25%. That doesn't happen overnight. Also, Mono Red metagame percentage dropped in Standard, by almost 7%. Where did these percentages go?
Jeskai overall is not a good deck, It had inflated ratings and most likely prayed on playing against affinity and humans. Not a single Island based deck, won on Camera vs any single fast mana strategy. There is no 50/50 matchup here. It's just a complete slaughter.
I know there are tons of arguments out there like "They don't always have their combo on turn 2-3" and that may be true, but what you are all not completely understanding, is that these decks are fundamentally built on having their god draw on turns 2-3-4. Look at how Tron is constructed, it has just AS MANY LANDS AS GRIXIS DEATHS SHADOW.
That turn 3 Karn Liberated, comes from a 19 land deck.
Let that sink in. This Metagame needs a Green Sun's Zenith into a Gaddock Teeg with some backup Wasteland. Those SCG videos prove that BBE banning has been a joke since 2013.
Looks like people skimped on Storm because they feared being a target.
I think it's clear Jund/Junk/Rock is a bad deck and WOTC could help them out, unless someone on here is about to say, "Why do those decks deserve help?!"
I still can't agree on Jace
I would like to see BBE at the very least, and I wouldn't be upset about SFM. I really have no idea what an SFM unban would look like, it'd have so many implications, it would be jammed into UW, Jeskai flavors, Taxes (maybe, the community seems split), and I'm most certain Mardu would be huge, since all it's missing is a cheap bomb, best removal in the format by a long shot).
I would like to see BBE at the very least, and I wouldn't be upset about SFM. I really have no idea what an SFM unban would look like, it'd have so many implications, it would be jammed into UW, Jeskai flavors, Taxes (maybe, the community seems split), and I'm most certain Mardu would be huge, since all it's missing is a cheap bomb, best removal in the format by a long shot).
Don't forget Abzan in this list. Abzan would definitely put SFM and would probably become the best BGx variant.
so let me understand - Tron... Good old-fashioned, metagame pendulum tron which cycles from being completely unplayable to decent almost as regularly as clockwork. that tron, which has been nigh-useless for maybe 8 months - has a decent showing at one tournament, and now suddenly it's a huge problem and we need wasteland and green sun's zenith all at once.
i'm not sure I can take this seriously. Was that really your point?
tron is like almost no other deck in modern in that is regularly, reliably swings between tier 1 and essentially-tier-3. it does nothing for ages, people stop packing hate for it and bam! it does well for a month or so. then it swings away for a few months, decks change, the format evolves and bam! another surprise hit. within a month it's gone again. there are always 'diehards' who play the deck no matter what, but even those invested tron players will back me up, that true success with this deck comes in slow, pendulous waves as the metagames shift around them and switches between hostile and accessible.
'sky is falling' knee-jerk comments about tron are lacking in historical understanding of both the format and the deck. If anyone else is considering advocating any kind of action against this deck, get a little perspective first before posting something that will be meaningless in a month's time.
It's not Knee Jerk, it's been something I've been praising forever. That decks who abuse mana in some form or another, are tiers above decks that are not. We have no tools in Modern that deal in any versatile way with threats, lands and spells that are cast way beyond their actual costs.
Wizards won't even print a decent variant of Vindicate. They give us Anguished Unmaking, and in the same era Ugin, the Spirit Dragon. They even specifically said they changed Ugin's Cost from 7-8 in development because of Modern. So they pay enough attention to some decks in the format, but they have no clue whatsoever in order to print sufficient answers.
Tron was never "unplayable" or "Tier 3" these Mono Green and BG Variants just evolved.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Its the interactive decks which keep it from seeing too much success
I don't disagree, which was actually one of the problems I listed at the end of that post. I think there's still a way to account for this while de-weighting cards like Ravager or weighting other interactive cards more. In a later post, I talked about one way to do this which would account for the differences between a card like Ravager and a card like Cryptic.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/785096-the-state-of-modern-thread-rules-update-27-10-17?page=40#c978
I think you can quantify this by quantifying card interactions within a deck. For example, if we used the scoring system I proposed in the linked post above, we would find the method scores decks like GDS much higher than Affinity, despite possible Ravager interactions. A card like Kolaghan's/Cryptic Command alone would be worth many times that of Ravager by that scoring method, and this would definitely capture the deck's overall goal.
It's not omitted at all; see the values for card interactions with each other. For instance, GDS got huge bonus points for interactions between Snapcaster and its other cards. So did Ravager. I probably missed interactions, but as I said in the post, it was just a first take on things. I think linearity is definitely quantifiable but we just need to refine the method. I was pretty clear in that post that I wasn't proposing a final method, just a draft of a possible method.
EDIT: I'll also add I'm not sure if this method measures linearity, interactivity, or both. We never settle on good definitions of those terms, which as other users have posted, makes it hard to discuss them.
As always, instead of old and problematic cards, I'm in the camp of just waiting for new cards to roll into modern. We've seen Search for Azcanta and Opt make it into many blue lists this weekend. Slowly but surely Wizards is printing tools for those decks. An unban like Jace (senseless as that is with it helping none of the unfair matches) just limits the tools they can potentially print for modern.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
It's super good for sure, but as soon as you see a fulminator mage or literally any "4x field of ruin" deck you really struggle to stay ahead. It's why things like AV, revelation, or even cruel ultimatum are powerful card draw pseudo-finishers because it's rare that your opponent can stop them. Azcanta is dreadfully slow and can be blown up and even revoker/needled. The card is powerful but VERY far from unanswerable.
Ok here it comes; You have no idea what you're talking about.
Search for Azcanta cannot be pithing needled. The land part can, but let's just say you named the land. I don't even have to flip the Azcanta. Enchantments are some of the most dubious permanents to answer. We have very little tools aside from cards like Abrupt Decay, Wear//Tear, and Karn Liberated.
Search for Azcanta essentially lets you Scry 1, and fuel strategies every upkeep. The card is severely underrated, and lack of experience playing against it results in posts like the one I quoted.
Jesus dude chill out, no need to be rude. You are correct that the enchantment part isn't easily answered, but a graveyard scry each turn is nothing impressive and certainty isn't going to let you run away with the game. The mild increase in draw step quality is not worth a card and never has been without it doing something else powerful. I've been playing with and against it since the card was released in both standard and modern and not once was I worried about an unflipped search. If I hit a flipped search with a GQ or a fulminator they get to activate it which is a nice 2for1 on their end but still not something that's going to bury me. So yes it can be easily answered.
Karn is a whole other matter. Tron is killing me in other ways.
I think you're underestimating how devastating this card is in Grindy matchups
"Tron, Eldrazi Tron, and Titan Shift are only ~12% of the meta combined."
Stop thinking the sky is falling
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I haven't said once that the card isn't obscenely powerful. I've been saying the opposite several times lol, you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm merely pointing out that it isn't some battle of wits effect where you win the game on your upkeep that can't be answered outside of super narrow cards. LD effects like field of ruin, GQ, and fulminator are commonly played cards and are already good against control decks that would be interested in search.
As for using LD on your draw engine rather than your man lands, that is a different story. If you're at a point where you're ok with activating colonnade or tar pits you're almost always in a winning position and SfA is the reason that you got to that position in the first place. If they pop your search with a GQ or spreading seas then it is going to be much harder for you to get to a position where you can attack without being vulnerable. It's perfectly fine to have SfA as your primary draw engine, but you still need some kind of back up plan like Kommand+snaps or singleton big hit spells like keranos, rev, or cruel.
TL:DR; The card is very powerful, stop saying I don't understand that. It is also answerable by commonly played cards that are run main and are typically boarded in against you.
I used to subscribe to this more, but we now know that Wizards places disproportionate weight on both major event T8s (primarily GP), and that they often weigh the Pro Tour heaviest of all. They also care about MTGO and we have no clue what that looks like. So it might not matter if a deck appears to be at a safe percentage of the overall paper metagame if it disproportionately shows up in areas Wizards cares more about. Not saying anything is currently a problem. I just don't want people to think paper-wide meta share will matter more than the T8s of the PT and GPOKC plus MTGO. It won't when Wizards makes their final decisions.
I guarantee if the PT has a T8 like this one we'll see changes no matter how the overall paper metagame looks. I don't like that anymore than most people, but it's generally how Wizards acts.
I agree that Wizards does weigh the PTs very heavily, but I disagree we hav eno clue about the MTGO meta. We have sites like MTGGoldfish that give approximate meta percentages, and Tron and Scapeshift don't currently have a dangerous meta share, or even are close to it.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
if that was the result, it would still not be as bad as Pro Tour Oath with 6 or 7 eldrazi in the top 8
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
We also shouldnt take 1 single tournament's top 8, which was vastly different than the top 32, to make claims about the meta either, which I see a lot of people doing about the current meta
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
This is exactly the thinking we need.
Look at how Wizards has skewed the Standard Metagame results in the matter of a single week. It used to border 46%, now it's less than 25%. That doesn't happen overnight. Also, Mono Red metagame percentage dropped in Standard, by almost 7%. Where did these percentages go?
Jeskai overall is not a good deck, It had inflated ratings and most likely prayed on playing against affinity and humans. Not a single Island based deck, won on Camera vs any single fast mana strategy. There is no 50/50 matchup here. It's just a complete slaughter.
I know there are tons of arguments out there like "They don't always have their combo on turn 2-3" and that may be true, but what you are all not completely understanding, is that these decks are fundamentally built on having their god draw on turns 2-3-4. Look at how Tron is constructed, it has just AS MANY LANDS AS GRIXIS DEATHS SHADOW.
That turn 3 Karn Liberated, comes from a 19 land deck.
Let that sink in. This Metagame needs a Green Sun's Zenith into a Gaddock Teeg with some backup Wasteland. Those SCG videos prove that BBE banning has been a joke since 2013.
I want to propose an argument, I believe Erik Lauer only uses numbers to supplant a curated format. Summer Bloom and Splinter Twin were banned in January 2016. The evidence for my argument comes from a specific podcast, on the Masters of Modern; https://player.fm/series/the-masters-of-modern/the-problem-with-modern-pro-tours-with-magic-designer-tom-lapille
If you start listening at 49:50 it's there. Tom LaPille predicted the banning, before it even happened, or before "the numbers" were present.
This is all Tinfoil Hat Theory, but it makes no sense looking at the format where a card like Bloodbraid Elf is banned, but Snapcaster Mage, Collected Company, and Siege Rhino are all legal.
All 5 artefact lands should be unbanned, with a Mox Opal ban
Green Sun's Zenith is strong, but not significantly stronger than Chord of Calling or Collected Company
Splinter Twin should have never been banned
Stoneforge Mystic would open up new archetypes
Blazing Shoal deck would fold to any disruptive deck, but should help keep big mana strategies in check
Jace might be too good, but it should at least be given a chance
Infraction issued for Twin talk. --CavalryWolfPack
so let me understand - Tron... Good old-fashioned, metagame pendulum tron which cycles from being completely unplayable to decent almost as regularly as clockwork. that tron, which has been nigh-useless for maybe 8 months - has a decent showing at one tournament, and now suddenly it's a huge problem and we need wasteland and green sun's zenith all at once.
i'm not sure I can take this seriously. Was that really your point?
tron is like almost no other deck in modern in that is regularly, reliably swings between tier 1 and essentially-tier-3. it does nothing for ages, people stop packing hate for it and bam! it does well for a month or so. then it swings away for a few months, decks change, the format evolves and bam! another surprise hit. within a month it's gone again. there are always 'diehards' who play the deck no matter what, but even those invested tron players will back me up, that true success with this deck comes in slow, pendulous waves as the metagames shift around them and switches between hostile and accessible.
'sky is falling' knee-jerk comments about tron are lacking in historical understanding of both the format and the deck. If anyone else is considering advocating any kind of action against this deck, get a little perspective first before posting something that will be meaningless in a month's time.
Haven`t you noticed that whis whole thread is full of those talks.
Everytime a deck does well in a tournament people are screaming for bans and it is getting old really fast now.
You still remember when Grixis Death Shadow was putting up a lot of good results? How many replies in here were about banning Death Shadow or some other key piece in the deck. People just did not know how to play against it because it iwas new. Now people know how to beat it and it is not a big problem anymore.
It is just the nature of a lot of the Modern players. I have no idea what it is but if you got the answer why they complain so much please enlighten me mate.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
LOL is Siege Rhino really a problem card for you?
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
I think it's clear Jund/Junk/Rock is a bad deck and WOTC could help them out, unless someone on here is about to say, "Why do those decks deserve help?!"
I still can't agree on Jace
I would like to see BBE at the very least, and I wouldn't be upset about SFM. I really have no idea what an SFM unban would look like, it'd have so many implications, it would be jammed into UW, Jeskai flavors, Taxes (maybe, the community seems split), and I'm most certain Mardu would be huge, since all it's missing is a cheap bomb, best removal in the format by a long shot).
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
It's not Knee Jerk, it's been something I've been praising forever. That decks who abuse mana in some form or another, are tiers above decks that are not. We have no tools in Modern that deal in any versatile way with threats, lands and spells that are cast way beyond their actual costs.
Wizards won't even print a decent variant of Vindicate. They give us Anguished Unmaking, and in the same era Ugin, the Spirit Dragon. They even specifically said they changed Ugin's Cost from 7-8 in development because of Modern. So they pay enough attention to some decks in the format, but they have no clue whatsoever in order to print sufficient answers.
Tron was never "unplayable" or "Tier 3" these Mono Green and BG Variants just evolved.