I haven't seen too much buzz about the top GP Santa Clara Modern decks: Dredge, UW Control, 4C Death's Shadow, and Mardu Midrange. Right behind that at 5-8 we had Lantern, 2 Affinity, and ETron. On the one hand, I hear that it's not a conventional Modern GP and N is smaller. On the other hand, it's not a unified format so deck choices matter, and the Modern field is narrowed to the format specialists. Seems like a great source of data for top decks going into the PT (at least, a stage 1 dataset). Where's the love for these finishes?
Have the SCG top 8's been at all similar? Other than Ben's UWR List, I didnt bother looking at the rest.
You should have looked at them! Kevin Jones' list was 75 of the same 75 of Nikolich's list.
They have been diverse. Yes. (too diverse imo)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I haven't seen too much buzz about the top GP Santa Clara Modern decks: Dredge, UW Control, 4C Death's Shadow, and Mardu Midrange. Right behind that at 5-8 we had Lantern, 2 Affinity, and ETron. On the one hand, I hear that it's not a conventional Modern GP and N is smaller. On the other hand, it's not a unified format so deck choices matter, and the Modern field is narrowed to the format specialists. Seems like a great source of data for top decks going into the PT (at least, a stage 1 dataset). Where's the love for these finishes?
It's questionable how actionable data is from unified events. If a match features six decks (3v3) only two of those six decks can play Fatal Push or Scalding Tarn or whatever. I would think that skews the deck choices too much to be exceptionally worthwhile data points. Am I wrong?
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
I haven't seen too much buzz about the top GP Santa Clara Modern decks: Dredge, UW Control, 4C Death's Shadow, and Mardu Midrange. Right behind that at 5-8 we had Lantern, 2 Affinity, and ETron. On the one hand, I hear that it's not a conventional Modern GP and N is smaller. On the other hand, it's not a unified format so deck choices matter, and the Modern field is narrowed to the format specialists. Seems like a great source of data for top decks going into the PT (at least, a stage 1 dataset). Where's the love for these finishes?
It's questionable how actionable data is from unified events. If a match features six decks (3v3) only two of those six decks can play Fatal Push or Scalding Tarn or whatever. I would think that skews the deck choices too much to be exceptionally worthwhile data points. Am I wrong?
You aren't wrong about unified events, which suck as datapoints. But team constructed has different rules and GP Santa Clara was team constructed, not unified.
I believe Sam Pardee is completely right about how he structured his Eldrazi Deck.
It was a MAJOR mistake to start cramming in Ulamogs and Wurmcoils and cutting the Mindstones. When Musser made his worse version of E-Tron good for the mirror, the decks results drove off a cliff. I tried bringing this up in the community and they thought it was the superior version from when Todd Stevens championed the deck.
I think E-Tron players really screwed up. To be fair, I'm a part of their Facebook group and they as a whole make me cringe, they seem less aware of everything modern and common sense compared to here, reddit or the other Facebook groups.
Mardu is pretty good, I think it's under the radar, I absolutely have not been able to beat that deck at all with any form of GBx.
Holiday's 4C Shadow deck looked a little inbred, I doubt his list will be completely adopted but 4C may be the way to go if you aren't on the grixis plan.
I wouldn't pay attention to UW, that Jeskai Ben deck is where I'd look.
Dredge is like Affinity, it goes from godly to garbage.
I believe Sam Pardee is completely right about how he structured his Eldrazi Deck.
It was a MAJOR mistake to start cramming in Ulamogs and Wurmcoils and cutting the Mindstones. When Musser made his worse version of E-Tron good for the mirror, the decks results drove off a cliff. I tried bringing this up in the community and they thought it was the superior version from when Todd Stevens championed the deck.
I think E-Tron players really screwed up. To be fair, I'm a part of their Facebook group and they as a whole make me cringe, they seem less aware of everything modern and common sense compared to here, reddit or the other Facebook groups.
Mardu is pretty good, I think it's under the radar, I absolutely have not been able to beat that deck at all with any form of GBx.
Holiday's 4C Shadow deck looked a little inbred, I doubt his list will be completely adopted but 4C may be the way to go if you aren't on the grixis plan.
I wouldn't pay attention to UW, that Jeskai Ben deck is where I'd look.
Dredge is like Affinity, it goes from godly to garbage.
The player that played UW "Gideon" in the Modern portion of the Santa Clara GP has played UW type decks at a top level for at least 15 years. He is a player local to me, but he gets around to a lot of different events, so he is not at 1 particular store any time of the week. He literally can win with a ham sandwich.
While I think that UW is solid, you really have to know your deck and get some luck go your way obviously (Modern, right?) to do super well with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I believe Sam Pardee is completely right about how he structured his Eldrazi Deck.
It was a MAJOR mistake to start cramming in Ulamogs and Wurmcoils and cutting the Mindstones. When Musser made his worse version of E-Tron good for the mirror, the decks results drove off a cliff. I tried bringing this up in the community and they thought it was the superior version from when Todd Stevens championed the deck.
I think E-Tron players really screwed up. To be fair, I'm a part of their Facebook group and they as a whole make me cringe, they seem less aware of everything modern and common sense compared to here, reddit or the other Facebook groups.
Mardu is pretty good, I think it's under the radar, I absolutely have not been able to beat that deck at all with any form of GBx.
Holiday's 4C Shadow deck looked a little inbred, I doubt his list will be completely adopted but 4C may be the way to go if you aren't on the grixis plan.
I wouldn't pay attention to UW, that Jeskai Ben deck is where I'd look.
Dredge is like Affinity, it goes from godly to garbage.
The player that played UW "Gideon" in the Modern portion of the Santa Clara GP has played UW type decks at a top level for at least 15 years. He is a player local to me, but he gets around to a lot of different events, so he is not at 1 particular store any time of the week. He literally can win with a ham sandwich.
While I think that UW is solid, you really have to know your deck and get some luck go your way obviously (Modern, right?) to do super well with it.
I mean in order to do well in any format you need to really know your deck and have some luck go your way. Even if you had a 70% win chance against every opponent over 15 rounds that doesn't make an auto win to the end.
I believe Sam Pardee is completely right about how he structured his Eldrazi Deck.
It was a MAJOR mistake to start cramming in Ulamogs and Wurmcoils and cutting the Mindstones. When Musser made his worse version of E-Tron good for the mirror, the decks results drove off a cliff. I tried bringing this up in the community and they thought it was the superior version from when Todd Stevens championed the deck.
I think E-Tron players really screwed up. To be fair, I'm a part of their Facebook group and they as a whole make me cringe, they seem less aware of everything modern and common sense compared to here, reddit or the other Facebook groups.
Mardu is pretty good, I think it's under the radar, I absolutely have not been able to beat that deck at all with any form of GBx.
Holiday's 4C Shadow deck looked a little inbred, I doubt his list will be completely adopted but 4C may be the way to go if you aren't on the grixis plan.
I wouldn't pay attention to UW, that Jeskai Ben deck is where I'd look.
Dredge is like Affinity, it goes from godly to garbage.
The player that played UW "Gideon" in the Modern portion of the Santa Clara GP has played UW type decks at a top level for at least 15 years. He is a player local to me, but he gets around to a lot of different events, so he is not at 1 particular store any time of the week. He literally can win with a ham sandwich.
While I think that UW is solid, you really have to know your deck and get some luck go your way obviously (Modern, right?) to do super well with it.
I mean in order to do well in any format you need to really know your deck and have some luck go your way. Even if you had a 70% win chance against every opponent over 15 rounds that doesn't make an auto win to the end.
Yes, but my point (that I didn't express too well) is that he knows UW Control decks very well. Think of him as an advanced version of Corey Burkhart/Grixis Control. This player was also one of the very few players to beat me during Eldrazi Winter (I ran UR Eldrazi) with ... UW Control.
I also do realize that it being a team event, I'm not sure what his individual record was. I may ask him next time after I congratulate him on 2nd place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Last article of Brian DeMars on channelfireball about modern is very clear and a good summary of many things were said on this thread I think. I agree with almost all he wrote there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
Regardless of the content of that article you can't really take Brian De Mars seriously, last week he made an article specifically stating that Storm is the best deck in the format, this week he states in bold "Modern doesn't have a best deck". Probably one of the, if not the worst content provider from CFB.
But DeMars isn't that wrong, Storm is a top 3 deck.
I think on a consistent level, Grixis Shadow is the best in the format. There's some moments where you can say X is a better deck for now, but for 2017 and so far in 2018, Grixis is the best deck. Look how many top 8's it continues to make. The deck just needs to actually take home more GP's before we can start comparing it to Twin.
Reid Duke stated that Jund isn't really playable on a competitive level in his article.
He seems to think BBE probably wouldn't be broken, but it would be very powerful and would kick the deck up a notch in raw power level. He seems to think it'd be a lot better due to Last Hope and K-Command, and would cut -1 Scooze, -1 Terminate to fit all 4 copies.
Kinda made me sad, not only does he feel the meta is wrong for her, he thinks the deck just lacks too much raw power and CA. That tort of sounds tier 3 to me by his description.
As for what HolyDiva said---I don't agree with her that the deck is bad, but I do believe Jeskai Control players need to be wary of Tron, Titanshift and Dredge, these decks will definitely come for these players. If I played these decks I would be comfortable showing up to the next few Opens/GP/PT with these.
Regardless of the content of that article you can't really take Brian De Mars seriously, last week he made an article specifically stating that Storm is the best deck in the format, this week he states in bold "Modern doesn't have a best deck". Probably one of the, if not the worst content provider from CFB.
I think what he was saying about Storm is that it is probably the most powerful deck in a vaccum. Its the best game 1 deck for sure, and can win consistently on turn 3 with no interaction. Its sort of like ANT in Legacy. The deck can win on turn 1, consistently on turn 2 or 3, and is very resilient. However, neither Gifts Storm or Ad Nauseam Storm are the actual best decks in their formats because of interaction. While DeMars didnt actually say that, I think that he didn't fully go into detail on really why he said it, and this is just my theory on it, and the new article is pretty awesome
Last article of Brian DeMars on channelfireball about modern is very clear and a good summary of many things were said on this thread I think. I agree with almost all he wrote there.
I don't disagree with a lot of what he said, but he always comes off as so clickbaity. His articles tend to be framed in such a polarizing, all-or-nothing kind of way. I can't tell if it's just his writing style or if he's just doing it to cause a stir. But as we've talked about before, the content bar in Magic writing is pretty low and we regularly see unresearched, unsupported, unmeasured articles and claims by all kinds of authors. This isn't to say everyone needs to approach their articles like Frank Karsten. It just means we could use less Brennan DeCandio and Brian De Mars-styles of writing.
I will say that the "Frustrated Spike" archetype, even if it's an aggressive way of describing certain Modern critics, is fairly accurate in my experience. Like we've said in this thread for years (literally years, i.e. since January 2016), there is a subset of players who want a deck without bad matchups. They want their deck to be 50/50+ against everything, and are maybe comfortable with some 45/55s... but only as long as they can leverage their own skill and experience to eliminate those 45/55 matchups too. Unlike De Mars, however, I don't think this has to do with merely winning tournaments. I think this has to do with a psychological profile that many Magic players fit into, in which winning at this game becomes a personal validation of some inner narrative players hold about themselves. I don't think this is true of all Modern critics. But I do think it is at the core of many Modern criticisms if we unpack a few layers deeper. For example, blue mages who maintain "I don't care about winning or losing, I just want a viable blue deck that doesn't get crushed by ___ archetype" may unconsciously be fixating on blue decks because they are the kind of player who views mastery of mechanics and board state as a personal expression of worth. Not everyone fits here, but many more do than I think realize it.
To start testing this, I'd go to a giant event and ask people what deck they played, what kind of deck they would want to play in Modern in an ideal world, what Magic profile they think they fit in, and what they think their record should have been. Add in questions to assess their psychology around winning/losing/why they play. All questions would obviously be word-smithed beforehand. Then we could compare the record they want to the record they got. I suspect we would find Spikes disproportionately believe their record should have been better than what it was, and I also suspect that this would be even more acute among Spikes who want to play blue-based strategies.
EDIT: As further proof of all this, we see that most of the criticisms against his article read in that article a personal attack that needs to be defended. Rather than engage the arguments, which are totally engagable, they accuse Brian of condescension and personal attack. Almost as if "Frustrated Spike" is viewed as a personal attack.
I will say that the "Frustrated Spike" archetype, even if it's an aggressive way of describing certain Modern critics, is fairly accurate in my experience. Like we've said in this thread for years (literally years, i.e. since January 2016), there is a subset of players who want a deck without bad matchups. They want their deck to be 50/50+ against everything, and are maybe comfortable with some 45/55s... but only as long as they can leverage their own skill and experience to eliminate those 45/55 matchups too. Unlike De Mars, however, I don't think this has to do with merely winning tournaments. I think this has to do with a psychological profile that many Magic players fit into, in which winning at this game becomes a personal validation of some inner narrative players hold about themselves.
I don't understand why this is a bad thing.
For example, I'm currently playing Jeskai Geist and went 4-0 recently against two Jeskai Control decks, Jund, and Storm. Every single match was a test of skill and play sequencing. Tough but engaging games that were extremely rewarding and enjoyable for both players. It was a night that made me remember why I loved this format so much. But then a couple weeks later, I get matched up with two Tron decks, a Dredge deck, and UB Mill to finish at a predictable 1-3. Even my win against Mill was bland, boring, and empty. That was a night that reminded me why I hated this format so much. But that's variance for you.
I don't think it's petty or unreasonable to want your playskill and gameplay decisions to have a bigger impact in any given game (and not simply as an aggregate over hundreds of matches).
I literally barely cared about what I play on Wednesday because I felt it was more about the matchups. So I ran a deck (Abzan Company) that seemed poor against the decks I knew people were playing. Sure enough, I got roflstomped by GB Tron. The games were ... not close. But I lucksacked against RG Eldrazi, Storm, and Grixis Shadow. Do I feel that I outplayed my opponents? Certainly not. They drew like crap or pretty close to it. Did my Tron opponent outplay me? No, he found Oblivion Stone on turn 3 to use on turn 4, which I scooped with it on the stack.
This is just anecdotal evidence, but I can give these 4-5 times a week, as that's how often I'm currently playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
For example, I'm currently playing Jeskai Geist and went 4-0 recently against two Jeskai Control decks, Jund, and Storm. Every single match was a test of skill and play sequencing. Tough but engaging games that were extremely rewarding and enjoyable for both players. It was a night that made me remember why I loved this format so much. But then a couple weeks later, I get matched up with two Tron decks, a Dredge deck, and UB Mill to finish at a predictable 1-3. Even my win against Mill was bland, boring, and empty. That was a night that reminded me why I hated this format so much. But that's variance for you.
I don't think it's petty or unreasonable to want your playskill and gameplay decisions to have a bigger impact in any given game (and not simply as an aggregate over hundreds of matches).
Not to be a dick, but this argument would be much more compelling if you'd had comparable records both nights. It's easier to interpret games as tough, engaging, rewarding, and enjoyable when you win, and when you lose it's easy to get salty about the overall format. I'm certainly going through this with Legacy right now: I'm not enjoying the format, I'm also doing poorly, and I'm not sure which is the chicken or the egg.
I literally barely cared about what I play on Wednesday because I felt it was more about the matchups. So I ran a deck (Abzan Company) that seemed poor against the decks I knew people were playing. Sure enough, I got roflstomped by GB Tron. The games were ... not close. But I lucksacked against RG Eldrazi, Storm, and Grixis Shadow. Do I feel that I outplayed my opponents? Certainly not. They drew like crap or pretty close to it. Did my Tron opponent outplay me? No, he found Oblivion Stone on turn 3 to use on turn 4, which I scooped with it on the stack.
This is just anecdotal evidence, but I can give these 4-5 times a week, as that's how often I'm currently playing.
You picked a non-interactive deck and lost when your opponent interacted with you. It seems like what everyone wants so whats the problem?
I literally barely cared about what I play on Wednesday because I felt it was more about the matchups. So I ran a deck (Abzan Company) that seemed poor against the decks I knew people were playing. Sure enough, I got roflstomped by GB Tron. The games were ... not close. But I lucksacked against RG Eldrazi, Storm, and Grixis Shadow. Do I feel that I outplayed my opponents? Certainly not. They drew like crap or pretty close to it. Did my Tron opponent outplay me? No, he found Oblivion Stone on turn 3 to use on turn 4, which I scooped with it on the stack.
This is just anecdotal evidence, but I can give these 4-5 times a week, as that's how often I'm currently playing.
You picked a non-interactive deck and lost when your opponent interacted with you. It seems like what everyone wants so whats the problem?
If I chose an interactive deck, would I be guaranteed the 4-0?
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I will say that the "Frustrated Spike" archetype, even if it's an aggressive way of describing certain Modern critics, is fairly accurate in my experience. Like we've said in this thread for years (literally years, i.e. since January 2016), there is a subset of players who want a deck without bad matchups. They want their deck to be 50/50+ against everything, and are maybe comfortable with some 45/55s... but only as long as they can leverage their own skill and experience to eliminate those 45/55 matchups too. Unlike De Mars, however, I don't think this has to do with merely winning tournaments. I think this has to do with a psychological profile that many Magic players fit into, in which winning at this game becomes a personal validation of some inner narrative players hold about themselves.
I don't understand why this is a bad thing.
For example, I'm currently playing Jeskai Geist and went 4-0 recently against two Jeskai Control decks, Jund, and Storm. Every single match was a test of skill and play sequencing. Tough but engaging games that were extremely rewarding and enjoyable for both players. It was a night that made me remember why I loved this format so much. But then a couple weeks later, I get matched up with two Tron decks, a Dredge deck, and UB Mill to finish at a predictable 1-3. Even my win against Mill was bland, boring, and empty. That was a night that reminded me why I hated this format so much. But that's variance for you.
I don't think it's petty or unreasonable to want your playskill and gameplay decisions to have a bigger impact in any given game (and not simply as an aggregate over hundreds of matches).
It's a bad thing because that theoretical deck you described, and that many of these so-called "frustrated spikes" want, will inevitably become the best deck in the format. We've seen this happen. If there is a deck that has purely 51/49 or better matchups against everything, then there is little reason to play anything else. This deck is not happening again in Modern; Wizards has been extremely clear about that in the past. They don't even want this kind of deck in Standard, let alone Modern.
I also don't understand where people think this kind of deck actually exists AND is allowed by Wizards to exist. Do people think such a deck exists in Legacy? That's always the implication I hear. This is odd to me because the top Modern performance and top Legacy performances are basically identical by most metrics we can track, so clearly the alleged lack of such a deck in Modern isn't holding back good players. Such a deck did exist in Legacy (Miracles), but that deck lost a key card to bannings because it really was the best. This kind of deck definitely exists in Standard, but Standard is an awful mess that has seen multiple bannings because such decks defined the format all year.
I just don't think many of these critics know what they are asking for.
If I chose an interactive deck, would I be guaranteed the 4-0?
*Also, I have to at least laugh a little inside that Abzan Company is a non-interactive deck.
If you are guaranteed a 4-0 at any given event, the deck is broken and should be banned.
I just do not understand this logic or its underlying premises. It flatly does not consider the game from the opponent's perspective. Is everyone supposed to bring this deck that goes 4-0 at every/most events? What does that format look like where everyone is bringing the same crazy 4-0 deck? Seems like a picture of every horrible Modern/Standard that resulted in bans and unhappy players. Or is only the one skillful player supposed to discover and use this deck with no one else figuring it out? It just dones't make any sense.
I still believe the core of this for most players is that their winning is the most important thing and the implications for the wider format don't matter. And the reason I think they want to win regardless of the format cost is, among other reasons, because they exhibit this psychological profile where winning is a personal validation. This isn't true of all players who complain about these things. But I am sure we would find it is true of many, probably most, of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Spirits
You should have looked at them! Kevin Jones' list was 75 of the same 75 of Nikolich's list.
They have been diverse. Yes. (too diverse imo)
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)It's questionable how actionable data is from unified events. If a match features six decks (3v3) only two of those six decks can play Fatal Push or Scalding Tarn or whatever. I would think that skews the deck choices too much to be exceptionally worthwhile data points. Am I wrong?
You aren't wrong about unified events, which suck as datapoints. But team constructed has different rules and GP Santa Clara was team constructed, not unified.
It was a MAJOR mistake to start cramming in Ulamogs and Wurmcoils and cutting the Mindstones. When Musser made his worse version of E-Tron good for the mirror, the decks results drove off a cliff. I tried bringing this up in the community and they thought it was the superior version from when Todd Stevens championed the deck.
I think E-Tron players really screwed up. To be fair, I'm a part of their Facebook group and they as a whole make me cringe, they seem less aware of everything modern and common sense compared to here, reddit or the other Facebook groups.
Mardu is pretty good, I think it's under the radar, I absolutely have not been able to beat that deck at all with any form of GBx.
Holiday's 4C Shadow deck looked a little inbred, I doubt his list will be completely adopted but 4C may be the way to go if you aren't on the grixis plan.
I wouldn't pay attention to UW, that Jeskai Ben deck is where I'd look.
Dredge is like Affinity, it goes from godly to garbage.
The player that played UW "Gideon" in the Modern portion of the Santa Clara GP has played UW type decks at a top level for at least 15 years. He is a player local to me, but he gets around to a lot of different events, so he is not at 1 particular store any time of the week. He literally can win with a ham sandwich.
While I think that UW is solid, you really have to know your deck and get some luck go your way obviously (Modern, right?) to do super well with it.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I mean in order to do well in any format you need to really know your deck and have some luck go your way. Even if you had a 70% win chance against every opponent over 15 rounds that doesn't make an auto win to the end.
Yes, but my point (that I didn't express too well) is that he knows UW Control decks very well. Think of him as an advanced version of Corey Burkhart/Grixis Control. This player was also one of the very few players to beat me during Eldrazi Winter (I ran UR Eldrazi) with ... UW Control.
I also do realize that it being a team event, I'm not sure what his individual record was. I may ask him next time after I congratulate him on 2nd place.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Modern:
I think on a consistent level, Grixis Shadow is the best in the format. There's some moments where you can say X is a better deck for now, but for 2017 and so far in 2018, Grixis is the best deck. Look how many top 8's it continues to make. The deck just needs to actually take home more GP's before we can start comparing it to Twin.
Reid Duke stated that Jund isn't really playable on a competitive level in his article.
He seems to think BBE probably wouldn't be broken, but it would be very powerful and would kick the deck up a notch in raw power level. He seems to think it'd be a lot better due to Last Hope and K-Command, and would cut -1 Scooze, -1 Terminate to fit all 4 copies.
Kinda made me sad, not only does he feel the meta is wrong for her, he thinks the deck just lacks too much raw power and CA. That tort of sounds tier 3 to me by his description.
As for what HolyDiva said---I don't agree with her that the deck is bad, but I do believe Jeskai Control players need to be wary of Tron, Titanshift and Dredge, these decks will definitely come for these players. If I played these decks I would be comfortable showing up to the next few Opens/GP/PT with these.
I think what he was saying about Storm is that it is probably the most powerful deck in a vaccum. Its the best game 1 deck for sure, and can win consistently on turn 3 with no interaction. Its sort of like ANT in Legacy. The deck can win on turn 1, consistently on turn 2 or 3, and is very resilient. However, neither Gifts Storm or Ad Nauseam Storm are the actual best decks in their formats because of interaction. While DeMars didnt actually say that, I think that he didn't fully go into detail on really why he said it, and this is just my theory on it, and the new article is pretty awesome
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I don't disagree with a lot of what he said, but he always comes off as so clickbaity. His articles tend to be framed in such a polarizing, all-or-nothing kind of way. I can't tell if it's just his writing style or if he's just doing it to cause a stir. But as we've talked about before, the content bar in Magic writing is pretty low and we regularly see unresearched, unsupported, unmeasured articles and claims by all kinds of authors. This isn't to say everyone needs to approach their articles like Frank Karsten. It just means we could use less Brennan DeCandio and Brian De Mars-styles of writing.
I will say that the "Frustrated Spike" archetype, even if it's an aggressive way of describing certain Modern critics, is fairly accurate in my experience. Like we've said in this thread for years (literally years, i.e. since January 2016), there is a subset of players who want a deck without bad matchups. They want their deck to be 50/50+ against everything, and are maybe comfortable with some 45/55s... but only as long as they can leverage their own skill and experience to eliminate those 45/55 matchups too. Unlike De Mars, however, I don't think this has to do with merely winning tournaments. I think this has to do with a psychological profile that many Magic players fit into, in which winning at this game becomes a personal validation of some inner narrative players hold about themselves. I don't think this is true of all Modern critics. But I do think it is at the core of many Modern criticisms if we unpack a few layers deeper. For example, blue mages who maintain "I don't care about winning or losing, I just want a viable blue deck that doesn't get crushed by ___ archetype" may unconsciously be fixating on blue decks because they are the kind of player who views mastery of mechanics and board state as a personal expression of worth. Not everyone fits here, but many more do than I think realize it.
To start testing this, I'd go to a giant event and ask people what deck they played, what kind of deck they would want to play in Modern in an ideal world, what Magic profile they think they fit in, and what they think their record should have been. Add in questions to assess their psychology around winning/losing/why they play. All questions would obviously be word-smithed beforehand. Then we could compare the record they want to the record they got. I suspect we would find Spikes disproportionately believe their record should have been better than what it was, and I also suspect that this would be even more acute among Spikes who want to play blue-based strategies.
EDIT: As further proof of all this, we see that most of the criticisms against his article read in that article a personal attack that needs to be defended. Rather than engage the arguments, which are totally engagable, they accuse Brian of condescension and personal attack. Almost as if "Frustrated Spike" is viewed as a personal attack.
Modern
WUBRG
I dont think its all about the 'frustrated spike' I think its more 'No, I have my own valid reasons for not liking Modern, dont tell me what to like.'
Go back to the Dumpster Fire of Standard in that case...but whatever. Our bias' are noted here.
Spirits
I don't understand why this is a bad thing.
For example, I'm currently playing Jeskai Geist and went 4-0 recently against two Jeskai Control decks, Jund, and Storm. Every single match was a test of skill and play sequencing. Tough but engaging games that were extremely rewarding and enjoyable for both players. It was a night that made me remember why I loved this format so much. But then a couple weeks later, I get matched up with two Tron decks, a Dredge deck, and UB Mill to finish at a predictable 1-3. Even my win against Mill was bland, boring, and empty. That was a night that reminded me why I hated this format so much. But that's variance for you.
I don't think it's petty or unreasonable to want your playskill and gameplay decisions to have a bigger impact in any given game (and not simply as an aggregate over hundreds of matches).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I literally barely cared about what I play on Wednesday because I felt it was more about the matchups. So I ran a deck (Abzan Company) that seemed poor against the decks I knew people were playing. Sure enough, I got roflstomped by GB Tron. The games were ... not close. But I lucksacked against RG Eldrazi, Storm, and Grixis Shadow. Do I feel that I outplayed my opponents? Certainly not. They drew like crap or pretty close to it. Did my Tron opponent outplay me? No, he found Oblivion Stone on turn 3 to use on turn 4, which I scooped with it on the stack.
This is just anecdotal evidence, but I can give these 4-5 times a week, as that's how often I'm currently playing.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Not to be a dick, but this argument would be much more compelling if you'd had comparable records both nights. It's easier to interpret games as tough, engaging, rewarding, and enjoyable when you win, and when you lose it's easy to get salty about the overall format. I'm certainly going through this with Legacy right now: I'm not enjoying the format, I'm also doing poorly, and I'm not sure which is the chicken or the egg.
You picked a non-interactive deck and lost when your opponent interacted with you. It seems like what everyone wants so whats the problem?
If I chose an interactive deck, would I be guaranteed the 4-0?
*Also, I have to at least laugh a little inside that Abzan Company is a non-interactive deck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVSi3V0GGCA
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)It's a bad thing because that theoretical deck you described, and that many of these so-called "frustrated spikes" want, will inevitably become the best deck in the format. We've seen this happen. If there is a deck that has purely 51/49 or better matchups against everything, then there is little reason to play anything else. This deck is not happening again in Modern; Wizards has been extremely clear about that in the past. They don't even want this kind of deck in Standard, let alone Modern.
I also don't understand where people think this kind of deck actually exists AND is allowed by Wizards to exist. Do people think such a deck exists in Legacy? That's always the implication I hear. This is odd to me because the top Modern performance and top Legacy performances are basically identical by most metrics we can track, so clearly the alleged lack of such a deck in Modern isn't holding back good players. Such a deck did exist in Legacy (Miracles), but that deck lost a key card to bannings because it really was the best. This kind of deck definitely exists in Standard, but Standard is an awful mess that has seen multiple bannings because such decks defined the format all year.
I just don't think many of these critics know what they are asking for.
Spirits
If you are guaranteed a 4-0 at any given event, the deck is broken and should be banned.
I just do not understand this logic or its underlying premises. It flatly does not consider the game from the opponent's perspective. Is everyone supposed to bring this deck that goes 4-0 at every/most events? What does that format look like where everyone is bringing the same crazy 4-0 deck? Seems like a picture of every horrible Modern/Standard that resulted in bans and unhappy players. Or is only the one skillful player supposed to discover and use this deck with no one else figuring it out? It just dones't make any sense.
I still believe the core of this for most players is that their winning is the most important thing and the implications for the wider format don't matter. And the reason I think they want to win regardless of the format cost is, among other reasons, because they exhibit this psychological profile where winning is a personal validation. This isn't true of all players who complain about these things. But I am sure we would find it is true of many, probably most, of them.