PS: This post does not belong to me. It's taken by a reddit post(link HERE)
Comment: This is why I don't trust the previous reddit post - Modern metagame brekadown. It probably is not that much important. This picture taints a more linear metagame, a metagame I expect that will be the real deal in the next next PT. It's not that this breakdown totally sucks. After all, we can see UW Control, Jeskai Queller, Jund Midrange, Abzan Midrange(even BR midrange has a presence!) and Grixis/Jund DS decks having a good representation. It's just that the first 5 or 6 decks are ultra linear or kind of linear.
Modern analysis is so strange. Larger N samples, like the previous reddit post I linked, are routinely picked apart as not representative. Smaller N samples, like the one posted here, are routinely used to illustrate one problematic Modern phenomenon or another. This is particularly odd because the RPTQs were tiny. The average RPTQ attendance was 56. The largest RPTQ we have data for is Madrid with 106 players, which is smaller than every single SCG Modern Classic (not even Open) for basically all of 2017. There are all sorts of weird events that contribute to this too. For instance, the Lima RPTQ represents not one, not two, but THREE of the Titanshift lists and two of the Affinity lists. How many players were at Lima? 9 players.
That said, there is a reason to be worried about the RPTQ picture, but it isn't a reason I have read yet. Most of the reasons people give are the tired "too linear!" arguments we always here. The reason to be worried about the RPTQ picture: it is an invitation only event that probably approximates the PT metagame more than a general-public metagame. But, and here's the kicker, this should not affect most people in this thread. As far as I can tell, almost all of us play on MTGO or in local/regional events that are open to the public. If you're playing at that level, the reddit post I linked to above is more representative of what you will encounter. If you're at the PT, however, it might look more like this RPTQ picture, or a next-level evolution.
Of course, this can still lead to some worry about the PT for all of us even if we aren't playing. Why? Because a bad PT metagame might affect all of us by either a) influencing the general public metagame or b) affecting banlist policy. The former shouldn't be too worrisome. With the exception of Eldrazi Winter, most Modern PT metagames are not repeated in the following months. See the 2015 PT which was infested with Abzan, despite Abzan never being big thereafter. The latter could be worrisome, but again, it is a very specific worry that people are not articulating. Instead, they are more just generally worried about linear decks.
Overall, we need to be more specific and measured in our worry, avoiding the usual anti-Modern criticisms to draw out real format issues. It's okay to be worried about the RPTQ picture, but it needs to be for the right reasons.
When we have such a large card pool, being an eternal format, linear strategies are going to be prevalent. I think its just the way its going to be for Modern forever. The only reason control decks survive in Legacy is because of insanely powerful reactive control cards like Force of Will and Counterbalance. The car pools are just too big to cover everything, and even if we had something like Counterspell, I'm not sure if control would even be much more powerful than the current Jeskai lists are. There's a reason proactive cards like Inquisition of Kozilek and Thoughtseize are so good.
Must say it once again, this wasn’t the case when we had deck that curved Bolt into Remand into Exarch. That was ’the Force of Will of modern’. It wasn’t tier 0 deck.. people just lack imagination and couldn’t accept the fact that you will lose if you don’t interract. It was so much more interesting and entertaining than today’s who combos or aggros faster is the winner (read: who draws the most broken starting seven + three cards).
@GK: Not responding to most of your points because you're reading an attack/criticism that isn't there. We agree on most points. I think because I replied to your post, you assumed I was directing certain comments at you, and assumed they were "dismissing", when that is not the case. You just happened to be the first person to post about the consolidated RPTQ picture and I explained what is worrisome about it and what isn't. If you don't "trust" the other meta picture as you said, say why. I explained one reason to trust it and one reason not to, and didn't assume you believed either.
As for SFM, it remains more risky than BBE. As such, it is a less probable unban. Whatever risk you can ascribe to BBE, SFM has more risk based on both RPTQ and overall meta results. This hasn't changed in months and it's not "hasty" to say it. Unless you are suggesting that all unban/ban talk is "hasty" before the PT, in which case I guess I agree? But that also means we can't talk about the topic at all which we are all obviously doing, so it isn't a really helpful observation.
Huh, I forgot about Through the breach. I think I was thinking 5 drop creatures outside control builds as modern has a lot of 5 drop spells. As long as the card has an immediate impact on the field it usually is viable somewhere.
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!
When we have such a large card pool, being an eternal format, linear strategies are going to be prevalent. I think its just the way its going to be for Modern forever. The only reason control decks survive in Legacy is because of insanely powerful reactive control cards like Force of Will and Counterbalance. The car pools are just too big to cover everything, and even if we had something like Counterspell, I'm not sure if control would even be much more powerful than the current Jeskai lists are. There's a reason proactive cards like Inquisition of Kozilek and Thoughtseize are so good.
Must say it once again, this wasn’t the case when we had deck that curved Bolt into Remand into Exarch. That was ’the Force of Will of modern’. It wasn’t tier 0 deck.. people just lack imagination and couldn’t accept the fact that you will lose if you don’t interract. It was so much more interesting and entertaining than today’s who combos or aggros faster is the winner (read: who draws the most broken starting seven + three cards).
I dont really see how the prevalence of linear strategies were any less than when Splinter Twin was legal. Storm was tier 2 because it didn't have Baral, Chief of Compliance, Infect was tier 1 because of Gitaxian Probe. Scapeshift has always been a thing, and the control version was more popular earlier on. We went through broken combo decks like Bloom Titan being tier 1, and during the Treasure Cruise meta, we had Jeskai Ascendency combo. Meanwhile, Affinity has always been at the top since the beginning, and Tron has always been a thing, while not always tier 1, it isnt tier 1 now either.
Linear strategies have always been prevalent even with Splinter Twin. Thats why Thoughtseize decks have always been so good, even without Death's Shadow.
We are expressing opinions here, be them that Jeskai is tier 1 and super good or not tier 1 and not that good. It's not like we have influence or can affect the format in any way.
I'm guilty of expressing my views in dubious manners, but the views themselves we can express them without worry I assume.
What Sheridan probably means is that we should not rush making ban suggestions without any kind of proof, only based on our experience/thoughts.
For example, calling for a prior Shadow ban because that Jund Shadow deck is broken, like you insisted, only to find out a few months later that this particular deck is not even Tier 1, or calling for a multiple 5 cards banning of the top 5 Modern decks just because the meta is "stall" and "boring" or calling for a prior Storm ban without having the data to prove it indeed violates the turn 4 rule are some example of worrying stuff I have read from you.
This is a forum, and we are all free to express our opinions. But throughout the years, we all have read some pretty worrisome stuff(Tarmogoyf ban, Dispel ban, Coco Ban, Tron ban, Snapcaster Mage ban, multiple bannings, etc)
Which is why we should unban fair non linear cards like sfm jace and bbe.
linearity in modern will always be an issue unless we add very powerful nonlinear cards to balance things.
and if we never do, the problem will always remain, and people will keep asking for bans of powerful linear strategies. and they are fair in wanting bans if we dont make change.
I think there is some confusion about the effect of unbanning "fair" cards like BBE, SFM and Jace in an attempt to make fair strategies more prevalent. You have to think more than just "white isn't good enough so give it the most powerful white card" or "BBE is fair, and I want fair decks, specifically my pet deck jund to do well so unban it." You have to ask what decks will those cards be slotted into, what decks it will make stronger, which decks they are good against and will push out of the format and how many new strategies will be viable.
SFM - This card is good due to its interaction with batterskull which has vigilance, lifelink, 4/4 and is difficult to remove. Since batterskull is a house against control decks, fast aggro (due to lifelink vigilance), burn and midrange due to its difficulty to be removed. If you say that Kolligan's command will remove it so it isn't very good, that is an invalid argument since forcing decks to play one card, which requires two specific colors, to beat it is the very definition of format warping. I think we can expect the results of SFM being unbanned to increase the number of linear strategies since it is rather slow, reduce the amount of control, reduce the amount of burn and eliminate fast aggro strategies all due to its interaction with batterskull.
SFM p2 with swords - a deck playing 4 of SFM would likely also include some swords in the main or sideboard. This allows the deck to find the perfect card to destroy any decks that wins with attacking and blocking since the swords can absolutely destroy those decks assuming you can tutor up the correct sword for it.
I think with these assumptions, we would see mardu midrange essentially dominate all fair and aggro strategies with lingering souls, batterskull, sword package sideboard, SFM, k-command, and hand disruption to help against unfair decks. It would generally be weak against combo, so we would see either SFM decks or combo and that would be the entirety of modern.
I think there are are cards that are safe to unban for modern, which i won't discuss fully right now, but I think unbanning SFM would be horrible for the current modern environment. Just because it is used in control strategies in legacy does not mean that the card will make control t1 or it will even be slotted into control decks.
I think there is some confusion about the effect of unbanning "fair" cards like BBE, SFM and Jace in an attempt to make fair strategies more prevalent. You have to think more than just "white isn't good enough so give it the most powerful white card" or "BBE is fair, and I want fair decks, specifically my pet deck jund to do well so unban it." You have to ask what decks will those cards be slotted into, what decks it will make stronger, which decks they are good against and will push out of the format and how many new strategies will be viable.
SFM - This card is good due to its interaction with batterskull which has vigilance, lifelink, 4/4 and is difficult to remove. Since batterskull is a house against control decks, fast aggro (due to lifelink vigilance), burn and midrange due to its difficulty to be removed. If you say that Kolligan's command will remove it so it isn't very good, that is an invalid argument since forcing decks to play one card, which requires two specific colors, to beat it is the very definition of format warping. I think we can expect the results of SFM being unbanned to increase the number of linear strategies since it is rather slow, reduce the amount of control, reduce the amount of burn and eliminate fast aggro strategies all due to its interaction with batterskull.
SFM p2 with swords - a deck playing 4 of SFM would likely also include some swords in the main or sideboard. This allows the deck to find the perfect card to destroy any decks that wins with attacking and blocking since the swords can absolutely destroy those decks assuming you can tutor up the correct sword for it.
I think with these assumptions, we would see mardu midrange essentially dominate all fair and aggro strategies with lingering souls, batterskull, sword package sideboard, SFM, k-command, and hand disruption to help against unfair decks. It would generally be weak against combo, so we would see either SFM decks or combo and that would be the entirety of modern.
I think there are are cards that are safe to unban for modern, which i won't discuss fully right now, but I think unbanning SFM would be horrible for the current modern environment. Just because it is used in control strategies in legacy does not mean that the card will make control t1 or it will even be slotted into control decks.
These aren't bad points, but the obvious counter-argument is that we already know Wizards is considering at least one unban per their last update. So if Wizards is talking about unbans, it's up to us to figure out which unban is most likely. Or maybe it's unbans (plural) they are considering. We don't know. We do know that Wizards has banned more than they unban, which suggests they are more conservative with unbans than bans. It also suggests they are very risk averse when it comes unbans. Wizards has never unbanned a T4 rule violator, and most of their unbans have been on fairer control cards (BB, Sword, AV). This suggests Wizards will follow a similar pattern in this coming unban (after the PT), which means cards like SFM, BBE, and Jace are more likely.
I think there is some confusion about the effect of unbanning "fair" cards like BBE, SFM and Jace in an attempt to make fair strategies more prevalent. You have to think more than just "white isn't good enough so give it the most powerful white card" or "BBE is fair, and I want fair decks, specifically my pet deck jund to do well so unban it." You have to ask what decks will those cards be slotted into, what decks it will make stronger, which decks they are good against and will push out of the format and how many new strategies will be viable.
SFM - This card is good due to its interaction with batterskull which has vigilance, lifelink, 4/4 and is difficult to remove. Since batterskull is a house against control decks, fast aggro (due to lifelink vigilance), burn and midrange due to its difficulty to be removed. If you say that Kolligan's command will remove it so it isn't very good, that is an invalid argument since forcing decks to play one card, which requires two specific colors, to beat it is the very definition of format warping. I think we can expect the results of SFM being unbanned to increase the number of linear strategies since it is rather slow, reduce the amount of control, reduce the amount of burn and eliminate fast aggro strategies all due to its interaction with batterskull.
SFM p2 with swords - a deck playing 4 of SFM would likely also include some swords in the main or sideboard. This allows the deck to find the perfect card to destroy any decks that wins with attacking and blocking since the swords can absolutely destroy those decks assuming you can tutor up the correct sword for it.
I think with these assumptions, we would see mardu midrange essentially dominate all fair and aggro strategies with lingering souls, batterskull, sword package sideboard, SFM, k-command, and hand disruption to help against unfair decks. It would generally be weak against combo, so we would see either SFM decks or combo and that would be the entirety of modern.
I think there are are cards that are safe to unban for modern, which i won't discuss fully right now, but I think unbanning SFM would be horrible for the current modern environment. Just because it is used in control strategies in legacy does not mean that the card will make control t1 or it will even be slotted into control decks.
Well, SFM is probably too good for modern, but I think BBE isnt anywhere near that level. However unbanning BBE wouldnt change much. Maybe make Jund better, but thats like 1 deck
I think there is some confusion about the effect of unbanning "fair" cards like BBE, SFM and Jace in an attempt to make fair strategies more prevalent. You have to think more than just "white isn't good enough so give it the most powerful white card" or "BBE is fair, and I want fair decks, specifically my pet deck jund to do well so unban it." You have to ask what decks will those cards be slotted into, what decks it will make stronger, which decks they are good against and will push out of the format and how many new strategies will be viable.
SFM - This card is good due to its interaction with batterskull which has vigilance, lifelink, 4/4 and is difficult to remove. Since batterskull is a house against control decks, fast aggro (due to lifelink vigilance), burn and midrange due to its difficulty to be removed. If you say that Kolligan's command will remove it so it isn't very good, that is an invalid argument since forcing decks to play one card, which requires two specific colors, to beat it is the very definition of format warping. I think we can expect the results of SFM being unbanned to increase the number of linear strategies since it is rather slow, reduce the amount of control, reduce the amount of burn and eliminate fast aggro strategies all due to its interaction with batterskull.
SFM p2 with swords - a deck playing 4 of SFM would likely also include some swords in the main or sideboard. This allows the deck to find the perfect card to destroy any decks that wins with attacking and blocking since the swords can absolutely destroy those decks assuming you can tutor up the correct sword for it.
I think with these assumptions, we would see mardu midrange essentially dominate all fair and aggro strategies with lingering souls, batterskull, sword package sideboard, SFM, k-command, and hand disruption to help against unfair decks. It would generally be weak against combo, so we would see either SFM decks or combo and that would be the entirety of modern.
I think there are are cards that are safe to unban for modern, which i won't discuss fully right now, but I think unbanning SFM would be horrible for the current modern environment. Just because it is used in control strategies in legacy does not mean that the card will make control t1 or it will even be slotted into control decks.
Well, SFM is probably too good for modern, but I think BBE isnt anywhere near that level. However unbanning BBE wouldnt change much. Maybe make Jund better, but thats like 1 deck
Although it doesn't mean much my local lgs recently had an sfm legal event to see how well it does. surprisingly it wasn't all that bad. it made uwr flash real solid and helped abzan decks. But regardless etron and valakut won the event, burn did decent, and affinity did horrible with all of the artifact hate around. which shows to me how the card can be policed.
I think people fear monger too much in regards to unbans. especially with ones which have never seen play in modern, even pros cant predict this. I think all 3 cards should get a chance.
It is a pretty low sample size, but that local tournament proved my point exactly. SFM helps mid-range decks against fast and fair decks, but not combo or ones that go way over the top. As a result, SFM would push low to the ground or control decks even further out of the meta making combo and unfair decks even stronger. The fact that Tron and Valakut won is exactly what we would see have a large uptick in the meta share as a result. I would also guess storm would become even more amazing since it is good against tron, valakut and SFM is bad against it. So it is about which strategies will become strong or viable afterward and is that a meta you want.
I think there is some confusion about the effect of unbanning "fair" cards like BBE, SFM and Jace in an attempt to make fair strategies more prevalent. You have to think more than just "white isn't good enough so give it the most powerful white card" or "BBE is fair, and I want fair decks, specifically my pet deck jund to do well so unban it." You have to ask what decks will those cards be slotted into, what decks it will make stronger, which decks they are good against and will push out of the format and how many new strategies will be viable.
SFM - This card is good due to its interaction with batterskull which has vigilance, lifelink, 4/4 and is difficult to remove. Since batterskull is a house against control decks, fast aggro (due to lifelink vigilance), burn and midrange due to its difficulty to be removed. If you say that Kolligan's command will remove it so it isn't very good, that is an invalid argument since forcing decks to play one card, which requires two specific colors, to beat it is the very definition of format warping. I think we can expect the results of SFM being unbanned to increase the number of linear strategies since it is rather slow, reduce the amount of control, reduce the amount of burn and eliminate fast aggro strategies all due to its interaction with batterskull.
SFM p2 with swords - a deck playing 4 of SFM would likely also include some swords in the main or sideboard. This allows the deck to find the perfect card to destroy any decks that wins with attacking and blocking since the swords can absolutely destroy those decks assuming you can tutor up the correct sword for it.
I think with these assumptions, we would see mardu midrange essentially dominate all fair and aggro strategies with lingering souls, batterskull, sword package sideboard, SFM, k-command, and hand disruption to help against unfair decks. It would generally be weak against combo, so we would see either SFM decks or combo and that would be the entirety of modern.
I think there are are cards that are safe to unban for modern, which i won't discuss fully right now, but I think unbanning SFM would be horrible for the current modern environment. Just because it is used in control strategies in legacy does not mean that the card will make control t1 or it will even be slotted into control decks.
Well, SFM is probably too good for modern, but I think BBE isnt anywhere near that level. However unbanning BBE wouldnt change much. Maybe make Jund better, but thats like 1 deck
Although it doesn't mean much my local lgs recently had an sfm legal event to see how well it does. surprisingly it wasn't all that bad. it made uwr flash real solid and helped abzan decks. But regardless etron and valakut won the event, burn did decent, and affinity did horrible with all of the artifact hate around. which shows to me how the card can be policed.
I think people fear monger too much in regards to unbans. especially with ones which have never seen play in modern, even pros cant predict this. I think all 3 cards should get a chance.
As Monti explained, SFM will warp the format. By itself, yes it has answers, but it is too good vs non linear non combo decks, that it will make linear decks more prevalent.
However, I'm not full against unbanning SFM, i think that we would need to unban other cards along with it so that the format would be a better place with it than without it. Im usually against banning of cards in general
I think there is some confusion about the effect of unbanning "fair" cards like BBE, SFM and Jace in an attempt to make fair strategies more prevalent. You have to think more than just "white isn't good enough so give it the most powerful white card" or "BBE is fair, and I want fair decks, specifically my pet deck jund to do well so unban it." You have to ask what decks will those cards be slotted into, what decks it will make stronger, which decks they are good against and will push out of the format and how many new strategies will be viable.
SFM - This card is good due to its interaction with batterskull which has vigilance, lifelink, 4/4 and is difficult to remove. Since batterskull is a house against control decks, fast aggro (due to lifelink vigilance), burn and midrange due to its difficulty to be removed. If you say that Kolligan's command will remove it so it isn't very good, that is an invalid argument since forcing decks to play one card, which requires two specific colors, to beat it is the very definition of format warping. I think we can expect the results of SFM being unbanned to increase the number of linear strategies since it is rather slow, reduce the amount of control, reduce the amount of burn and eliminate fast aggro strategies all due to its interaction with batterskull.
SFM p2 with swords - a deck playing 4 of SFM would likely also include some swords in the main or sideboard. This allows the deck to find the perfect card to destroy any decks that wins with attacking and blocking since the swords can absolutely destroy those decks assuming you can tutor up the correct sword for it.
I think with these assumptions, we would see mardu midrange essentially dominate all fair and aggro strategies with lingering souls, batterskull, sword package sideboard, SFM, k-command, and hand disruption to help against unfair decks. It would generally be weak against combo, so we would see either SFM decks or combo and that would be the entirety of modern.
I think there are are cards that are safe to unban for modern, which i won't discuss fully right now, but I think unbanning SFM would be horrible for the current modern environment. Just because it is used in control strategies in legacy does not mean that the card will make control t1 or it will even be slotted into control decks.
Well, SFM is probably too good for modern, but I think BBE isnt anywhere near that level. However unbanning BBE wouldnt change much. Maybe make Jund better, but thats like 1 deck
Although it doesn't mean much my local lgs recently had an sfm legal event to see how well it does. surprisingly it wasn't all that bad. it made uwr flash real solid and helped abzan decks. But regardless etron and valakut won the event, burn did decent, and affinity did horrible with all of the artifact hate around. which shows to me how the card can be policed.
I think people fear monger too much in regards to unbans. especially with ones which have never seen play in modern, even pros cant predict this. I think all 3 cards should get a chance.
As Monti explained, SFM will warp the format. By itself, yes it has answers, but it is too good vs non linear non combo decks, that it will make linear decks more prevalent.
However, I'm not full against unbanning SFM, i think that we would need to unban other cards along with it so that the format would be a better place with it than without it. Im usually against banning of cards in general
the sfm decks did decent vs affinity humans burn and storm. but got mostly beaten by eldrazi and tron variants (even though it was closer than it was before we used sfm). after sideboard valakut decks did better vs sfm.
so the only thing we really witnessed is how sfm improved the chosen decks across the board. which seems even more reason to unban it.
this is why if combined with a bbe and jace unban, there will be more incentive to play a non sfm deck.
It is a pretty low sample size, but that local tournament proved my point exactly. SFM helps mid-range decks against fast and fair decks, but not combo or ones that go way over the top. As a result, SFM would push low to the ground or control decks even further out of the meta making combo and unfair decks even stronger. The fact that Tron and Valakut won is exactly what we would see have a large uptick in the meta share as a result. I would also guess storm would become even more amazing since it is good against tron, valakut and SFM is bad against it. So it is about which strategies will become strong or viable afterward and is that a meta you want.
As opposed to the metagame over the last several months where Tron and Titanshift had only minuscule shares of the meta. Wait a minute...
Regarding Bloodbraid elf: I agree that an unban is probably safe, but people are mis-stating what it does IMO. It's not like collected company. It really goes in a completely different deck.
1. (Small Benefit): Collected company doesn't fix your draw statistically. Because you look at the top 6 and move to the next randomized part of your deck, whereas cascade removes lands until you hit a spell. This lowers the volatility of your deck by putting more lands on the bottom.
2. (Large Benefit): You can cascade into anything. Hit a Lili? great play it. Terminate? sure. Coco decks must run 28 creatures to function properly, which is a huge deckbuilding constraint. If CoCo said "2 spells" instead of "2 creature spells" it would be comparable to BBE, but also instabanned.
Again, I'm fine with a BBE unban; I'm just annoyed at all the "it's worse collected company" stuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UWUW ControlUW UGWSpiritsUGW GHardened ScalesG WGRUKiki PodWGRU [RIP]
Bbe isnt worse than company, its just very very comparable and not likely much better or worse either way.
You list these pros and omit the cons - a 3/2 haste is a hot pile of garbage on its own and thats always one of the two cards you get with bbe. Sure sometimes coco is a bird and something, but most of the time both cards you company into are stronger than a 3/2 haste.
Which brings us to another omission: company gives you choices. Dont need spell queller? Take the knight. Dont need geist? Take the goyf. Unless you are chaining serum visions bbe is a pure crapshoot with no selection, and while it technically always hits something there are plenty of times a push or inquisition will be dead.
Deckbuilding constraints? Bbe needs 2 colours coco 1. Coco needs tonnes of creatures, but bbe sucks with situational cards like counterspells. Bbe presents two things to counter - but at sorcery speed. Bbe can be caverned (who cares) or vial'd. Bbe into ewit doesnt give you 2 more free dudes right away. Etc etc.
The pros and cons are more or less a wash. The cards do very similar things as 4 mana 2-for-1s with some deckbuilding constraints and some variance.
Everyone sees bbe going into jund, and I just ask is a 3/2 haste really going to push that deck over the edge? Come on. This is modern, not fnm draft.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
Does anyone think that if Wizards were to take modern out of the PT again it would impact the meta? Also, as far as BBE unbanning goes, my thought is that the only way Wizards unbans it is if they think it's a safe unban. Given the last time they unbanned something (Sword of the Meek and Golgari Grave-troll) safe basically translated to one card not having much of an impact at all and another reviving dredge. I'd like to see more powerful spell magic make a return, but given the only one I can think of is Dread Return or Punishing Fire, I think that idea may be a hard pass. I don't think Punishing Fire would be as bad in the current meta as it was when it first was a menace, though.
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!
The BBE discussion, especially the portion that automatically assumes BBE will be in Jund, doesn't take into consideration that a very important card gained Modern Legality between BBE's banning and today: Ancestral Vision.
BBE into AV is of course not going to be automatic, but Temur with BBE, AV, Blood Moons and Stone Rains is not hard to imagine. That's just the ponza based idea. One could also play other value cards/above the curve cards such as Lead the Stampede, Savage Knuckleblade, Eternal Witness, Coiling Oracle, Electrolyze and so on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
\I don't think Punishing Fire would be as bad in the current meta as it was when it first was a menace, though.
Fatal Push AND punishing fire? Sure. Why play decks like Death and Taxes, Abzan Company, Affnity or Merfolk anymore? There really is no reason at all.
Not that Wizards gives a flip about the secondary market, but the return of Punishing Fire would spike the already high price of Grove of the Burnwillows even further.
\I don't think Punishing Fire would be as bad in the current meta as it was when it first was a menace, though.
Fatal Push AND punishing fire? Sure. Why play decks like Death and Taxes, Abzan Company, Affnity or Merfolk anymore? There really is no reason at all.
Not that Wizards gives a flip about the secondary market, but the return of Punishing Fire would spike the already high price of Grove of the Burnwillows even further.
Punishing Fire seems like a risky unban to say the least. However, regarding this comment, I don't think $13 is really all that high (though I agree it would certainly go higher if Punishing Fire was unbanned).
\I don't think Punishing Fire would be as bad in the current meta as it was when it first was a menace, though.
Fatal Push AND punishing fire? Sure. Why play decks like Death and Taxes, Abzan Company, Affnity or Merfolk anymore? There really is no reason at all.
Not that Wizards gives a flip about the secondary market, but the return of Punishing Fire would spike the already high price of Grove of the Burnwillows even further.
Punishing Fire seems like a risky unban to say the least. However, regarding this comment, I don't think $13 is really all that high (though I agree it would certainly go higher if Punishing Fire was unbanned).
Ah, I've misspoken, I was looking at the price of a Future Sight Grove. Even so, Punishing Fire is way riskier to unban than Jace, BBE, and SFM. Not sure what kind of Modern would have to exist for it to be a safer unban.
When we have such a large card pool, being an eternal format, linear strategies are going to be prevalent. I think its just the way its going to be for Modern forever. The only reason control decks survive in Legacy is because of insanely powerful reactive control cards like Force of Will and Counterbalance. The car pools are just too big to cover everything, and even if we had something like Counterspell, I'm not sure if control would even be much more powerful than the current Jeskai lists are. There's a reason proactive cards like Inquisition of Kozilek and Thoughtseize are so good.
Must say it once again, this wasn’t the case when we had deck that curved Bolt into Remand into Exarch. That was ’the Force of Will of modern’. It wasn’t tier 0 deck.. people just lack imagination and couldn’t accept the fact that you will lose if you don’t interract. It was so much more interesting and entertaining than today’s who combos or aggros faster is the winner (read: who draws the most broken starting seven + three cards).
I dont really see how the prevalence of linear strategies were any less than when Splinter Twin was legal. Storm was tier 2 because it didn't have Baral, Chief of Compliance, Infect was tier 1 because of Gitaxian Probe. Scapeshift has always been a thing, and the control version was more popular earlier on. We went through broken combo decks like Bloom Titan being tier 1, and during the Treasure Cruise meta, we had Jeskai Ascendency combo. Meanwhile, Affinity has always been at the top since the beginning, and Tron has always been a thing, while not always tier 1, it isnt tier 1 now either.
Linear strategies have always been prevalent even with Splinter Twin. Thats why Thoughtseize decks have always been so good, even without Death's Shadow.
Well this is true but those deck were not like 30% of the whole meta game back in that era. Storm would have not stand a chance versus Twin, it didn't have it back then and it would not have it now, both are turn four combo decks meanwhile other runs three Remands and couple of Bolts (which doesn't even do anything) and other runs like 10 permission cards + Bolts. Storm wasn't that good back then because it was inconsistent and too fair.
Decks those try to interact the stack have been so bad after that red aura got banned because there is not really a reward for keeping opponent doing degenerate things - they will just do it again in their next turn if you can't close the game. You could just pick up that deck if you wanted to punish non-interactive strategies hard and it was something I liked. Infect was also an ok deck but definitely not a tier 1, blue Scapeshift was tier 1 for sure because Twin made meta slow down so Remands and Cryptics were actually good cards. Cruise was a misprint and it was all about Delver anyway (enjoyed that meta also quite much).
Death's Shadow got its power spike from Fatal Push tho, just like blue based decks would go rampant with printing of a Spell Snare that would say "Counter target spell with converted mana cost two or less".
Things have changed lot since those days and even the decks Twin kept of the format are pretty much unplayable now (GR Scapeshift being an exception). I chose to play Twin because I refused to lose almost any kind of linear timmy aggro/combo played by bad players. Those decks are pretty much gone now and replaced by better and more powerful same kind of decks which even Twin would not defeat. It was actually very hard and also rewarding to achieve a placement in a top 8 of bigger local tournaments back then. Now those tournament top tables are filled with random people playing random linear garbage - meanwhile some of them have played format for like couple of weeks.
\I don't think Punishing Fire would be as bad in the current meta as it was when it first was a menace, though.
Fatal Push AND punishing fire? Sure. Why play decks like Death and Taxes, Abzan Company, Affnity or Merfolk anymore? There really is no reason at all.
Oh, I said it was (probably) a hard pass on unbanning any of the spells on that ban list. I love punishing fire as a casual player, but stick that in a tournament and now we just have the three ring circus with the clown cars coming in. At this point, though, we're already at a point where 2 toughness creatures are being suppressed and creatures with mana costs 2 or less are being suppressed. Throwing punishing fire into the mix is going to be like throwing a couple of marshmallows on an already stacked sunday. It doesn't even matter that it's repeatable anymore, really. (Coming from someone who has been playing punishing fire with grove in 60 card casual for the last two years).
Also, fun fact: Wild Nacatl and Punishing Fire were both banned in the same banning announcement of 2011. At the time they were worried about the prevailence of zoo. Wow have we come a long way...
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!
The BBE discussion, especially the portion that automatically assumes BBE will be in Jund, doesn't take into consideration that a very important card gained Modern Legality between BBE's banning and today: Ancestral Vision.
BBE into AV is of course not going to be automatic, but Temur with BBE, AV, Blood Moons and Stone Rains is not hard to imagine. That's just the ponza based idea. One could also play other value cards/above the curve cards such as Lead the Stampede, Savage Knuckleblade, Eternal Witness, Coiling Oracle, Electrolyze and so on.
Temur isn't a real archetype as this time in modern. There's some lists that pop up here and there, but I'd probably classify it as tier 4 currently?
We learned that AV was too slow in modern, correct? There will be some sweet moments where BBE will flip AV, but there will be times where it really draws nothing great either.
Maybe a deck with blood moon that is more viable than Ponza will help out the format as a whole and stop all these greedy mana bases.
Temur isn't anywhere near established to worry about when it does manage to flip an AV
When we have such a large card pool, being an eternal format, linear strategies are going to be prevalent. I think its just the way its going to be for Modern forever. The only reason control decks survive in Legacy is because of insanely powerful reactive control cards like Force of Will and Counterbalance. The car pools are just too big to cover everything, and even if we had something like Counterspell, I'm not sure if control would even be much more powerful than the current Jeskai lists are. There's a reason proactive cards like Inquisition of Kozilek and Thoughtseize are so good.
Must say it once again, this wasn’t the case when we had deck that curved Bolt into Remand into Exarch. That was ’the Force of Will of modern’. It wasn’t tier 0 deck.. people just lack imagination and couldn’t accept the fact that you will lose if you don’t interract. It was so much more interesting and entertaining than today’s who combos or aggros faster is the winner (read: who draws the most broken starting seven + three cards).
I dont really see how the prevalence of linear strategies were any less than when Splinter Twin was legal. Storm was tier 2 because it didn't have Baral, Chief of Compliance, Infect was tier 1 because of Gitaxian Probe. Scapeshift has always been a thing, and the control version was more popular earlier on. We went through broken combo decks like Bloom Titan being tier 1, and during the Treasure Cruise meta, we had Jeskai Ascendency combo. Meanwhile, Affinity has always been at the top since the beginning, and Tron has always been a thing, while not always tier 1, it isnt tier 1 now either.
Linear strategies have always been prevalent even with Splinter Twin. Thats why Thoughtseize decks have always been so good, even without Death's Shadow.
Well this is true but those deck were not like 30% of the whole meta game back in that era. Storm would have not stand a chance versus Twin, it didn't have it back then and it would not have it now, both are turn four combo decks meanwhile other runs three Remands and couple of Bolts (which doesn't even do anything) and other runs like 10 permission cards + Bolts. Storm wasn't that good back then because it was inconsistent and too fair.
Decks those try to interact the stack have been so bad after that red aura got banned because there is not really a reward for keeping opponent doing degenerate things - they will just do it again in their next turn if you can't close the game. You could just pick up that deck if you wanted to punish non-interactive strategies hard and it was something I liked. Infect was also an ok deck but definitely not a tier 1, blue Scapeshift was tier 1 for sure because Twin made meta slow down so Remands and Cryptics were actually good cards. Cruise was a misprint and it was all about Delver anyway (enjoyed that meta also quite much).
Death's Shadow got its power spike from Fatal Push tho, just like blue based decks would go rampant with printing of a Spell Snare that would say "Counter target spell with converted mana cost two or less".
Things have changed lot since those days and even the decks Twin kept of the format are pretty much unplayable now (GR Scapeshift being an exception). I chose to play Twin because I refused to lose almost any kind of linear timmy aggro/combo played by bad players. Those decks are pretty much gone now and replaced by better and more powerful same kind of decks which even Twin would not defeat. It was actually very hard and also rewarding to achieve a placement in a top 8 of bigger local tournaments back then. Now those tournament top tables are filled with random people playing random linear garbage - meanwhile some of them have played format for like couple of weeks.
Forgive me the grammatical errors
A couple things I want to comment on.
First, I'm not sure if it really is 30% of the meta. Looking at the previously posted list plus the online meta from MTG Goldfish, there is still a lot of non linear strategies, but I'm too lazy to do the actual math to see what percentage is really the meta share of these decks (also are we counting Affinity?).
Secondly, Infect was either tier 1 or close to it even when Splinter Twin was legal at a time. http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=9064&d=251646 Pro tour Fate reforged, while not a good indicator of the general meta, Infect was considered a very good deck, and after this tourney the deck's popularity surged, and yes, it could beat twin.
Lastly, your comment on bad players playing aggro/combo decks. Affinity and Storm are very hard decks to pilot. Maybe some sort of Zoo deck would be considered an "easy deck," but most of the tier 1 combo/aggro decks, especially affinity and storm, are just as hard or harder to piolt as any other deck.
Just because classic style control, draw-go, or Cryptic Command style decks are't that prevalent (even though Jeskai tempo/control is very good at the moment), doesnt mean other control/ tempo decks exist. The reason why Splinter Twin was a policing deck was because it did what all the other non linear strategies try and do just with a very good control/tempo style it could execute on turns 1-3. However, as time goes on and more cards are released, there is the inevitability that combo decks will arise or become more powerful.
So my conclusion is this: Can we really say that there is much more degenerative and liner decks in the meta now than there was when Twin was legal? And if we do, is it because Twin is gone, or is it caused by other reasons, like more cards being printed?
Modern analysis is so strange. Larger N samples, like the previous reddit post I linked, are routinely picked apart as not representative. Smaller N samples, like the one posted here, are routinely used to illustrate one problematic Modern phenomenon or another. This is particularly odd because the RPTQs were tiny. The average RPTQ attendance was 56. The largest RPTQ we have data for is Madrid with 106 players, which is smaller than every single SCG Modern Classic (not even Open) for basically all of 2017. There are all sorts of weird events that contribute to this too. For instance, the Lima RPTQ represents not one, not two, but THREE of the Titanshift lists and two of the Affinity lists. How many players were at Lima? 9 players.
That said, there is a reason to be worried about the RPTQ picture, but it isn't a reason I have read yet. Most of the reasons people give are the tired "too linear!" arguments we always here. The reason to be worried about the RPTQ picture: it is an invitation only event that probably approximates the PT metagame more than a general-public metagame. But, and here's the kicker, this should not affect most people in this thread. As far as I can tell, almost all of us play on MTGO or in local/regional events that are open to the public. If you're playing at that level, the reddit post I linked to above is more representative of what you will encounter. If you're at the PT, however, it might look more like this RPTQ picture, or a next-level evolution.
Of course, this can still lead to some worry about the PT for all of us even if we aren't playing. Why? Because a bad PT metagame might affect all of us by either a) influencing the general public metagame or b) affecting banlist policy. The former shouldn't be too worrisome. With the exception of Eldrazi Winter, most Modern PT metagames are not repeated in the following months. See the 2015 PT which was infested with Abzan, despite Abzan never being big thereafter. The latter could be worrisome, but again, it is a very specific worry that people are not articulating. Instead, they are more just generally worried about linear decks.
Overall, we need to be more specific and measured in our worry, avoiding the usual anti-Modern criticisms to draw out real format issues. It's okay to be worried about the RPTQ picture, but it needs to be for the right reasons.
Must say it once again, this wasn’t the case when we had deck that curved Bolt into Remand into Exarch. That was ’the Force of Will of modern’. It wasn’t tier 0 deck.. people just lack imagination and couldn’t accept the fact that you will lose if you don’t interract. It was so much more interesting and entertaining than today’s who combos or aggros faster is the winner (read: who draws the most broken starting seven + three cards).
Modern
WUBRG
As for SFM, it remains more risky than BBE. As such, it is a less probable unban. Whatever risk you can ascribe to BBE, SFM has more risk based on both RPTQ and overall meta results. This hasn't changed in months and it's not "hasty" to say it. Unless you are suggesting that all unban/ban talk is "hasty" before the PT, in which case I guess I agree? But that also means we can't talk about the topic at all which we are all obviously doing, so it isn't a really helpful observation.
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!
I dont really see how the prevalence of linear strategies were any less than when Splinter Twin was legal. Storm was tier 2 because it didn't have Baral, Chief of Compliance, Infect was tier 1 because of Gitaxian Probe. Scapeshift has always been a thing, and the control version was more popular earlier on. We went through broken combo decks like Bloom Titan being tier 1, and during the Treasure Cruise meta, we had Jeskai Ascendency combo. Meanwhile, Affinity has always been at the top since the beginning, and Tron has always been a thing, while not always tier 1, it isnt tier 1 now either.
Linear strategies have always been prevalent even with Splinter Twin. Thats why Thoughtseize decks have always been so good, even without Death's Shadow.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
linearity in modern will always be an issue unless we add very powerful nonlinear cards to balance things.
and if we never do, the problem will always remain, and people will keep asking for bans of powerful linear strategies. and they are fair in wanting bans if we dont make change.
SFM - This card is good due to its interaction with batterskull which has vigilance, lifelink, 4/4 and is difficult to remove. Since batterskull is a house against control decks, fast aggro (due to lifelink vigilance), burn and midrange due to its difficulty to be removed. If you say that Kolligan's command will remove it so it isn't very good, that is an invalid argument since forcing decks to play one card, which requires two specific colors, to beat it is the very definition of format warping. I think we can expect the results of SFM being unbanned to increase the number of linear strategies since it is rather slow, reduce the amount of control, reduce the amount of burn and eliminate fast aggro strategies all due to its interaction with batterskull.
SFM p2 with swords - a deck playing 4 of SFM would likely also include some swords in the main or sideboard. This allows the deck to find the perfect card to destroy any decks that wins with attacking and blocking since the swords can absolutely destroy those decks assuming you can tutor up the correct sword for it.
I think with these assumptions, we would see mardu midrange essentially dominate all fair and aggro strategies with lingering souls, batterskull, sword package sideboard, SFM, k-command, and hand disruption to help against unfair decks. It would generally be weak against combo, so we would see either SFM decks or combo and that would be the entirety of modern.
I think there are are cards that are safe to unban for modern, which i won't discuss fully right now, but I think unbanning SFM would be horrible for the current modern environment. Just because it is used in control strategies in legacy does not mean that the card will make control t1 or it will even be slotted into control decks.
These aren't bad points, but the obvious counter-argument is that we already know Wizards is considering at least one unban per their last update. So if Wizards is talking about unbans, it's up to us to figure out which unban is most likely. Or maybe it's unbans (plural) they are considering. We don't know. We do know that Wizards has banned more than they unban, which suggests they are more conservative with unbans than bans. It also suggests they are very risk averse when it comes unbans. Wizards has never unbanned a T4 rule violator, and most of their unbans have been on fairer control cards (BB, Sword, AV). This suggests Wizards will follow a similar pattern in this coming unban (after the PT), which means cards like SFM, BBE, and Jace are more likely.
Well, SFM is probably too good for modern, but I think BBE isnt anywhere near that level. However unbanning BBE wouldnt change much. Maybe make Jund better, but thats like 1 deck
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I think people fear monger too much in regards to unbans. especially with ones which have never seen play in modern, even pros cant predict this. I think all 3 cards should get a chance.
As Monti explained, SFM will warp the format. By itself, yes it has answers, but it is too good vs non linear non combo decks, that it will make linear decks more prevalent.
However, I'm not full against unbanning SFM, i think that we would need to unban other cards along with it so that the format would be a better place with it than without it. Im usually against banning of cards in general
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
the sfm decks did decent vs affinity humans burn and storm. but got mostly beaten by eldrazi and tron variants (even though it was closer than it was before we used sfm). after sideboard valakut decks did better vs sfm.
so the only thing we really witnessed is how sfm improved the chosen decks across the board. which seems even more reason to unban it.
this is why if combined with a bbe and jace unban, there will be more incentive to play a non sfm deck.
As opposed to the metagame over the last several months where Tron and Titanshift had only minuscule shares of the meta. Wait a minute...
1. (Small Benefit): Collected company doesn't fix your draw statistically. Because you look at the top 6 and move to the next randomized part of your deck, whereas cascade removes lands until you hit a spell. This lowers the volatility of your deck by putting more lands on the bottom.
2. (Large Benefit): You can cascade into anything. Hit a Lili? great play it. Terminate? sure. Coco decks must run 28 creatures to function properly, which is a huge deckbuilding constraint. If CoCo said "2 spells" instead of "2 creature spells" it would be comparable to BBE, but also instabanned.
Again, I'm fine with a BBE unban; I'm just annoyed at all the "it's worse collected company" stuff.
UWUW ControlUW
UGWSpiritsUGW
GHardened ScalesG
WGRUKiki PodWGRU [RIP]
You list these pros and omit the cons - a 3/2 haste is a hot pile of garbage on its own and thats always one of the two cards you get with bbe. Sure sometimes coco is a bird and something, but most of the time both cards you company into are stronger than a 3/2 haste.
Which brings us to another omission: company gives you choices. Dont need spell queller? Take the knight. Dont need geist? Take the goyf. Unless you are chaining serum visions bbe is a pure crapshoot with no selection, and while it technically always hits something there are plenty of times a push or inquisition will be dead.
Deckbuilding constraints? Bbe needs 2 colours coco 1. Coco needs tonnes of creatures, but bbe sucks with situational cards like counterspells. Bbe presents two things to counter - but at sorcery speed. Bbe can be caverned (who cares) or vial'd. Bbe into ewit doesnt give you 2 more free dudes right away. Etc etc.
The pros and cons are more or less a wash. The cards do very similar things as 4 mana 2-for-1s with some deckbuilding constraints and some variance.
Everyone sees bbe going into jund, and I just ask is a 3/2 haste really going to push that deck over the edge? Come on. This is modern, not fnm draft.
* Esper Draw-Go
* Tezzeret Whir
* Blue Tron
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!
BBE into AV is of course not going to be automatic, but Temur with BBE, AV, Blood Moons and Stone Rains is not hard to imagine. That's just the ponza based idea. One could also play other value cards/above the curve cards such as Lead the Stampede, Savage Knuckleblade, Eternal Witness, Coiling Oracle, Electrolyze and so on.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Not that Wizards gives a flip about the secondary market, but the return of Punishing Fire would spike the already high price of Grove of the Burnwillows even further.
Ah, I've misspoken, I was looking at the price of a Future Sight Grove. Even so, Punishing Fire is way riskier to unban than Jace, BBE, and SFM. Not sure what kind of Modern would have to exist for it to be a safer unban.
Well this is true but those deck were not like 30% of the whole meta game back in that era. Storm would have not stand a chance versus Twin, it didn't have it back then and it would not have it now, both are turn four combo decks meanwhile other runs three Remands and couple of Bolts (which doesn't even do anything) and other runs like 10 permission cards + Bolts. Storm wasn't that good back then because it was inconsistent and too fair.
Decks those try to interact the stack have been so bad after that red aura got banned because there is not really a reward for keeping opponent doing degenerate things - they will just do it again in their next turn if you can't close the game. You could just pick up that deck if you wanted to punish non-interactive strategies hard and it was something I liked. Infect was also an ok deck but definitely not a tier 1, blue Scapeshift was tier 1 for sure because Twin made meta slow down so Remands and Cryptics were actually good cards. Cruise was a misprint and it was all about Delver anyway (enjoyed that meta also quite much).
Death's Shadow got its power spike from Fatal Push tho, just like blue based decks would go rampant with printing of a Spell Snare that would say "Counter target spell with converted mana cost two or less".
Things have changed lot since those days and even the decks Twin kept of the format are pretty much unplayable now (GR Scapeshift being an exception). I chose to play Twin because I refused to lose almost any kind of linear timmy aggro/combo played by bad players. Those decks are pretty much gone now and replaced by better and more powerful same kind of decks which even Twin would not defeat. It was actually very hard and also rewarding to achieve a placement in a top 8 of bigger local tournaments back then. Now those tournament top tables are filled with random people playing random linear garbage - meanwhile some of them have played format for like couple of weeks.
Forgive me the grammatical errors
Modern
WUBRG
Oh, I said it was (probably) a hard pass on unbanning any of the spells on that ban list. I love punishing fire as a casual player, but stick that in a tournament and now we just have the three ring circus with the clown cars coming in. At this point, though, we're already at a point where 2 toughness creatures are being suppressed and creatures with mana costs 2 or less are being suppressed. Throwing punishing fire into the mix is going to be like throwing a couple of marshmallows on an already stacked sunday. It doesn't even matter that it's repeatable anymore, really. (Coming from someone who has been playing punishing fire with grove in 60 card casual for the last two years).
Also, fun fact: Wild Nacatl and Punishing Fire were both banned in the same banning announcement of 2011. At the time they were worried about the prevailence of zoo. Wow have we come a long way...
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!
Temur isn't a real archetype as this time in modern. There's some lists that pop up here and there, but I'd probably classify it as tier 4 currently?
We learned that AV was too slow in modern, correct? There will be some sweet moments where BBE will flip AV, but there will be times where it really draws nothing great either.
Maybe a deck with blood moon that is more viable than Ponza will help out the format as a whole and stop all these greedy mana bases.
Temur isn't anywhere near established to worry about when it does manage to flip an AV
A couple things I want to comment on.
First, I'm not sure if it really is 30% of the meta. Looking at the previously posted list plus the online meta from MTG Goldfish, there is still a lot of non linear strategies, but I'm too lazy to do the actual math to see what percentage is really the meta share of these decks (also are we counting Affinity?).
Secondly, Infect was either tier 1 or close to it even when Splinter Twin was legal at a time. http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=9064&d=251646 Pro tour Fate reforged, while not a good indicator of the general meta, Infect was considered a very good deck, and after this tourney the deck's popularity surged, and yes, it could beat twin.
Lastly, your comment on bad players playing aggro/combo decks. Affinity and Storm are very hard decks to pilot. Maybe some sort of Zoo deck would be considered an "easy deck," but most of the tier 1 combo/aggro decks, especially affinity and storm, are just as hard or harder to piolt as any other deck.
Just because classic style control, draw-go, or Cryptic Command style decks are't that prevalent (even though Jeskai tempo/control is very good at the moment), doesnt mean other control/ tempo decks exist. The reason why Splinter Twin was a policing deck was because it did what all the other non linear strategies try and do just with a very good control/tempo style it could execute on turns 1-3. However, as time goes on and more cards are released, there is the inevitability that combo decks will arise or become more powerful.
So my conclusion is this: Can we really say that there is much more degenerative and liner decks in the meta now than there was when Twin was legal? And if we do, is it because Twin is gone, or is it caused by other reasons, like more cards being printed?
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]