I did some quick number crunching to compare the 4 Tron decklists in the Top 8 of GP Lyon. So here are some fun facts for people who are interested in small differences between decklists.
All but one deck ran the following*:
1x World Breaker
2x Dismember
4x Oblivion Stone *The deck that did not run the above card ran the number of copies listed above minus 1 (for example 1 deck ran 1 Dismember instead of 2)
Numbers are were varied between the decklists were for the following cards: Walking Ballista - 2x in 2 decks, 3x in 2 decks Relic of Progenitus - 2x and 1x each in 1 deck, 0x in 2 deck Ghost Quarter - 2x in 2 decks, 1x in 1 deck, 0x in 1 deck
I can understand that, which is why I mentioned me taking a break from Modern during Eldrazi Winter. I didn't want to buy into or play the deck, so I just took a break. Yet I recognized how dominant it was. My only choices were
1 - Keep playing what I enjoy, and just accept that I'll lose. Losing, however, is generally not considered fun. So even if I am playing what I would otherwise consider a "fun" deck, I wouldn't have fun.
2 - Switch over to the obvious more powerful deck.
3 - Take a break.
Of course, the data showing the power of Eldrazi during that time wasn't even debatable. So here, you have these same three choices, assuming that your opinion is correct. If I'm not mistaken, though, you have some amount of money on the line, which would seem to eliminate the logic of choosing the first choice. And the current data set is at odds with your opinion, which is quite different from my situation.
Decklists from the Modern Challenge are not good points. They are not points at all.
They are just a list of decks from a random online tournament that normally matters zero, and in a weekend in which about the 500 best players are playing paper tournaments it matters around -9000
I don't disagree with this. I definitely prefer larger datasets to smaller ones, and a single Challenge is only one datapoint as we enter the new era.
Here's what I don't understand. You justifiably suggest that you prefer larger datasets with more tournaments involved. I agree! So why do you insist on discounting the last 12+ months of data that show Tron was never a problem and the metagame went through various cycles of top decks? There are thousands of finishes in this period across small/medium/major events, and all point to an amazing picture of Modern health and diversity where Tron is not dominant and decks that Tron beat are viable and winning. We also have Wizards on record saying the format is healthy, and we have many GP and larger events showing plenty of diversity and viable interactive strategies. Given that large dataset, which I know you prefer, how can you say that Tron is a problem? Or, if you aren't explicitly saying that "Tron is a problem," why do you keep suggesting Tron is problematic?
It seems that many anti-Tron players are willing to pick apart any dataset to look for evidence that their hated nemesis needs banning or is unhealthy. I'm not sure if h0ly is doing this, but many others are. If the large datasets don't indicate Tron is dominant, they say "People just aren't playing it even though it's the best deck," or "Those large decks aren't representative of the true metagame." To be clear, I'm not necessarily trying to convince anti-Tron dissenters that they are wrong. I honestly don't know what will do that. I'm trying to show the people who are on the fence about Tron and newcomers to the format that these anti-Tron platforms are really flimsy and intellectually inconsistent.
I've said this before, I've played a ton of Tron online, and played against it a lot as well. My only losses during GP Toronto was to BW Worship Zombies(I know laugh it up) and Tron. Once I participated in the side events, I went 19-1, my loss? Tron.
The problem with Tron, is that the haymakers make everything feel out of control. I'm pretty sure one of my opponents hit a 2/37, then a 1/36 in succession to beat me. I ran 3 Fulminators, and Surgicals, people play Blood Moon and that doesn't even work. The deck is insanely resilient, has answers to any form of board presence, and can deny you from simply playing Magic.
Yes I understand it's only 5% of the meta or whatnot on any given weekend, and it's win percentages are average. The problem is it feels so much closer to playing Grishoalbrand then it does a UW control deck. Being a pilot of this deck, you have only one mode, and that mode feels innocent until you realize you own 7 mana sources and your opponent has 2. It feels innocent until your opponents battlefield was exiled and your walker lost 3 loyalty. It feels innocent until you play a Walking Ballista for 8 and find Ulamog the next turn.
Any given matchup against Tron is solely defined in the first 3 turns, which essentially means your opening hand. That same feeling is the one I got when playing against Seething Song Storm. Especially when I lost to qualify for a MOCS when I had triple Thoughtseize and still died on my opponents turn 2.
I just don't understand how people can hate Tron so much and clamor for Control. Like I keep saying, Tron is my primary deck. I kinda feel that it is very close to what people are looking for in a Modern control deck. it tries to stall, both try to win off of powerful lands, and both try to win off of just a few backbreaking threats. Every deck tries to make it hard to interact in a way that could stop their game plan. if you aren't doing that, it's not a good deck, period. What is the justification for being eager for a Draw-Go deck that may very well win with just manlands and hating a deck that uses strong lands in another way?
My big thing is that I can't relate to so many ban maniacs because I really only look at speed. I dislike Storm because it is too fast. I disliked Bloom because....well, fast and the Pact win just felt really cheap. I loved life during full power Jund. it was strong as hell, but it wasn't hugely FAST. idk, that's just me.
Tron may take on the Control role (much like Burn can take on a Control role) but to compare it to something like UWR Draw Go is...I dont know, either disingenuous or missing the point.
A Turn 3 natural Tron into fatty is not 'Control'.
...If Tron didn't exist, things like Jace and BBE would feel kinda dangerous to unban, wouldn't it? I don't know if Jace will break this format or not, but these midrange decks can't just be allowed all of these 50/50s, right?
It's gross when Tron does this at a GP, and sure, a few GP's it did this, too
I don't understand all of this complaining, I'd like to see where the meta is going, especially in the next few months
We had a fantastic Pro Tour, full of diversity and archetypes, we had a great GP were Bogles hilariously won...
And here we are again, with doom and gloom.
Sheridan is right that some people here discount positive results and data until something occurs to fit their narrative
Just this past Monday, I had my opponent dead to rights and I cut his deck and he topdecks drops an Ugin while my Tarmogoyf and Rabblemaster sat across from him. I was a little salty, but it happens. I have a terrible record as a modern player against Tron
Yet, it's just a few voices complaining.
This thread feels kind of like a joke, thank god people here post data and notes about Modern, it's the only thing stopping the ban thread from being a dumpster fire.
With RG Eldrazi winning the GP, it just goes to show that Tron is not even necessarily the best version of the Eldrazi deck.
I think if Wizards printed at least one or two more powerful land destruction / manipulation effects in Dominaria or M19 nobody would have having this conversation about whether Tron is too powerful or not
Field of Ruin was excellent, and a few more answer cards on that power level would be an excellent addition to the modern format
Hey do you guys think RUG Scapeshift can make a comeback with Jace?
I hope so. I saw a list with 3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor the other day. Looked strong.
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)
We should brainstorm additional hypothetical land/mana interaction cards that could be reasonably printed in standard:
Mana Curtail1W (could also be blue or green, not sure what the most appropriate color would be)
Enchantment
If a spell or ability would add mana to a player's mana pool, that spell or ability adds only one mana to that mana pool instead.
Shuts down both Tron lands but also hoses rituals out of the storm deck. Barely does anything in standard, which is why it would be perfectly fine to print. Excellent in modern but also would be a legacy and commander staple.
The point is, its never a bad idea to print these type of "safety valve" effects
In any case, and unless we really want to argue, which I'm totally guilty of, we have to wait weeks, months, and see how things evolve from here.
what information are you using to assess the state of the format? if you or someone you trust have a hypothesis about a deck or the format; how do you verify it? for that matter, what qualifications make someones opinion more trustworthy?
With RG Eldrazi winning the GP, it just goes to show that Tron is not even necessarily the best version of the Eldrazi deck.
I think if Wizards printed at least one or two more powerful land destruction / manipulation effects in Dominaria or M19 nobody would have having this conversation about whether Tron is too powerful or not
Field of Ruin was excellent, and a few more answer cards on that power level would be an excellent addition to the modern format
theres always been this love/hate relationship with land destruction/disruption. on one hand it acts as a check against some types of decks, and on the other hand it promotes play patterns that are often deemed as 'not fun'.
field of ruin has been a nice addition to the format, but too much of that type of effect might do more harm than good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I just don't understand how people can hate Tron so much and clamor for Control. Like I keep saying, Tron is my primary deck. I kinda feel that it is very close to what people are looking for in a Modern control deck. it tries to stall, both try to win off of powerful lands, and both try to win off of just a few backbreaking threats. Every deck tries to make it hard to interact in a way that could stop their game plan. if you aren't doing that, it's not a good deck, period. What is the justification for being eager for a Draw-Go deck that may very well win with just manlands and hating a deck that uses strong lands in another way?
My big thing is that I can't relate to so many ban maniacs because I really only look at speed. I dislike Storm because it is too fast. I disliked Bloom because....well, fast and the Pact win just felt really cheap. I loved life during full power Jund. it was strong as hell, but it wasn't hugely FAST. idk, that's just me.
Tron may take on the Control role (much like Burn can take on a Control role) but to compare it to something like UWR Draw Go is...I dont know, either disingenuous or missing the point.
A Turn 3 natural Tron into fatty is not 'Control'.
Tron is a control deck. There is no way you can argue anything else. The entire deck is cards to control the board directly (Oblivion Stone, Fatal Push), cards that find cards you need (Ancient Stirrings) or finisher which themselves are control cards (Karn, Ugin, Ulamog). Karn is a fatty, but he is inherently a control card. That is what he does.
I just don't understand how people can hate Tron so much and clamor for Control. Like I keep saying, Tron is my primary deck. I kinda feel that it is very close to what people are looking for in a Modern control deck. it tries to stall, both try to win off of powerful lands, and both try to win off of just a few backbreaking threats. Every deck tries to make it hard to interact in a way that could stop their game plan. if you aren't doing that, it's not a good deck, period. What is the justification for being eager for a Draw-Go deck that may very well win with just manlands and hating a deck that uses strong lands in another way?
My big thing is that I can't relate to so many ban maniacs because I really only look at speed. I dislike Storm because it is too fast. I disliked Bloom because....well, fast and the Pact win just felt really cheap. I loved life during full power Jund. it was strong as hell, but it wasn't hugely FAST. idk, that's just me.
Tron may take on the Control role (much like Burn can take on a Control role) but to compare it to something like UWR Draw Go is...I dont know, either disingenuous or missing the point.
A Turn 3 natural Tron into fatty is not 'Control'.
You're right. It's not a perfect comparison, a t3 Karn is not Control....nor is it an average hand. Perhaps my Draw-Go comparison was a little off. A comparison to Twin might be more reasonable. A combo-control type hybrid. As I said, it's trying to stall until casting something that effectively ends the game on the spot. I would rather sit across from a Karn than an infinite combo. It can win without assembling the combo, same as Twin could, but the win can't happen at instant or near instant speed. I know lands are hard to interact with, as are planeswalkers. I am 100% for better land hate. I was so excited by Field of Ruin, I truly was. But the fact remains that Tron needs a god hand to fight through the board state a lot of decks tend to have running by the time we start nuking stuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I only need one single person I trust, that tells me their opinions and shows me the winrates, to trump all the datasets in the world covering 800 GPs, Opens and Challenges. I don't doubt 0.5 seconds when my experiences or the way I view a deck or decks seem to conflict with what the data from the latest tournaments seems to show.
This isn't a terrible approach, but only if you know for a fact that you have a reliable source. It's profoundly flawed, however, for the vast majority of players who cannot know an expert's reliability, and may even be profoundly flawed for you and you just wouldn't know it. We have pro authors routinely make outrageous claim about "X is the hands-down best deck." Invariably, we then see both personal failures with them on their own touted decks, and metagame failures with that deck on a massive scale. Sometimes they are right, sure, but if one throws enough outrageous claims at the dart board, some of them are eventually going to stick.
We can verify these experts and claims by comparing it to available mass data sources. If Tron is the alleged best deck, we would expect to see it trouncing the competition. Instead, we see it fall flat at GP Van and perform middlingly at the PT. We also see it fall flat at SCGs and comparable large regional events (Face 2 Face, Hareruya, the German/Italian tournaments, etc.). Unfortunately, if one doesn't trust those sources at all, you're stuck on gut instinct and blindly trusting so-called experts. Imagine if everyone went by this approach and came up with contradictory findings (which, in fact, happens regularly). How are we to get out of this? We can only do this with larger datasets, which typically disprove most of the hyperbole. If those large datasets disprove 9 cases of hyperbole but fail to predict one accurate claim, that is not a strike against the data.
I've talked about how the meta shares and tournament results mean nothing with specific examples ad infinitum. A particularly egregious one was the Mardu deck, a deck that has been arguably top5 decks in Modern for 6 months or more, and if you went by the data, it didn't exist. There you have the collective knowledge of the community.
Same for Dredge, busted and broken beyond belief, yet sitting at a 7% metagame share when it was banned and crashing in GP after GP with negligible shares and 0 results.
Same for Lantern, one of the best decks in the format, sitting at the same meta shares than Merfolk.
And I could go on forever.
Do you think the pros actually look at the meta shares and data from tournaments to decide what deck will they play? Is that what made Gerry T believe Mardu was the choice? Is that what made Owen Turtenwald, Yuuya Watanabe, Seth Manfield and Jon finkel play Tron?
I disagree with a lot of this. I think if we really looked at the available data, we would have seen many of these sleepers perform in the MTGO stats. For instance, if we saw Player X appear as a 5-0 with Mardu a few times, and then checked their trophies and saw Player X was regularly hitting 5-0 even if not regularly reported, that would be a strong indicator that Player X's Mardu deck is good. I'm sure this data existed last year and I'm sure we could have checked it; I just personally wasn't checking it because I'm not doing those kinds of articles/analyses as much any more.
I also strongly disagree with the claim that data analysis has not predicted the metagame picture. It predicted it for the entirety of the last year. People who looked at the GP/SCG/MTGO/other tourney data saw a picture of perfect health and decks balancing each other out from event to event. We saw there was no clear best deck, and we saw that nothing was going to get banned or become too dominant. This prediction held up for about 13 months, despite all the cries for banning a dozen cards, the claims that X deck was going to dominate, and the claims that Y deck was not viable. This method works.
I just don't understand how people can hate Tron so much and clamor for Control. Like I keep saying, Tron is my primary deck. I kinda feel that it is very close to what people are looking for in a Modern control deck. it tries to stall, both try to win off of powerful lands, and both try to win off of just a few backbreaking threats. Every deck tries to make it hard to interact in a way that could stop their game plan. if you aren't doing that, it's not a good deck, period. What is the justification for being eager for a Draw-Go deck that may very well win with just manlands and hating a deck that uses strong lands in another way?
My big thing is that I can't relate to so many ban maniacs because I really only look at speed. I dislike Storm because it is too fast. I disliked Bloom because....well, fast and the Pact win just felt really cheap. I loved life during full power Jund. it was strong as hell, but it wasn't hugely FAST. idk, that's just me.
Tron may take on the Control role (much like Burn can take on a Control role) but to compare it to something like UWR Draw Go is...I dont know, either disingenuous or missing the point.
A Turn 3 natural Tron into fatty is not 'Control'.
You're right. It's not a perfect comparison, a t3 Karn is not Control....nor is it an average hand. Perhaps my Draw-Go comparison was a little off. A comparison to Twin might be more reasonable. A combo-control type hybrid. As I said, it's trying to stall until casting something that effectively ends the game on the spot. I would rather sit across from a Karn than an infinite combo. It can win without assembling the combo, same as Twin could, but the win can't happen at instant or near instant speed. I know lands are hard to interact with, as are planeswalkers. I am 100% for better land hate. I was so excited by Field of Ruin, I truly was. But the fact remains that Tron needs a god hand to fight through the board state a lot of decks tend to have running by the time we start nuking stuff.
I think this is probably more fair, just like most Modern decks, there is more to a (good) deck than any single line of play, or role within the context of a given match.
I...personally love infinite combo's. I dont like the grind, I dont like mid-range all that much, but I think we are approaching a point where if you are not Storm, then you need to be looking at either Creatures or Walkers, to carry you to victory. Twin was 'creature combo' but only so much as saying 'I win' when you drop Twin. It was very clean.
Omg, I just read the DeCandio article, and it's just embarrassing. It comes off like a toddler whining and stomping their feet about everything being unfair.
I've said a few times already, but as I'm grinding out games online, that RUG deck just flat out murdered me. Even the beating you can get from Traverse 4C DS isnt as bad.
BBE, AV, Jace + Scooze + Goyf + Bolt + Tracker, just buried me, and its not like I didnt interact (I was on UWR w/Jace), I just didnt have enough to get the job done, even when I got my own Jace online, I didnt have the pressure needed to make any kind of comeback.
Thats the scary deck to me.
Yeah, the Temur deck is basically built to crush control and other midrange decks. They have a really hard time against combo and big mana, though. I'm not sure the deck is even viable because of how bad those matchups are, even with Jace.
As for the unbans so far, I haven't been playing much Magic recently but I've been watching a ton on streams since the unbans. Here's my hot take: BBE is going to be more impactful than Jace. It's the complete opposite of what I would have thought before the unban. I thought BBE would be played in Jund, and maybe create a Temur deck, but I didn't think it would do much beyond that. Jace I thought would be very good. BBE has been totally nuts in the different shells I've seen people testing it in, while Jace has been really good in some shells at times, but mediocre to bad at other times. It's also reminded me that the shells BBE goes into were just better decks already than the shells Jace goes into. I think there will be a tier 1 Jace deck when the dust settles, but the lower power of the rest of the blue control suite will keep it from being the broken monster people are afraid of Jace creating.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Yeah, pretty interesting that as more people test the two unbanned cards that BBE is being called the better card. The first two days, everyone said Jace was mulling Jund and BBE.
BBE has been so fantastic in Jund. Jund really turns the corner fast, and K-Command feels as gross as it did in 2016 when Grixis Control used the card. K-Command has been less of a utility card in jund and now a major bomb and core of the deck.
I'm excited to see what Jace and BBE decks emerge.
I hope Ponza doesn't do great, I don't look forward to blood moon locks.
Well, guess which whiny dingbat just pulled down SCG Indy with GDS.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Well, guess which whiny dingbat just pulled down SCG Indy with GDS.
I'm sure we'll get another article with more Modern hyperbole, either that he's solved the format and takes it all back, or that the post-unban metagame means that his recent success doesn't mean anything and the format is still dying.
Also, it's crazy that players get better results when they play decent decks. Not like Mono G Devotion at a GP.
Brennan claims that Jace will "push all of the tier 2 decks out of the format" and lists "GW valuetown" as an example of one of these decks.
Is this really true? Why is it assumed that something like this will happen? Because Jace beats all other midrange decks?
Hard to say for certain, but the biggest proponent of GW Valuetown (Todd Stevens) at least thinks so. I'm extrapolating his reasoning to, more or less, you need to go over/under Jace or at least have a clean answer to him; none of which GW really does. Keep in mind GW Valuetown doesn't play the Vizier-Druid combo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Main-Board
All four decks ran the same number of the follow cards:
4x Karn Liberated
2x Ugin, the Spirit Dragon
2x Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger
3x Wurmcoil Engine
4x Ancient Stirrings
4x Sylvan Scrying
4x Chromatic Sphere
4x Chromatic Star
4x Expedition Map
1x Sanctum of Ugin
4x Urza's Mine
4x Urza's Power Plant
4x Urza's Tower
All but one deck ran the following*:
1x World Breaker
2x Dismember
4x Oblivion Stone
*The deck that did not run the above card ran the number of copies listed above minus 1 (for example 1 deck ran 1 Dismember instead of 2)
Numbers are were varied between the decklists were for the following cards:
Walking Ballista - 2x in 2 decks, 3x in 2 decks
Relic of Progenitus - 2x and 1x each in 1 deck, 0x in 2 deck
Ghost Quarter - 2x in 2 decks, 1x in 1 deck, 0x in 1 deck
Some unique cards ran by players(card only appeared in their 60 card main):
All is Dust
Spatial Contortion*
Field of Ruin*
Horizon Canopy*
*All of these were in the same deck
Sideboard
All decks ran some number of the following cards in their sideboard:
Relic of Progenitus
Nature's Claim
Thought-Knot Seer
All but one sideboard ran the following cards:
Thragtusk
Grafdigger's Cage
[card}Spatial Contortion[/card]
Unique sideboard cards run by players (no other player was running this card in their sideboard):
Pithing Needle*
Life from the Loam*
Kozilek, the Great Distortion*
Warping Wail
Walking Ballista**
Leyline of Sanctity**
*These cards were in the same sideboard
**These cards were in the same sideboard
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
1 - Keep playing what I enjoy, and just accept that I'll lose. Losing, however, is generally not considered fun. So even if I am playing what I would otherwise consider a "fun" deck, I wouldn't have fun.
2 - Switch over to the obvious more powerful deck.
3 - Take a break.
Of course, the data showing the power of Eldrazi during that time wasn't even debatable. So here, you have these same three choices, assuming that your opinion is correct. If I'm not mistaken, though, you have some amount of money on the line, which would seem to eliminate the logic of choosing the first choice. And the current data set is at odds with your opinion, which is quite different from my situation.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I don't disagree with this. I definitely prefer larger datasets to smaller ones, and a single Challenge is only one datapoint as we enter the new era.
Here's what I don't understand. You justifiably suggest that you prefer larger datasets with more tournaments involved. I agree! So why do you insist on discounting the last 12+ months of data that show Tron was never a problem and the metagame went through various cycles of top decks? There are thousands of finishes in this period across small/medium/major events, and all point to an amazing picture of Modern health and diversity where Tron is not dominant and decks that Tron beat are viable and winning. We also have Wizards on record saying the format is healthy, and we have many GP and larger events showing plenty of diversity and viable interactive strategies. Given that large dataset, which I know you prefer, how can you say that Tron is a problem? Or, if you aren't explicitly saying that "Tron is a problem," why do you keep suggesting Tron is problematic?
It seems that many anti-Tron players are willing to pick apart any dataset to look for evidence that their hated nemesis needs banning or is unhealthy. I'm not sure if h0ly is doing this, but many others are. If the large datasets don't indicate Tron is dominant, they say "People just aren't playing it even though it's the best deck," or "Those large decks aren't representative of the true metagame." To be clear, I'm not necessarily trying to convince anti-Tron dissenters that they are wrong. I honestly don't know what will do that. I'm trying to show the people who are on the fence about Tron and newcomers to the format that these anti-Tron platforms are really flimsy and intellectually inconsistent.
The problem with Tron, is that the haymakers make everything feel out of control. I'm pretty sure one of my opponents hit a 2/37, then a 1/36 in succession to beat me. I ran 3 Fulminators, and Surgicals, people play Blood Moon and that doesn't even work. The deck is insanely resilient, has answers to any form of board presence, and can deny you from simply playing Magic.
Yes I understand it's only 5% of the meta or whatnot on any given weekend, and it's win percentages are average. The problem is it feels so much closer to playing Grishoalbrand then it does a UW control deck. Being a pilot of this deck, you have only one mode, and that mode feels innocent until you realize you own 7 mana sources and your opponent has 2. It feels innocent until your opponents battlefield was exiled and your walker lost 3 loyalty. It feels innocent until you play a Walking Ballista for 8 and find Ulamog the next turn.
Any given matchup against Tron is solely defined in the first 3 turns, which essentially means your opening hand. That same feeling is the one I got when playing against Seething Song Storm. Especially when I lost to qualify for a MOCS when I had triple Thoughtseize and still died on my opponents turn 2.
Tron may take on the Control role (much like Burn can take on a Control role) but to compare it to something like UWR Draw Go is...I dont know, either disingenuous or missing the point.
A Turn 3 natural Tron into fatty is not 'Control'.
Spirits
It's gross when Tron does this at a GP, and sure, a few GP's it did this, too
I don't understand all of this complaining, I'd like to see where the meta is going, especially in the next few months
We had a fantastic Pro Tour, full of diversity and archetypes, we had a great GP were Bogles hilariously won...
And here we are again, with doom and gloom.
Sheridan is right that some people here discount positive results and data until something occurs to fit their narrative
Just this past Monday, I had my opponent dead to rights and I cut his deck and he topdecks drops an Ugin while my Tarmogoyf and Rabblemaster sat across from him. I was a little salty, but it happens. I have a terrible record as a modern player against Tron
Yet, it's just a few voices complaining.
This thread feels kind of like a joke, thank god people here post data and notes about Modern, it's the only thing stopping the ban thread from being a dumpster fire.
I think if Wizards printed at least one or two more powerful land destruction / manipulation effects in Dominaria or M19 nobody would have having this conversation about whether Tron is too powerful or not
Field of Ruin was excellent, and a few more answer cards on that power level would be an excellent addition to the modern format
I still want WOTC to print something that effects Tron and Titanshift that can go through standard without breaking it.
I just want a good sideboard answer to Tron, not a flat out ban. We shouldn't be asking for bans until things start looking like Eldrazi and Dredge.
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I hope so. I saw a list with 3 Jace, the Mind Sculptor the other day. Looked strong.
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)Mana Curtail 1W (could also be blue or green, not sure what the most appropriate color would be)
Enchantment
If a spell or ability would add mana to a player's mana pool, that spell or ability adds only one mana to that mana pool instead.
Shuts down both Tron lands but also hoses rituals out of the storm deck. Barely does anything in standard, which is why it would be perfectly fine to print. Excellent in modern but also would be a legacy and commander staple.
The point is, its never a bad idea to print these type of "safety valve" effects
what information are you using to assess the state of the format? if you or someone you trust have a hypothesis about a deck or the format; how do you verify it? for that matter, what qualifications make someones opinion more trustworthy?
theres always been this love/hate relationship with land destruction/disruption. on one hand it acts as a check against some types of decks, and on the other hand it promotes play patterns that are often deemed as 'not fun'.
field of ruin has been a nice addition to the format, but too much of that type of effect might do more harm than good.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Tron is a control deck. There is no way you can argue anything else. The entire deck is cards to control the board directly (Oblivion Stone, Fatal Push), cards that find cards you need (Ancient Stirrings) or finisher which themselves are control cards (Karn, Ugin, Ulamog). Karn is a fatty, but he is inherently a control card. That is what he does.
You're right. It's not a perfect comparison, a t3 Karn is not Control....nor is it an average hand. Perhaps my Draw-Go comparison was a little off. A comparison to Twin might be more reasonable. A combo-control type hybrid. As I said, it's trying to stall until casting something that effectively ends the game on the spot. I would rather sit across from a Karn than an infinite combo. It can win without assembling the combo, same as Twin could, but the win can't happen at instant or near instant speed. I know lands are hard to interact with, as are planeswalkers. I am 100% for better land hate. I was so excited by Field of Ruin, I truly was. But the fact remains that Tron needs a god hand to fight through the board state a lot of decks tend to have running by the time we start nuking stuff.
This isn't a terrible approach, but only if you know for a fact that you have a reliable source. It's profoundly flawed, however, for the vast majority of players who cannot know an expert's reliability, and may even be profoundly flawed for you and you just wouldn't know it. We have pro authors routinely make outrageous claim about "X is the hands-down best deck." Invariably, we then see both personal failures with them on their own touted decks, and metagame failures with that deck on a massive scale. Sometimes they are right, sure, but if one throws enough outrageous claims at the dart board, some of them are eventually going to stick.
We can verify these experts and claims by comparing it to available mass data sources. If Tron is the alleged best deck, we would expect to see it trouncing the competition. Instead, we see it fall flat at GP Van and perform middlingly at the PT. We also see it fall flat at SCGs and comparable large regional events (Face 2 Face, Hareruya, the German/Italian tournaments, etc.). Unfortunately, if one doesn't trust those sources at all, you're stuck on gut instinct and blindly trusting so-called experts. Imagine if everyone went by this approach and came up with contradictory findings (which, in fact, happens regularly). How are we to get out of this? We can only do this with larger datasets, which typically disprove most of the hyperbole. If those large datasets disprove 9 cases of hyperbole but fail to predict one accurate claim, that is not a strike against the data.
I disagree with a lot of this. I think if we really looked at the available data, we would have seen many of these sleepers perform in the MTGO stats. For instance, if we saw Player X appear as a 5-0 with Mardu a few times, and then checked their trophies and saw Player X was regularly hitting 5-0 even if not regularly reported, that would be a strong indicator that Player X's Mardu deck is good. I'm sure this data existed last year and I'm sure we could have checked it; I just personally wasn't checking it because I'm not doing those kinds of articles/analyses as much any more.
I also strongly disagree with the claim that data analysis has not predicted the metagame picture. It predicted it for the entirety of the last year. People who looked at the GP/SCG/MTGO/other tourney data saw a picture of perfect health and decks balancing each other out from event to event. We saw there was no clear best deck, and we saw that nothing was going to get banned or become too dominant. This prediction held up for about 13 months, despite all the cries for banning a dozen cards, the claims that X deck was going to dominate, and the claims that Y deck was not viable. This method works.
Yeah any time I saw him I cheered hard against, but oh well.
Spirits
I think this is probably more fair, just like most Modern decks, there is more to a (good) deck than any single line of play, or role within the context of a given match.
I...personally love infinite combo's. I dont like the grind, I dont like mid-range all that much, but I think we are approaching a point where if you are not Storm, then you need to be looking at either Creatures or Walkers, to carry you to victory. Twin was 'creature combo' but only so much as saying 'I win' when you drop Twin. It was very clean.
Not everyone likes instant win, but lots do.
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Yeah, the Temur deck is basically built to crush control and other midrange decks. They have a really hard time against combo and big mana, though. I'm not sure the deck is even viable because of how bad those matchups are, even with Jace.
As for the unbans so far, I haven't been playing much Magic recently but I've been watching a ton on streams since the unbans. Here's my hot take: BBE is going to be more impactful than Jace. It's the complete opposite of what I would have thought before the unban. I thought BBE would be played in Jund, and maybe create a Temur deck, but I didn't think it would do much beyond that. Jace I thought would be very good. BBE has been totally nuts in the different shells I've seen people testing it in, while Jace has been really good in some shells at times, but mediocre to bad at other times. It's also reminded me that the shells BBE goes into were just better decks already than the shells Jace goes into. I think there will be a tier 1 Jace deck when the dust settles, but the lower power of the rest of the blue control suite will keep it from being the broken monster people are afraid of Jace creating.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
BBE has been so fantastic in Jund. Jund really turns the corner fast, and K-Command feels as gross as it did in 2016 when Grixis Control used the card. K-Command has been less of a utility card in jund and now a major bomb and core of the deck.
I'm excited to see what Jace and BBE decks emerge.
I hope Ponza doesn't do great, I don't look forward to blood moon locks.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Is this really true? Why is it assumed that something like this will happen? Because Jace beats all other midrange decks?
I'm sure we'll get another article with more Modern hyperbole, either that he's solved the format and takes it all back, or that the post-unban metagame means that his recent success doesn't mean anything and the format is still dying.
Also, it's crazy that players get better results when they play decent decks. Not like Mono G Devotion at a GP.
Hard to say for certain, but the biggest proponent of GW Valuetown (Todd Stevens) at least thinks so. I'm extrapolating his reasoning to, more or less, you need to go over/under Jace or at least have a clean answer to him; none of which GW really does. Keep in mind GW Valuetown doesn't play the Vizier-Druid combo.