Modern is a solitaire format, if your deck doesn't win t3 or heavily interact with your opponent you're just gonna get stomped.
Eh... I don't know if this really advances our understanding of formats. You've just described all non-rotating, high power level formats. Might as well be talking about Legacy and Vintage here. In bigger formats, if you aren't playing a very proactive deck that pushes the limits of quick wins, then you almost necessarily play a heavy interactive deck that can beat those strategies. Modern was a solitaire format when such a deck did not exist. Now you can actually play such interactive decks and be successful.
On the topic of brews, I will say that brews are much better when you have a proactive game plan that threatens a T3 win without interaction or a T4 win with some degree of interaction. Some tribal brews get legs here because they have disruptive creatures that further an aggressive gampeplan (although most such decks end up as worse Merfolk or Humans). For example, brews with Blood Moon can also count here, particularly when paired with T1 accelerators. Interactive brews are going to struggle a bit because the best interactive tools are already spoken for in the top interactive decks. But there's still unexplored territory with cards like Esper Charm, Lingering Souls, Disrupting Shoal, and others.
So just made my 5th or 6th new account. I say I'll write it down but forever and a day later here I am
I get questions like this a lot and the answer is never really straight forward. You can try anything you want in Modern, now more than ever. If you like playing unestablished pet decks go for it. Not any really wrong answers. But keep in mind for every good "successful" brews there are thousands of duds. The most important thing to keep in mind is managing your own expections. You will lose a lot more than you win, especially in the beginning! And know when to move on or shelf an idea that doesn't have the proper equipment yet. As new sets come out keep an eye out for any new parts! Know what you are trying to build. If you are building a combo deck or aggro deck shoot for winning the game early. If it doesn't win by then it is likely not worth a tournament run. If you are on Mid-range or control if you aren't turning the corner properly you are probably running a stinker. Just remember to try it out a couple of times before you hit a tournament. A lot of bugs can be found by simply running a deck through the paces. If it's smooth or funkie you will know going in and adjust for the first competitive run. Even if a deck is a bust remember: you could always use those cards in other decks if all else fails. Any brew could still pay off in the end, one way or another.
Remember the most important thing isn't winning. It's all about enjoying yourself. If you don't care about winning so much and like running goofy off beat decks go for it. Eventually you will be fairly good at it I sometimes wish I was more of a Johnny in competitive play!
Modern is a solitaire format, if your deck doesn't win t3 or heavily interact with your opponent you're just gonna get stomped.
You called it a solitaire format, and then stated that it's a format that requires you to interact with your opponent. That's literally the opposite of solitaire.
OT: We're periodically seeing old jank uncommons gain a fifty-fold price increase because new archetypes are being discovered to abuse them; I'd say brewing is alive and well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
So I want to try brewing in modern, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. I'm pretty new, so I don't quite have a grasp on the speed of different formats, but I've heard of some pretty scary things in modern. Like, apparently there's a deck that swings with a 14 power flier (or something like that) on turn 3 with average draw? Yikes.
If it's that fast a meta, then I'm kinda worried all my johnny combos will just be blitzed down before I get to do anything, and here I thought that this would be a format that allowed more creativity than standard. But a guy at my lgs told me that maybe 1 card a set sees any modern play. That sounds like, REALLY stale.
So just how high is the power level here compared to standard? Is there any room for rogue decks here? Or will the local modern events just eat me alive if I bring anything less than a tier 1 netdeck?
You don't have to take your friends word for it, there is data out there for you to make your own decisions. Use MTGGoldfish.com and look at the Modern metagame. 1 card per set isn't accurate whatsoever. Modern is a challenge to brew in, fair decks have a high standard against the metagame, so in general they will not succeed unless they include black for Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek. Combo based decks will lack consistency if they do not run Serum Visions or Ancient Stirrings. Those are some basic parameters of the format.
There is definitely the potential to brew within any format, but look at what makes other decks successful before you decide to make your own deck. If it lacks the fundamental tools to survive the metagame it doesn't matter how good your Johnny decks can thrive.
There's a reason tournaments are won by proactive decks instead of reactive ones mostly, and those are the "solitaire" decks.
The GP happening right now is literally two interactive decks. Yes, one example doesn't make the rule, but in a heated discussion like the linear/non-linear debates of Modern, avoiding hyperbole is good.
There's a reason tournaments are won by proactive decks instead of reactive ones mostly, and those are the "solitaire" decks.
It is true that Modern has more decks that do not fit the classical definition of "reactive" than do fit that definition. But this does not make the reactive decks individually viable at tournaments. It just means there are fewer distinct options. This is likely because there are only so many strong reactive cards which are generally optimized in their comparatively fewer respective shells. This is in contrast to the proactive decks, of which there are many more because there are many more angles to build those decks. But you can really play either. If one is not having success with reactive decks, the problem is likely with the player, not the deck.
If you want to play reactive decks in Modern, play UW Control, Jeskai Control, GDS, Abzan, and/or Mardu. All of these are top-tier options. I am comfortable saying that anyone who does not think that these are top-tier options are biased and/or not piloting them correctly.
As others have said, it depends heavily on the other players in your area.
I have had a lot of success with rogue-ish decks like 8-Whack and Kiln Fiend Aggro, even when going up against mainstays like Affinity and Tron.
I have seen other local players take down tourneys with unexpected decks like Counter Cat and Curse of Exhaustion Combo.
Just remember, if you are building decks that are less powerful/expensive than your opponents, sometimes you can make up for that by making the deck faster than your opponent's. That, and rogue brews are harder to sideboard against.
One of the key facets of brewing is to come up with a strategy that your opponents won't be fully prepared to fight. The hard part is finding that edge and making the most of it.
For me, many of the decks I build go out of their way to stop removal. That is mainly based on me liking to keep my stuff, but it can really screw people up when the removal they were counting on for your threats gets nerfed.
On the issue of price, I currently have 5 modern decks (one for each mono color). The green one is the only one over $50(by $25), but the Red, White, and Blue ones are all commons and uncommons, so that makes sense. And they all do quite well, results-wise.
Eh... I don't know if this really advances our understanding of formats. You've just described all non-rotating, high power level formats. Might as well be talking about Legacy and Vintage here. In bigger formats, if you aren't playing a very proactive deck that pushes the limits of quick wins, then you almost necessarily play a heavy interactive deck that can beat those strategies. Modern was a solitaire format when such a deck did not exist. Now you can actually play such interactive decks and be successful.
On the topic of brews, I will say that brews are much better when you have a proactive game plan that threatens a T3 win without interaction or a T4 win with some degree of interaction. Some tribal brews get legs here because they have disruptive creatures that further an aggressive gampeplan (although most such decks end up as worse Merfolk or Humans). For example, brews with Blood Moon can also count here, particularly when paired with T1 accelerators. Interactive brews are going to struggle a bit because the best interactive tools are already spoken for in the top interactive decks. But there's still unexplored territory with cards like Esper Charm, Lingering Souls, Disrupting Shoal, and others.
I get questions like this a lot and the answer is never really straight forward. You can try anything you want in Modern, now more than ever. If you like playing unestablished pet decks go for it. Not any really wrong answers. But keep in mind for every good "successful" brews there are thousands of duds. The most important thing to keep in mind is managing your own expections. You will lose a lot more than you win, especially in the beginning! And know when to move on or shelf an idea that doesn't have the proper equipment yet. As new sets come out keep an eye out for any new parts! Know what you are trying to build. If you are building a combo deck or aggro deck shoot for winning the game early. If it doesn't win by then it is likely not worth a tournament run. If you are on Mid-range or control if you aren't turning the corner properly you are probably running a stinker. Just remember to try it out a couple of times before you hit a tournament. A lot of bugs can be found by simply running a deck through the paces. If it's smooth or funkie you will know going in and adjust for the first competitive run. Even if a deck is a bust remember: you could always use those cards in other decks if all else fails. Any brew could still pay off in the end, one way or another.
Remember the most important thing isn't winning. It's all about enjoying yourself. If you don't care about winning so much and like running goofy off beat decks go for it. Eventually you will be fairly good at it I sometimes wish I was more of a Johnny in competitive play!
You called it a solitaire format, and then stated that it's a format that requires you to interact with your opponent. That's literally the opposite of solitaire.
OT: We're periodically seeing old jank uncommons gain a fifty-fold price increase because new archetypes are being discovered to abuse them; I'd say brewing is alive and well.
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
You don't have to take your friends word for it, there is data out there for you to make your own decisions. Use MTGGoldfish.com and look at the Modern metagame. 1 card per set isn't accurate whatsoever. Modern is a challenge to brew in, fair decks have a high standard against the metagame, so in general they will not succeed unless they include black for Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek. Combo based decks will lack consistency if they do not run Serum Visions or Ancient Stirrings. Those are some basic parameters of the format.
There is definitely the potential to brew within any format, but look at what makes other decks successful before you decide to make your own deck. If it lacks the fundamental tools to survive the metagame it doesn't matter how good your Johnny decks can thrive.
The GP happening right now is literally two interactive decks. Yes, one example doesn't make the rule, but in a heated discussion like the linear/non-linear debates of Modern, avoiding hyperbole is good.
It is true that Modern has more decks that do not fit the classical definition of "reactive" than do fit that definition. But this does not make the reactive decks individually viable at tournaments. It just means there are fewer distinct options. This is likely because there are only so many strong reactive cards which are generally optimized in their comparatively fewer respective shells. This is in contrast to the proactive decks, of which there are many more because there are many more angles to build those decks. But you can really play either. If one is not having success with reactive decks, the problem is likely with the player, not the deck.
If you want to play reactive decks in Modern, play UW Control, Jeskai Control, GDS, Abzan, and/or Mardu. All of these are top-tier options. I am comfortable saying that anyone who does not think that these are top-tier options are biased and/or not piloting them correctly.
I have had a lot of success with rogue-ish decks like 8-Whack and Kiln Fiend Aggro, even when going up against mainstays like Affinity and Tron.
I have seen other local players take down tourneys with unexpected decks like Counter Cat and Curse of Exhaustion Combo.
Just remember, if you are building decks that are less powerful/expensive than your opponents, sometimes you can make up for that by making the deck faster than your opponent's. That, and rogue brews are harder to sideboard against.
For me, many of the decks I build go out of their way to stop removal. That is mainly based on me liking to keep my stuff, but it can really screw people up when the removal they were counting on for your threats gets nerfed.
On the issue of price, I currently have 5 modern decks (one for each mono color). The green one is the only one over $50(by $25), but the Red, White, and Blue ones are all commons and uncommons, so that makes sense. And they all do quite well, results-wise.
G Green Stompy
RG Shamans
UB Mill
UG Infect
WUBRG Slivers!