When broken down visually and sorted by over/under performance, the picture is fairly interesting. Not a single reactive deck had a positive conversion rate, and blue control decks are unsurprisingly at the bottom.
What is unsurprising about blue control decks having a poor conversion rate at this tournament?
It's worth noting that CFP was largely silent when 4 Ux decks got T8 at GP Barcelona, but now we have this newest post with GP SP having less blue presence. Never mind the 3 interactive decks in the SP T8 and Mardu winning the whole thing. I believe, and I have said this to CFP before, that he focuses more in examples of reactive deck failures than successes. I don't know if this is to reinforce a narrative or just omission, but it is notable in the thread.
Yes, I have no issue with it being a data point, I just would caution those on all sides to not get too hung up on things. UWR has a poor rate. It had one the last time as I mentioned as well, and I dont know that that means anything other than sometimes (often? rarely?) it gets wiped out.
It can, just like Mardu, 'run hot' however, and get through to the Top 8, as we saw in Vegas.
I think its perhaps another feather in ktk's hat of 'get reps on the deck you like, and play it as well as you can'.
I wish there was some way to track the matchups and results (Counters Company WLW, H1 WW, etc.). That way we can see if the matchups lined up nicely for Mardu. I would presume that the Mardu players didn't see more than 1 Tron in the Swiss, but then Modern is so diverse that this can certainly happen. 1 out of 15 is probably close to 8.9%. (looks like it's 7.5% exactly)
Ponza looking damn good though. I wonder how they do vs. Mardu? (probably poorly)
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)
If I'm understanding how you're calculating those numbers, there's a counterpoint that's been tangentially mentioned above. UW Control decks aren't even playing Serum Visions at the moment, not because it's not powerful, but because Opt works better for the miracled Terminus that's en vogue. Opt became Modern legal in early 2018, meaning your YoY numbers are skewed by the introduction of and cannibalization from a "weaker" cantrip that's better because of synergy. Preordain doesn't necessarily even slot into those decks if unbanned.
I'm looking only at decks that are running SV currently or could replace Opt with an unbanned Preordain. So this is the broadest possible definition of Preordain-compatible decks based on current deck constructions. This does not include decks that could change their current structure to run to Preordain (e.g. KCI ditching Stirrings and green to run Preordain). It just includes decks that are running Opt/SV right now. So like you said, it's actually a larger number than the number of decks that are truly running legitimate SV copies currently. That number is under 15%. This may "skew" the numbers, but if it does, it probably inflates the number of decks that would run Preordain. And that inflated number is still almost half of those running Stirrings.
As for Twin, I 100% support people arguing the Twin ban in terms of its actual language. This is how cards are unbanned; Wizards looks at an old ban, sees if that ban accomplished its goals, and sees how the unban would affect the current Modern. See explanations for unbanning Nacatl, BB, AV, BBE, JTMS, etc. The Twin unban camp consistently fails to address one of these arguments: why would Wizards would unban Twin when the share of non-Twin blue decks is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than it was when Twin was legal? Total blue share has dropped, we know. But total share of decks not playing Twin, however, is more than double what it was at the GP/PT level. I am not saying this increase was CAUSED by the Twin ban. I have never said this. I am simply stating that this diversity is the current state of Modern.
Why would Wizards jeopardize that with a card that is likely going to benefit from most of the new technology printed/unbanned for other blue decks? Why is the super conservative Wizards going to risk their diverse format with a card that, when last legal, saw non-Twin blue shares under 10% of the format and that they cited as a diversity violator? There is a small, vocal, persistent group of users who want this card unbanned and I am not trying to convince them. I don't think that group will be convinced by any argument I can make and maybe anyone can make. I am simply pointing out to anyone else who is evaluating the Twin unban debate that the unban Twin argument, as it is currently argued, has no traction given the current format and Wizards' current management style.
EDIT: If you just look strictly at decks running SV, it's 12.5% for 2018. If you include the decks not running SV that "could" run Preordain (i.e. blue-based combo and reactive decks), it's 17%. No matter how you cut it, Stirrings is 33%. That's a huge gap. One of those cards needs to be reevaluated and Wizards can figure out which one they want to focus on.
I would like to be very clear that this is a great arguement against twin. I can see this point and I don't have a problem admitting this point. Twin is a risky unban and in some ways the longer it goes the riskier or gets. The unbanning of AV Hurt the odds of a twin unban eventually, and the JTMS unban hurt it more. Search for azcanta doesn't help the chances for an unban and I realize this. If we got Preordain back I would just give up and accept twin will never be unbanned.
It would be a good deck to say the least and it carries risk.
But I believe it was fun to play, it was not unbeatable, it didn't break the turn four rule, they have printed more hate since it was banned that could help fight against it (authority of the counsels and fatal push among others), their are teir decks now that didn't exist before that would have decent favorability to win against twin (eldrazi tron, GDS, humans and hollow one might be pretty good too with the right draws). I just think it is on par for the format and would be one good deck among other good decks, but it is risky and I understand others having a different opinion than I do.
When broken down visually and sorted by over/under performance, the picture is fairly interesting. Not a single reactive deck had a positive conversion rate, and blue control decks are unsurprisingly at the bottom.
What is unsurprising about blue control decks having a poor conversion rate at this tournament?
It's worth noting that CFP was largely silent when 4 Ux decks got T8 at GP Barcelona, but now we have this newest post with GP SP having less blue presence. Never mind the 3 interactive decks in the SP T8 and Mardu winning the whole thing. I believe, and I have said this to CFP before, that he focuses more in examples of reactive deck failures than successes. I don't know if this is to reinforce a narrative or just omission, but it is notable in the thread.
Well you already know my stance on variance and Top8s. I'm more shocked that we got actual meaningful data to create a picture of the weekend and it was the first thing I noticed. I sincerely hope that this trend of GP data continues, but I don't want to get my hopes up.
no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
Amen.
I'm not a fan of Ponza, but let's not forget that there aren't "wrong" ways to play the game. Personally, I'm not a fan of playstyles that stop your opponent from ever doing anything impactful, and that includes Ponza, but that's my own opinion. If someone enjoys a deck, we can't tell them they are a bad person and deserve to not play the game. Acceptance, y'all.
no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
Amen.
I'm not a fan of Ponza, but let's not forget that there aren't "wrong" ways to play the game. Personally, I'm not a fan of playstyles that stop your opponent from ever doing anything impactful, and that includes Ponza, but that's my own opinion. If someone enjoys a deck, we can't tell them they are a bad person and deserve to not play the game. Acceptance, y'all.
Well I agree with the general sentiment but no one said anything about people playing the deck being a bad person or anything like that. My assumption is that the deck has some great matchups but is poor against the field, so I honestly don't understand why people play it. That and it creates a miserable play experience from my (admittedly biased) perspective.
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
How in the world would that make any sense? Eggs didn't even bother with Krark-Clan Ironworks until after Second Sunrise was banned. You do the swap ban and you just bring back the Eggs deck that was judged worthy of banning to begin with.
Weird, I could have sworn they played KCI, but I just went back and looked, it was 100% Lotus Bloom.
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
How in the world would that make any sense? Eggs didn't even bother with Krark-Clan Ironworks until after Second Sunrise was banned. You do the swap ban and you just bring back the Eggs deck that was judged worthy of banning to begin with.
Weird, I could have sworn they played KCI, but I just went back and looked, it was 100% Lotus Bloom.
You might be thinking of the version that came about immediately after the banning. People tried to make the deck work again and that version generally used KCI since it used Open the Vaults and killed via Banefire. It didn't really last long though.
no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
Amen.
I put my Tron friend on some serious tilt when I faced him in Round 1 my first week on Ponza. He had 1 land in play in a total of 2 games when I "won." He actually slammed a table and I felt a bit badly. But then I thought about all those players who felt exactly like that when against Tron. He got over it though. It just was frustrating, understandably so. I think he still finished 3-1 that night while I got 4-0. Ended up playing against 2 Tron that day. @lucksack
I'd be okay with a KCI ban from a logistical stance. Anyone who has attended a tournament where ***** went off the rails because people went to turns and took an extra fifteen minutes in most rounds understands the suffering.
A swap ban with KCI for Second Sunrise could make sense.
How in the world would that make any sense? Eggs didn't even bother with Krark-Clan Ironworks until after Second Sunrise was banned. You do the swap ban and you just bring back the Eggs deck that was judged worthy of banning to begin with.
Weird, I could have sworn they played KCI, but I just went back and looked, it was 100% Lotus Bloom.
You might be thinking of the version that came about immediately after the banning. People tried to make the deck work again and that version generally used KCI since it used Open the Vaults and killed via Banefire. It didn't really last long though.
Actually, the version before Scrap Trawler came out was not even as bad as people think. Codex Shredder was the win-con though, as infinite mill most of the time. The deck construction was similar to Second Sunrise Eggs and current KCI, but with 4 Faith's Reward and 3 Open the Vaults. Faith's Reward is still a very strong card and unlike Second Sunrise, it did not do the same thing for the opponent (which sometimes they were smart enough to Ghost Quarter their own lands or fetch while Second Sunrises were going off and leave up countermagic.
Maybe I'm biased here, as I got one of my few wins ever vs. Infect (with this version of Eggs) with a pair of turn 3 kills on him, one on the play. That felt damn good!
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I'm hoping the ancient stirrings ban talk goes away; most everything I'm seeing between goldfish and mtgtop8 suggests humans and u/w control to be the best decks in the format, with tron a close third. I'm also seeing terminus showing up in control lists, which could push out a lot of aggro and midrange.
I fail to see that. Tron is #1 on mtggoldfish while UW control is #10 (modern metagame breakdown). Not that it matters much, but if you mention mtggoldfish as a source to back up your argument, there shouldn't be such a glaring difference to what you claim.
As a side note, I also don't think that Terminus is a particularly good card.
no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
Amen.
I'm not a fan of Ponza, but let's not forget that there aren't "wrong" ways to play the game.
Actually, in the competitive sense, there is. In general, the people who post here are quite competitive, even if it's their own local metagame. Then again, there is also the perspective of the "WotC Sandbox" where there are also wrong ways to play the game. So I'll have to disagree with you. Efficiency is a degree in which decks are built, and there are more than enough "wrong" things to point out that this philosophy has never, and will never stick.
no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
Amen.
I'm not a fan of Ponza, but let's not forget that there aren't "wrong" ways to play the game.
Actually, in the competitive sense, there is. In general, the people who post here are quite competitive, even if it's their own local metagame.
Then again, there is also the perspective of the "WotC Sandbox" where there are also wrong ways to play the game. So I'll have to disagree with you. Efficiency is a degree in which decks are built, and there are more than enough "wrong" things to point out that this philosophy has never, and will never stick.
Are you talking about 60 swamp.dec? Decks can be non-cohesive, but anything that can play is worthy of existing, at least on its own. A recurring theme in the magic community is that people will start badmouthing a deck and claiming it shouldn't exist, either that people who decide to play it are wrong, or that those combinations of cards just shouldn't exist. The decks that you choose to play do not have some special intrinsic right to exist. As long as a deck is not violating any rules of the format, as decided at the B&R Council's discretion, it has just as much right to exist as any other deck.
Is the argument that Ponza only exists to troll people? If so, that's blatantly wrong. Ponza has won big events. What exactly is anyone's actual, logical argument against it other than personal bias?
no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
Amen.
I'm not a fan of Ponza, but let's not forget that there aren't "wrong" ways to play the game.
Actually, in the competitive sense, there is. In general, the people who post here are quite competitive, even if it's their own local metagame.
Then again, there is also the perspective of the "WotC Sandbox" where there are also wrong ways to play the game. So I'll have to disagree with you. Efficiency is a degree in which decks are built, and there are more than enough "wrong" things to point out that this philosophy has never, and will never stick.
Are you talking about 60 swamp.dec? Decks can be non-cohesive, but anything that can play is worthy of existing, at least on its own. A recurring theme in the magic community is that people will start badmouthing a deck and claiming it shouldn't exist, either that people who decide to play it are wrong, or that those combinations of cards just shouldn't exist. The decks that you choose to play do not have some special intrinsic right to exist. As long as a deck is not violating any rules of the format, as decided at the B&R Council's discretion, it has just as much right to exist as any other deck.
Is the argument that Ponza only exists to troll people? If so, that's blatantly wrong. Ponza has won big events. What exactly is anyone's actual, logical argument against it other than personal bias?
I'm going to simplify my argument, and hopefully our posts will make sense.
- If something is blatantly tier 2. It's definitely unplayable in the context of tournament play, unless it truly should be tier 1. (Amulet Bloom and Eggs are good examples of this) Or if it truly is tier 2, it should not expect high level results, and therefore unplayable in the competitive sense.
- Something should also be unplayable when there is no possible level of reaction available within a card pool (Blazing Shoal Infect is an example)
A deck is not wrong to "own" and "play" but that doesn't mean I should have the delusion of registering 60 Islands and expect to win a tournament. The sad truth is that decks currently like Ponza are dramatically closer to 60 Islands than it is Tron on the scale of competitiveness.
There is absolutely a threshold within any given card pool of any format to deem what is playable. The cards within the format enforce this naturally, it's not a completely subjective topic like you are suggesting. If your creature can't effectively negate or gain enough of an advantage against Lightning Bolt it's probably unplayable. This concept is applied to every extreme of the game. That's not a debate.
EDIT: I also want to address a big elephant in the room, when people claim "OMG but that deck won that other tournament!"
I definitely don't credit the winner of a tournament as highly as others on this forum it seems. That's probably because I like to look at the larger picture. How many of that deck appeared at the tournament? What were the matchups? In high profile events, I look towards the top 64 or 32 of that event more importantly than what deck simply hit first place.
If you took a tournament, where lets say Tron won the event, but the other top 63 decks were Merfolk, can you actually claim Tron is Tier 1? Probably not. That Tron deck didn't beat 63 Merfolk Decks, it simply beat 5 of them at mathematical best. That's definitely a wild shot, which can be confounded by so many variables in each game. Yet let's say that Tron deck went to game 3 in each of those matches. See where I'm going with this? We could play a thousand games of Tron vs Merfolk to find it's merely only a 40% win ratio, therefore it's an underdog. People need to seriously stop putting emphasis as to which deck won, as a Scapegoat for Tier 2 decks. Other mechanics have a large matter as to the final trophy of any given tournament.
I think the disconnect is between people who vicariously try to experience the format as a whole ("I look at the meta and try to understand where everything fits") and people who sit down and play the friggin game. For the first camp of people, sure, you can dismiss whole swathes of archetypes if they don't fit your definition of "viable," but then, when you leave these forums and head to an event and sit down across from Ponza, you will get the exact same reaction that I was responding to: "The deck is horrible and no one should play it." You think your idea of the meta should determine what everyone around you plays, and that is not in any way how any of this works.
For the second group of people, they can choose to play literally whatever they want, even if it doesn't fit some preconceived idea of "viable." I used to play UW Enduring Ideal. I used to play Eternal Command. I've brewed and experimented and had a blast. Which of us is wrong in our thinking of the format? Modern as a whole is not only for people who macro the experience and try to draw far-reaching conclusions about meta-shares and tier lists. Modern, at its most fundamental definition, is an individual format of Magic: the Gathering with a specific card pool, intended to be played.
Your comment on Ponza being closer to 60 Islands than Tron is just your bias showing, and really bleeds any credence away from your other points. Try to avoid using logical fallacies such as hyperbole when having arguments.
I think the disconnect is between people who vicariously try to experience the format as a whole ("I look at the meta and try to understand where everything fits") and people who sit down and play the friggin game. For the first camp of people, sure, you can dismiss whole swathes of archetypes if they don't fit your definition of "viable," but then, when you leave these forums and head to an event and sit down across from Ponza, you will get the exact same reaction that I was responding to: "The deck is horrible and no one should play it." You think your idea of the meta should determine what everyone around you plays, and that is not in any way how any of this works.
For the second group of people, they can choose to play literally whatever they want, even if it doesn't fit some preconceived idea of "viable." I used to play UW Enduring Ideal. I used to play Eternal Command. I've brewed and experimented and had a blast. Which of us is wrong in our thinking of the format? Modern as a whole is not only for people who macro the experience and try to draw far-reaching conclusions about meta-shares and tier lists. Modern, at its most fundamental definition, is an individual format of Magic: the Gathering with a specific card pool, intended to be played.
Your comment on Ponza being closer to 60 Islands than Tron is just your bias showing, and really bleeds any credence away from your other points. Try to avoid using logical fallacies such as hyperbole when having arguments.
If you think UW Enduring Ideal is going to win you tournaments, and grant you cash prizes or a Pro Tour Invite then yes, you are indeed wrong. If you want to play Modern Commander with your friends, then do as you please.
It's not my logical fallacy, it's you as a person claiming that everyone here needs to adhere to your casual desires, posting in a State of Modern thread. There are casual forums for your ideas, this specific thread adheres to these very topics which is in the very first post
Allowed topics
Bans, unbans, and all things related to the banlist and banlist policy
Metagame health and diversity
Reprint suggestions and reprint philosophy
New cards and design philosophy
Prices and Modern finance
Archetype definitions
Format health, successes, and challenges
Anything that constructively relates to these different issues
You are definitely posting in the wrong forum, and your posts have been reported. Infraction issued for trolling. --CavalryWolfPack
I think the disconnect is between people who vicariously try to experience the format as a whole ("I look at the meta and try to understand where everything fits") and people who sit down and play the friggin game. For the first camp of people, sure, you can dismiss whole swathes of archetypes if they don't fit your definition of "viable," but then, when you leave these forums and head to an event and sit down across from Ponza, you will get the exact same reaction that I was responding to: "The deck is horrible and no one should play it." You think your idea of the meta should determine what everyone around you plays, and that is not in any way how any of this works.
For the second group of people, they can choose to play literally whatever they want, even if it doesn't fit some preconceived idea of "viable." I used to play UW Enduring Ideal. I used to play Eternal Command. I've brewed and experimented and had a blast. Which of us is wrong in our thinking of the format? Modern as a whole is not only for people who macro the experience and try to draw far-reaching conclusions about meta-shares and tier lists. Modern, at its most fundamental definition, is an individual format of Magic: the Gathering with a specific card pool, intended to be played.
Your comment on Ponza being closer to 60 Islands than Tron is just your bias showing, and really bleeds any credence away from your other points. Try to avoid using logical fallacies such as hyperbole when having arguments.
Ooooooh jeebus.
This legit reminds me of a conversation I was having at a modern event last night, where I posed the question of why so many people at this store, which draws around 30-40 people every Monday, run control and midrange while every single resource says that linear decks are generally better. One guy answered it perfectly in a way I was not quite expecting: "ego, people here aren't just competitive, but they also want to show how skilled and knowledgable they are." He was running dredge, btw. Why is this similar in my brain?
People trying really hard to justify their decisions. Look, let's be honest, you aren't going to win as much with enduring ideal or eternal command as you are with five color humans. Not now. Maybe not ever. That's okay, you do you, but don't get offended when someone says deck A just isn't as good. Modern has thousands of players pumping in thousands of hours into it of play, testing and theorizing. Even in a wide card pool, the best options rise to the top.
Also, funny enough there's such a thing as a fallacy fallacy, as in "just because the person used a logical fallacy does not mean they are wrong." Shmanka isn't wrong, even if his goal in playing differs from ours, 13055. His point stands. And yes, considering this forum looks primarily at competitive REL events, it should emphasize competitive play.
This isn't really a hypothetical that anyone has talked about or expects. All the discussion has centered around one or the other, not both.
I have in fact seen this very discussion—not so much in this thread, but certainly elsewhere.
If Stirrings is banned, there will still be a lot of discussion about whether Preordain is a safe unban. If Preordain is unbanned (and the metashare of Stirrings decks holds strong or increases), there will still be a lot of discussion about whether Stirrings is ban-worthy.
However, if your point is that these two changes aren’t likely to happen simultaneously, I couldn’t agree more—the odds of that must be approaching zero. My thoughts on this subject are oriented more toward the long term, and were perhaps sloppily phrased.
On paper, KCI looks vulnerable to the hate offered by a wide variety of Modern staples, but in practice the only true hoser that it struggles to easily answer is Stony Silence
It's not as good as Stony, but Gaddock Teeg shuts down both KCI and EE. It's a good choice for a GW creature toolbox deck or Humans.
Good call! Teeg’s power level is frankly insane IMO, and I expect his presence in Modern to increase over time.
no. ponza is horrible. nobody should play it. ever
Amen.
I'm not a fan of Ponza, but let's not forget that there aren't "wrong" ways to play the game. Personally, I'm not a fan of playstyles that stop your opponent from ever doing anything impactful, and that includes Ponza, but that's my own opinion. If someone enjoys a deck, we can't tell them they are a bad person and deserve to not play the game. Acceptance, y'all.
I’m sorry to be so annoying on this subject, but I really think it’s important for people to understand.
It is a strawman to claim that the posters above were calling Ponza pilots bad people. One said the deck is horrible and no one should play it; the other agreed. Nowhere can I see the damning moral indictment of Ponza pilots that you seem to have seen!
There may be no “right” or “wrong” way to play the game, but I would assert that this is a false dichotomy. Even if right and wrong cannot be strictly defined in this context, it does not follow that that broad standards of gameplay health and enjoyability are nonexistent.
Ponza, to run with the example at hand, leads to a relatively high number of non-games. One poster mentioned his opponent having one total land in play over the course of two games’ conclusions, slamming the table in anger; anyone who’s played or spectated Ponza games has witnessed similar scenarios. Ponza is also notoriously inconsistent, losing to itself at a much higher frequency than most decks.
Should Ponza be banned into oblivion? No.
Are Ponza players evil and morally irredeemable? Obviously not.
Is the format healthier when games in which both players make meaningful decisions predominate over games in which only one or neither player makes meaningful decisions? Yes!
Guys, it’s okay to state obvious truths. I promise. Don’t be so afraid to be labeled biased that you lose the ability to publicly state that 2+2=4.
It's worth noting that CFP was largely silent when 4 Ux decks got T8 at GP Barcelona, but now we have this newest post with GP SP having less blue presence. Never mind the 3 interactive decks in the SP T8 and Mardu winning the whole thing. I believe, and I have said this to CFP before, that he focuses more in examples of reactive deck failures than successes. I don't know if this is to reinforce a narrative or just omission, but it is notable in the thread.
Its a data point, nothing more.
Spirits
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!
Spirits
It can, just like Mardu, 'run hot' however, and get through to the Top 8, as we saw in Vegas.
I think its perhaps another feather in ktk's hat of 'get reps on the deck you like, and play it as well as you can'.
Spirits
Ponza looking damn good though. I wonder how they do vs. Mardu? (probably poorly)
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)UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Lol...
It's not consistent enough right now, but if it ever gets there...it's rough to face.
Spirits
I would like to be very clear that this is a great arguement against twin. I can see this point and I don't have a problem admitting this point. Twin is a risky unban and in some ways the longer it goes the riskier or gets. The unbanning of AV Hurt the odds of a twin unban eventually, and the JTMS unban hurt it more. Search for azcanta doesn't help the chances for an unban and I realize this. If we got Preordain back I would just give up and accept twin will never be unbanned.
It would be a good deck to say the least and it carries risk.
But I believe it was fun to play, it was not unbeatable, it didn't break the turn four rule, they have printed more hate since it was banned that could help fight against it (authority of the counsels and fatal push among others), their are teir decks now that didn't exist before that would have decent favorability to win against twin (eldrazi tron, GDS, humans and hollow one might be pretty good too with the right draws). I just think it is on par for the format and would be one good deck among other good decks, but it is risky and I understand others having a different opinion than I do.
Well you already know my stance on variance and Top8s. I'm more shocked that we got actual meaningful data to create a picture of the weekend and it was the first thing I noticed. I sincerely hope that this trend of GP data continues, but I don't want to get my hopes up.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I'm not a fan of Ponza, but let's not forget that there aren't "wrong" ways to play the game. Personally, I'm not a fan of playstyles that stop your opponent from ever doing anything impactful, and that includes Ponza, but that's my own opinion. If someone enjoys a deck, we can't tell them they are a bad person and deserve to not play the game. Acceptance, y'all.
Weird, I could have sworn they played KCI, but I just went back and looked, it was 100% Lotus Bloom.
You might be thinking of the version that came about immediately after the banning. People tried to make the deck work again and that version generally used KCI since it used Open the Vaults and killed via Banefire. It didn't really last long though.
I put my Tron friend on some serious tilt when I faced him in Round 1 my first week on Ponza. He had 1 land in play in a total of 2 games when I "won." He actually slammed a table and I felt a bit badly. But then I thought about all those players who felt exactly like that when against Tron. He got over it though. It just was frustrating, understandably so. I think he still finished 3-1 that night while I got 4-0. Ended up playing against 2 Tron that day. @lucksack
Actually, the version before Scrap Trawler came out was not even as bad as people think. Codex Shredder was the win-con though, as infinite mill most of the time. The deck construction was similar to Second Sunrise Eggs and current KCI, but with 4 Faith's Reward and 3 Open the Vaults. Faith's Reward is still a very strong card and unlike Second Sunrise, it did not do the same thing for the opponent (which sometimes they were smart enough to Ghost Quarter their own lands or fetch while Second Sunrises were going off and leave up countermagic.
Maybe I'm biased here, as I got one of my few wins ever vs. Infect (with this version of Eggs) with a pair of turn 3 kills on him, one on the play. That felt damn good!
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)As a side note, I also don't think that Terminus is a particularly good card.
Are you talking about 60 swamp.dec? Decks can be non-cohesive, but anything that can play is worthy of existing, at least on its own. A recurring theme in the magic community is that people will start badmouthing a deck and claiming it shouldn't exist, either that people who decide to play it are wrong, or that those combinations of cards just shouldn't exist. The decks that you choose to play do not have some special intrinsic right to exist. As long as a deck is not violating any rules of the format, as decided at the B&R Council's discretion, it has just as much right to exist as any other deck.
Is the argument that Ponza only exists to troll people? If so, that's blatantly wrong. Ponza has won big events. What exactly is anyone's actual, logical argument against it other than personal bias?
I'm going to simplify my argument, and hopefully our posts will make sense.
- If something is blatantly tier 2. It's definitely unplayable in the context of tournament play, unless it truly should be tier 1. (Amulet Bloom and Eggs are good examples of this) Or if it truly is tier 2, it should not expect high level results, and therefore unplayable in the competitive sense.
- Something should also be unplayable when there is no possible level of reaction available within a card pool (Blazing Shoal Infect is an example)
A deck is not wrong to "own" and "play" but that doesn't mean I should have the delusion of registering 60 Islands and expect to win a tournament. The sad truth is that decks currently like Ponza are dramatically closer to 60 Islands than it is Tron on the scale of competitiveness.
There is absolutely a threshold within any given card pool of any format to deem what is playable. The cards within the format enforce this naturally, it's not a completely subjective topic like you are suggesting. If your creature can't effectively negate or gain enough of an advantage against Lightning Bolt it's probably unplayable. This concept is applied to every extreme of the game. That's not a debate.
EDIT: I also want to address a big elephant in the room, when people claim "OMG but that deck won that other tournament!"
I definitely don't credit the winner of a tournament as highly as others on this forum it seems. That's probably because I like to look at the larger picture. How many of that deck appeared at the tournament? What were the matchups? In high profile events, I look towards the top 64 or 32 of that event more importantly than what deck simply hit first place.
If you took a tournament, where lets say Tron won the event, but the other top 63 decks were Merfolk, can you actually claim Tron is Tier 1? Probably not. That Tron deck didn't beat 63 Merfolk Decks, it simply beat 5 of them at mathematical best. That's definitely a wild shot, which can be confounded by so many variables in each game. Yet let's say that Tron deck went to game 3 in each of those matches. See where I'm going with this? We could play a thousand games of Tron vs Merfolk to find it's merely only a 40% win ratio, therefore it's an underdog. People need to seriously stop putting emphasis as to which deck won, as a Scapegoat for Tier 2 decks. Other mechanics have a large matter as to the final trophy of any given tournament.
For the second group of people, they can choose to play literally whatever they want, even if it doesn't fit some preconceived idea of "viable." I used to play UW Enduring Ideal. I used to play Eternal Command. I've brewed and experimented and had a blast. Which of us is wrong in our thinking of the format? Modern as a whole is not only for people who macro the experience and try to draw far-reaching conclusions about meta-shares and tier lists. Modern, at its most fundamental definition, is an individual format of Magic: the Gathering with a specific card pool, intended to be played.
Your comment on Ponza being closer to 60 Islands than Tron is just your bias showing, and really bleeds any credence away from your other points. Try to avoid using logical fallacies such as hyperbole when having arguments.
If you think UW Enduring Ideal is going to win you tournaments, and grant you cash prizes or a Pro Tour Invite then yes, you are indeed wrong. If you want to play Modern Commander with your friends, then do as you please.
It's not my logical fallacy, it's you as a person claiming that everyone here needs to adhere to your casual desires, posting in a State of Modern thread. There are casual forums for your ideas, this specific thread adheres to these very topics which is in the very first post
You are definitely posting in the wrong forum, and your posts have been reported.
Infraction issued for trolling. --CavalryWolfPack
Ooooooh jeebus.
This legit reminds me of a conversation I was having at a modern event last night, where I posed the question of why so many people at this store, which draws around 30-40 people every Monday, run control and midrange while every single resource says that linear decks are generally better. One guy answered it perfectly in a way I was not quite expecting: "ego, people here aren't just competitive, but they also want to show how skilled and knowledgable they are." He was running dredge, btw. Why is this similar in my brain?
People trying really hard to justify their decisions. Look, let's be honest, you aren't going to win as much with enduring ideal or eternal command as you are with five color humans. Not now. Maybe not ever. That's okay, you do you, but don't get offended when someone says deck A just isn't as good. Modern has thousands of players pumping in thousands of hours into it of play, testing and theorizing. Even in a wide card pool, the best options rise to the top.
Also, funny enough there's such a thing as a fallacy fallacy, as in "just because the person used a logical fallacy does not mean they are wrong." Shmanka isn't wrong, even if his goal in playing differs from ours, 13055. His point stands. And yes, considering this forum looks primarily at competitive REL events, it should emphasize competitive play.
I have in fact seen this very discussion—not so much in this thread, but certainly elsewhere.
If Stirrings is banned, there will still be a lot of discussion about whether Preordain is a safe unban. If Preordain is unbanned (and the metashare of Stirrings decks holds strong or increases), there will still be a lot of discussion about whether Stirrings is ban-worthy.
However, if your point is that these two changes aren’t likely to happen simultaneously, I couldn’t agree more—the odds of that must be approaching zero. My thoughts on this subject are oriented more toward the long term, and were perhaps sloppily phrased.
Good call! Teeg’s power level is frankly insane IMO, and I expect his presence in Modern to increase over time.
I’m sorry to be so annoying on this subject, but I really think it’s important for people to understand.
It is a strawman to claim that the posters above were calling Ponza pilots bad people. One said the deck is horrible and no one should play it; the other agreed. Nowhere can I see the damning moral indictment of Ponza pilots that you seem to have seen!
There may be no “right” or “wrong” way to play the game, but I would assert that this is a false dichotomy. Even if right and wrong cannot be strictly defined in this context, it does not follow that that broad standards of gameplay health and enjoyability are nonexistent.
Ponza, to run with the example at hand, leads to a relatively high number of non-games. One poster mentioned his opponent having one total land in play over the course of two games’ conclusions, slamming the table in anger; anyone who’s played or spectated Ponza games has witnessed similar scenarios. Ponza is also notoriously inconsistent, losing to itself at a much higher frequency than most decks.
Should Ponza be banned into oblivion? No.
Are Ponza players evil and morally irredeemable? Obviously not.
Is the format healthier when games in which both players make meaningful decisions predominate over games in which only one or neither player makes meaningful decisions? Yes!
Guys, it’s okay to state obvious truths. I promise. Don’t be so afraid to be labeled biased that you lose the ability to publicly state that 2+2=4.
YouTube Channel, with deck techs, gameplay, analysis, spoiler reviews, and more!