I have a friend who plays Tron and he's something like 7-1 lifetime vs. Ad Nauseam with at least 5 of those being the same local Ad Nauseam player (the Ad Nauseam player made his first Pro Tour just last Trios one).
And in that match 2 weeks ago, I actually got destroyed with Bogles. Had the turn 4 kill with Kor Spiritdancer, but he killed me on HIS turn 4. The dice are not my friends. Then he went Lab Man into Angel's Grace/Spoils of the Vault, naming "Dash Hopes."
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)
yeah i agree that ad naus is generally underrated. its a solid meta deck. big mana, control, or GY decks dont want to see it, and im pretty sure its burn's outright worst matchup.
it just suffers when there is some combination of heavy discard decks, disruptive aggro (humans/spirits), and decks that are a turn faster than it (gifts storm, infect, kci, etc).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
I had to turn off GP Atlanta. If Day 2 looks like what I expect, its going to be a disaster.
What's a matter? You don't like KCI?
(I mean, I am a combo player, but I don't think it's the best choice for coverage.)
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)
What was wrong with the coverage? All the KCI decks? Or Owen going G/W tron to beat Dredge, or Dredge demolishing Burn like it was playing against a starter deck?
Coverage saying that "The reasons all the pros are playing decks like KCI, is because they are trying to break standard" was priceless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard Arena: Eh? Gruul or Die
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now: G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record) C Eldrazi Tron (9-5) UG Infect RW Burn
I had to turn off GP Atlanta. If Day 2 looks like what I expect, its going to be a disaster.
In general, you won't get an accurate read on either Day 2 or the T32 judging solely from Day 1 coverage matches. You see lots of 3 Bye pros who are naturally going to gravitate to things like KCI and Tron. Most pros just audible to decks that appear good because they have to prep across many formats. So they just go to perceived best-decks. See the recent Standard GP for an example of this, where something like 70%+ of them played BG Midrange despite that deck not being the best deck overall. Given that most other GP this year showcased plenty of viable decks across all playstyles and decktypes, it is unlikely this one will be different. I also tend to push back against your kind of position because we've seen it so many times over the last 2.75 years. If people just keep saying that some Modern GP is going to be horrible, they will be wrong most of the time and no one will care because it's just part of the noise. When they're finally right (when one makes the same bet every event over 2.75 years, it's going to be right eventually), it's treated as some format-defining, 'I-told-you-so' criticism. But as those last 2.75 years have shown, the format is actually robust, healthy, and self-correcting. Even if a single GP is a disaster (a few have been), the overall picture and most GP are not.
Normally I would agree, but powering up Dredge, just gives us a potential personal hell. Boosting Dredge has a very warping effect on the meta, at least in my experience.
Dredge
Tron
KCI
Burn
If those are the top 4 decks day 2, its...just yikes to me. So hopefully I can be wrong.
Then he went Lab Man into Angel's Grace/Spoils of the Vault, naming "Dash Hopes."
Thats a smile, nod, GG type moment.
My bad. It's Abandon Hope. I don't know why I always get those mixed up. Pro tip: don't ever get old. The brain isn't what it used to be.
TechnicallyAbandon Hope isn't a legal name in Modern. But hey, style points are style points. I might have to bring back the Naus if things keep getting better for it. It always just seemed to be on the wrong side of T4 kills. I suppose things are slowing down a bit though.
Then he went Lab Man into Angel's Grace/Spoils of the Vault, naming "Dash Hopes."
Thats a smile, nod, GG type moment.
My bad. It's Abandon Hope. I don't know why I always get those mixed up. Pro tip: don't ever get old. The brain isn't what it used to be.
TechnicallyAbandon Hope isn't a legal name in Modern. But hey, style points are style points. I might have to bring back the Naus if things keep getting better for it. It always just seemed to be on the wrong side of T4 kills. I suppose things are slowing down a bit though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the rules recently changed to allow players to name cards that aren't legal in the format. I can't find the article though.
201.3a If a player is instructed to choose a card name with certain characteristics, the player must
choose the name of a card whose Oracle text matches those characteristics. (See rule 108.1.)
Example: Dispossess reads, in part, “Choose an artifact card name.” The player can
choose the name of any artifact card, even one that’s not legal in the format of the
current game. The player can’t choose Islan
I don't know when it changed, but it appears to have changed based on the comprehensive rules. Seems like a weird change since the only reason it was there anyway was to prevent unintentionally picking the wrong card.
As I've mentioned before in many threads, this one included, Humans is good because all of its matchups are more favorable to Humans than any opponent believes. All of its matchups are about 5%+ closer to 50/50 (or 55/45 in Humans' favor) than everyone estimates. That's why my advice to anyone who says "My Humans matchup is X/Y" needs to subtract about 5% from X. This makes it a great choice in any field.
I've put off buying into Humans because it's not my style but man does it feel great to shut down various combo decks and still go toe to toe with the control/ midrange decks of the format. It's one Achilles's heel is Tron. The Tron vs Humans match ups favors tron, it's worse if the Tron deck has 3-4 Ballista's.
While I can't speak for Humans' percentages against the field, I can say that it's an absolute dog versus Hardened Scales. I'm winning just shy of 80% of my matches versus Humans in Competitive Leagues (with a decent sample size of almost 30). Too lazy to put a confidence interval around that, but suffice it to say I'd be very surprised if the "true" percentage wasn't at least 75-25.
yeah my bad guys. I meant Ad Naus, not Living End. I don't face either very often and am prone to getting them mixed up, even though they're barely anything alike.
Hmm, I don't know about Ad Naus right now. Ad Naus tends to lose to decks that get under it, and the last time Dredge rose to prominence it resulted in the format speeding up considerably to get under Dredge. That was actually when Ad Naus really dropped out of favor in the meta, and it never really recovered. This new version of Dredge is a lot harder to race, though, with the life gain they get from Creeping Chill. It might not be the best strategy to try and go under them, but going over them is really hard to do. I think Ad Naus's destiny is going to be tied to how people decide to attack Dredge. If it's racing again like in 2016, it'll be bad for Ad Naus.
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 my bad guys. I meant Ad Naus, not Living End. I don't face either very often and am prone to getting them mixed up, even though they're barely anything alike.
Hmm, I don't know about Ad Naus right now. Ad Naus tends to lose to decks that get under it, and the last time Dredge rose to prominence it resulted in the format speeding up considerably to get under Dredge. That was actually when Ad Naus really dropped out of favor in the meta, and it never really recovered. This new version of Dredge is a lot harder to race, though, with the life gain they get from Creeping Chill. It might not be the best strategy to try and go under them, but going over them is really hard to do. I think Ad Naus's destiny is going to be tied to how people decide to attack Dredge. If it's racing again like in 2016, it'll be bad for Ad Naus.
That's an interesting take. I was thinking of it much more in the context of Humans than Dredge, and if it can dodge Humans it has a good chance at most of the rest of the field right now, but you may be on to something here.
201.3a If a player is instructed to choose a card name with certain characteristics, the player must
choose the name of a card whose Oracle text matches those characteristics. (See rule 108.1.)
Example: Dispossess reads, in part, “Choose an artifact card name.” The player can
choose the name of any artifact card, even one that’s not legal in the format of the
current game. The player can’t choose Islan
I don't know when it changed, but it appears to have changed based on the comprehensive rules. Seems like a weird change since the only reason it was there anyway was to prevent unintentionally picking the wrong card.
Huh that's really stupid... I can't think of a single reason to allow a card not legal in a format to be named for any name-choice card... I stand corrected, but I do not believe that rule makes any sense.
It's casual REL, FNM. I actually am not sure, but as far as I know, it's a legal name.
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)
As I said in the GP thread... A lot of things had to go perfectly right for that Fae deck to actually win. We saw it spin its tires, draw 3 cards a turn, and have a commanding "advantage," but still do essentially nothing and be on the brink of losing at nearly every point. This is what the "20" looks like in an 20/80 matchup.
As I said in the GP thread... A lot of things had to go perfectly right for that Fae deck to actually win. We saw it spin its tires, draw 3 cards a turn, and have a commanding "advantage," but still do essentially nothing and be on the brink of losing at nearly every point. This is what the "20" looks like in an 20/80 matchup.
First off, these matchups are almost never as bad as you claim. Plenty of competent and experienced control pilots navigate these matchups and Ux Control has remained totally viable for the last year despite alleged 20/80 matchups. This suggests they aren't truly 20/80 as you have claimed here and in the past. Moreover, as we have seen from the large GP/SCG sample, there really aren't a lot of 20/80 matchups in Modern. The worst top-tier matchup I have recorded appears to be Jeskai vs. Tron at around 32%. That puts it in the range of the old Affinity vs. Twin matchup which, as you have pointed out at least twice in this thread, did not prevent Affinity from being a good/played deck. Second, who cares if a powerful control deck has a sub-50/50 matchup against a top-tier deck? ALL top-tier decks have bad matchups. Even the current king of 50/50 matchups, Humans, has at least two bad matchups we've seen (Hardened Scales and Tron). Of course, both Tron and Hardened Scales have their own bad matchups.
The anti-Tron narrative is just tiresome and tired at this point. It's beatable, it's an established part of the top-tier metagame, and decks that Tron allegedly destroys are also part of the top-tier metagame. It's also a script at this point that if a control deck loses to Tron on Twitch, people go bananas and rage about Tron. If the Tron deck loses, we see posts/comments like yours that belittle/minimize the win as an anomaly.
I'll just let the leader of Hooglandia speak for me.
I like the part where he uses results based thinking in the first post and then mutes/blocks people for not understanding results based thinking in the second post. Seems like someone whose opinion I should value.
The best way to describe how/why the Tron matchup is so horrible for midrange* decks is to look at outcomes based on how each deck performs. I have no idea what the best way to look at this is, so I made up a quick and dirty subjective look, as pictured in the attachment.
Essentially, in 3 out of the 4 possible outcomes, Tron is the likely winner. In two of the four, it's by a massive margin. In the other two, it is very close one way or another. What it means for midrange* to beat Tron is that everything needs to go well for that deck and go badly for Tron. It's certainly not impossible, but a lot of it is completely out of your hands, and assumes you play perfectly. Many mistakes by the midrange* player could be punished extremely badly. Any mistake by the Tron player could be made up by a lucky top deck for a huge haymaker.
*Generalized term "midrange" to mean fair and/or interactive and/or reactive decks that are not hyper fast aggro, or expecting to win within the first 3-5 turns.
Edit: and no, I don't think anything from Tron should be banned (except maybe Ancient Stirrings, which could be easily and quickly replaced with Oath of Nissa). I'm just stating why it's such a miserable and polarizing deck. And that celebrating the rare cases when fair decks actually beat Tron showcase that it's a rare enough thing to actually cause for celebration.
I'll just let the leader of Hooglandia speak for me.
I don't know if you really make a strong case by citing Hoogland, who I think has requested at least a few bans in every single update since he started streaming. I'm also not sure if you're accusing me of "Results based thinking," which I'm clearly not by citing a combination of individual games, metagame trends, and a large N dataset. I know that there's a subset of the community, that you and Hoogland belong to, which is categorically anti-Tron. No amount of argument will change those narratives, because as Hoogland said (and you are also insinuating?), he blocks and mutes people who disagree with him. This is obviously not a great approach to debate and as the last 2.75 years of Modern popularity, health, diversity, and banlist changes have shown, it's also probably a losing line.
The best way to describe how/why the Tron matchup is so horrible for midrange* decks is to look at outcomes based on how each deck performs. I have no idea what the best way to look at this is, so I made up a quick and dirty subjective look, as pictured in the attachment.
Essentially, in 3 out of the 4 possible outcomes, Tron is the likely winner. In two of the four, it's by a massive margin. In the other two, it is very close one way or another. What it means for midrange* to beat Tron is that everything needs to go well for that deck and go badly for Tron. It's certainly not impossible, but a lot of it is completely out of your hands, and assumes you play perfectly. Many mistakes by the midrange* player could be punished extremely badly. Any mistake by the Tron player could be made up by a lucky top deck for a huge haymaker.
*Generalized term "midrange" to mean fair and/or interactive and/or reactive decks that are not hyper fast aggro, or expecting to win within the first 3-5 turns.
I'll repeat points from the previous post. First, this again sounds like fair deck players just not wanting bad matchups. Everyone has bad matchups. If Tron is winning in 3 out of the 4 scenarios, that just means it's not the 50/50 matchup that the fair deck player wants. I know that some fair deck players, I believe you included, believe that you should have such a matchup spectrum in Modern. Fortunately, this is not the case and such decks do not exist. So I don't know why you keep repeating this argument.
Second, there is at least one fair deck in UW Control that is somewhere between 50%-55% against Tron. So your statement isn't even accurate on its own terms. Again, this points to the problem of the anti-Tron meme. It is uncritical and fundamentally ignores counter-arguments, even strong ones based on any combination of individual games, overall metagame patterns, and large N data. Thankfully, as I already said, history has resoundingly disproven the anti-Tron camp's arguments and it is clear that Modern is far healthier and more balanced than their narrative would have us believe.
I have a friend who plays Tron and he's something like 7-1 lifetime vs. Ad Nauseam with at least 5 of those being the same local Ad Nauseam player (the Ad Nauseam player made his first Pro Tour just last Trios one).
And in that match 2 weeks ago, I actually got destroyed with Bogles. Had the turn 4 kill with Kor Spiritdancer, but he killed me on HIS turn 4. The dice are not my friends. Then he went Lab Man into Angel's Grace/Spoils of the Vault, naming "Dash Hopes."
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)Thats a smile, nod, GG type moment.
Spirits
it just suffers when there is some combination of heavy discard decks, disruptive aggro (humans/spirits), and decks that are a turn faster than it (gifts storm, infect, kci, etc).
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Spirits
What's a matter? You don't like KCI?
(I mean, I am a combo player, but I don't think it's the best choice for coverage.)
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)Coverage saying that "The reasons all the pros are playing decks like KCI, is because they are trying to break standard" was priceless.
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now:
G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record)
C Eldrazi Tron (9-5)
UG Infect
RW Burn
Thankfully, I got to see my Team Canada win the Bronze in Overwatch.
Spirits
In general, you won't get an accurate read on either Day 2 or the T32 judging solely from Day 1 coverage matches. You see lots of 3 Bye pros who are naturally going to gravitate to things like KCI and Tron. Most pros just audible to decks that appear good because they have to prep across many formats. So they just go to perceived best-decks. See the recent Standard GP for an example of this, where something like 70%+ of them played BG Midrange despite that deck not being the best deck overall. Given that most other GP this year showcased plenty of viable decks across all playstyles and decktypes, it is unlikely this one will be different. I also tend to push back against your kind of position because we've seen it so many times over the last 2.75 years. If people just keep saying that some Modern GP is going to be horrible, they will be wrong most of the time and no one will care because it's just part of the noise. When they're finally right (when one makes the same bet every event over 2.75 years, it's going to be right eventually), it's treated as some format-defining, 'I-told-you-so' criticism. But as those last 2.75 years have shown, the format is actually robust, healthy, and self-correcting. Even if a single GP is a disaster (a few have been), the overall picture and most GP are not.
Dredge
Tron
KCI
Burn
If those are the top 4 decks day 2, its...just yikes to me. So hopefully I can be wrong.
Spirits
Technically Abandon Hope isn't a legal name in Modern. But hey, style points are style points. I might have to bring back the Naus if things keep getting better for it. It always just seemed to be on the wrong side of T4 kills. I suppose things are slowing down a bit though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the rules recently changed to allow players to name cards that aren't legal in the format. I can't find the article though.
choose the name of a card whose Oracle text matches those characteristics. (See rule 108.1.)
Example: Dispossess reads, in part, “Choose an artifact card name.” The player can
choose the name of any artifact card, even one that’s not legal in the format of the
current game. The player can’t choose Islan
I don't know when it changed, but it appears to have changed based on the comprehensive rules. Seems like a weird change since the only reason it was there anyway was to prevent unintentionally picking the wrong card.
While I can't speak for Humans' percentages against the field, I can say that it's an absolute dog versus Hardened Scales. I'm winning just shy of 80% of my matches versus Humans in Competitive Leagues (with a decent sample size of almost 30). Too lazy to put a confidence interval around that, but suffice it to say I'd be very surprised if the "true" percentage wasn't at least 75-25.
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
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Huh that's really stupid... I can't think of a single reason to allow a card not legal in a format to be named for any name-choice card... I stand corrected, but I do not believe that rule makes any sense.
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)UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
First off, these matchups are almost never as bad as you claim. Plenty of competent and experienced control pilots navigate these matchups and Ux Control has remained totally viable for the last year despite alleged 20/80 matchups. This suggests they aren't truly 20/80 as you have claimed here and in the past. Moreover, as we have seen from the large GP/SCG sample, there really aren't a lot of 20/80 matchups in Modern. The worst top-tier matchup I have recorded appears to be Jeskai vs. Tron at around 32%. That puts it in the range of the old Affinity vs. Twin matchup which, as you have pointed out at least twice in this thread, did not prevent Affinity from being a good/played deck. Second, who cares if a powerful control deck has a sub-50/50 matchup against a top-tier deck? ALL top-tier decks have bad matchups. Even the current king of 50/50 matchups, Humans, has at least two bad matchups we've seen (Hardened Scales and Tron). Of course, both Tron and Hardened Scales have their own bad matchups.
The anti-Tron narrative is just tiresome and tired at this point. It's beatable, it's an established part of the top-tier metagame, and decks that Tron allegedly destroys are also part of the top-tier metagame. It's also a script at this point that if a control deck loses to Tron on Twitch, people go bananas and rage about Tron. If the Tron deck loses, we see posts/comments like yours that belittle/minimize the win as an anomaly.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I like the part where he uses results based thinking in the first post and then mutes/blocks people for not understanding results based thinking in the second post. Seems like someone whose opinion I should value.
Spirits
Essentially, in 3 out of the 4 possible outcomes, Tron is the likely winner. In two of the four, it's by a massive margin. In the other two, it is very close one way or another. What it means for midrange* to beat Tron is that everything needs to go well for that deck and go badly for Tron. It's certainly not impossible, but a lot of it is completely out of your hands, and assumes you play perfectly. Many mistakes by the midrange* player could be punished extremely badly. Any mistake by the Tron player could be made up by a lucky top deck for a huge haymaker.
*Generalized term "midrange" to mean fair and/or interactive and/or reactive decks that are not hyper fast aggro, or expecting to win within the first 3-5 turns.
Edit: and no, I don't think anything from Tron should be banned (except maybe Ancient Stirrings, which could be easily and quickly replaced with Oath of Nissa). I'm just stating why it's such a miserable and polarizing deck. And that celebrating the rare cases when fair decks actually beat Tron showcase that it's a rare enough thing to actually cause for celebration.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I don't know if you really make a strong case by citing Hoogland, who I think has requested at least a few bans in every single update since he started streaming. I'm also not sure if you're accusing me of "Results based thinking," which I'm clearly not by citing a combination of individual games, metagame trends, and a large N dataset. I know that there's a subset of the community, that you and Hoogland belong to, which is categorically anti-Tron. No amount of argument will change those narratives, because as Hoogland said (and you are also insinuating?), he blocks and mutes people who disagree with him. This is obviously not a great approach to debate and as the last 2.75 years of Modern popularity, health, diversity, and banlist changes have shown, it's also probably a losing line.
I'll repeat points from the previous post. First, this again sounds like fair deck players just not wanting bad matchups. Everyone has bad matchups. If Tron is winning in 3 out of the 4 scenarios, that just means it's not the 50/50 matchup that the fair deck player wants. I know that some fair deck players, I believe you included, believe that you should have such a matchup spectrum in Modern. Fortunately, this is not the case and such decks do not exist. So I don't know why you keep repeating this argument.
Second, there is at least one fair deck in UW Control that is somewhere between 50%-55% against Tron. So your statement isn't even accurate on its own terms. Again, this points to the problem of the anti-Tron meme. It is uncritical and fundamentally ignores counter-arguments, even strong ones based on any combination of individual games, overall metagame patterns, and large N data. Thankfully, as I already said, history has resoundingly disproven the anti-Tron camp's arguments and it is clear that Modern is far healthier and more balanced than their narrative would have us believe.