I personally don't mind the uprising of eldrazi's decks, but some cards has to come off from the banlist to improve other decks. AV, BBE, SFM, Twin and Jace now looks silly being banned in this format. I always feel that Wizards need external input from the community to handle the banlist.
I'm beginning to think Modern needs a ban committee more like Commanders. Full of players that not only look at meta game information, but also actively play the format. It'll never happen, but we can dream the dream.
i do kinda wish there was SOMEONE on this thread talking about how eldrazi's fine and we just can't adapt haha.
I haven't played it yet, but I am going to run UR Eldrazi this Friday. I will give more feedback then. If this deck can help me win a lot, even at the cost of players leaving the format, then it's probably the best option for me for now.
That, or I play Rally in Standard.
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)
I'm really hoping the format stabilizes, or if necessary, a ban takes place come April. Until then, I will not be playing Modern outside of the kitchen table. I know I'm in the minority, but I've spoken out on social media, and I'll do so again by not partaking in any official modern tournament. If you dislike the format, don't play it.
My problem, ironically, is that I was planning to be playing less Modern due to my strong dislike of the Splinter Twin ban, but if I abstain now it'll be interpreted as anger over the Eldrazi deck rather than the thing that actually got me so frustrated.
On what should be removed, I really think it should be the Eye. It would impact Eldrazi, but also Tron, which is a good thing. Tron may not be a big player at the moment, but it has spelled death for control for a long time. Giving control a better chance is something many players on this forum can get behind.
If Tron has spelled death for control for a long time, then why was control much better in the past when Tron was also around? I'm tired of Tron being a scapegoat for control's woes in Modern. Yeah, it's a bad matchup, but I don't think Tron being a bad matchup for, say, Tribal Bears is exactly the reason Tribal Bears isn't viable. Control's problem is not that a deck exists that is a bad matchup (Tron is a bad matchup for Jund, if having Tron as a bad matchup makes something unviable, then why has Jund been good for so long?), it's that they lack good and cheap catch-all answers like Counterspell so control decks have big issues dealing with the format in general because the format is so varied.
I agree control should be made better. However, banning or weakening Tron will do little to achieve that because it doesn't address the bigger issues control has in the format.
There is a very real danger of Wizards deciding not to ban until the next modern pro tour. If that happens then there will likely be droves of modern players leaving the format and not returning. IF the problem is not dealt with before Modern season than Modern will have lost many people and by then its unlikely anyone will want to come back.
If the metagame data holds through March, that would be totally and utterly insane. I'm already confident they planned on unbanning something in April (Forsythe's Tweets were suggestive in that regard), and I can't believe they factored this Eldrazi issue into their Twinless world. If the numbers don't hold and Eldrazi falls back to a more reasonable share, then sure, it can stay. If not, it's gotta go.
Don't rule out WOTC doing anything. Its just as reasonable to assume they don't want to ban anything out of the deck because they want to keep people's decks in place. Plus it gives more reasons to sell any more copies of the MM2015 or OGW. There's almost as much evidence and cynical speculative business politics behind them keeping it around until the next modern pro tour as there is of them doing something about it now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
As far as Eye/Tron goes, a deck that can tutor up threats faster than the control decks can find it's answers is an issue. Combined this with Tron/Eldrazi's ability to do this while not suffering a real tempo lose, and the issue becomes more apparent. Getting rid of some of Tron's inevitability will not solve all of control's issues, but it would do the archtype some good. When control can not properly establish a mana advantage or have inevitability in the format, there is an issue. Taking out the Eye would allow them to regain a form of inevitability in the format.
I do understand worrying about ban fatigue, but I think there's also brokenness fatigue as well. Lots of the current modern playerbase just played through the Cruise meta not that long ago: we've seen how this goes, and are just going to skip out of the format until the storm blows over (and the bans happen).
As for worrying about banning the wrong card: I believe the Dig Through Time ban was correct. However, it was never actually proven that the card was broken: Wizards just wasn't willing to risk another three months after the Cruise season. If they emergency ban Cruise, maybe Dig gets tested and ends up not actually being broken? Same thing could happen again: maybe Eldrazi is OK but not broken with only one of Eye/Temple, but they might blow up both lands during the ban announcement if current trends hold.
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That's why I'm not worried about waiting for the metagame to "react": when the matchups are that fundamentally bad, you can't fix them by tweaking your deck. So the "adapted" meta is going to be warped enough that they'll ban the lands anyway. So why make us wait for months? Just rip that band-aid off so we can move forward.
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
As far as Eye/Tron goes, a deck that can tutor up threats faster than the control decks can find it's answers is an issue. Combined this with Tron/Eldrazi's ability to do this while not suffering a real tempo lose, and the issue becomes more apparent. Getting rid of some of Tron's inevitability will not solve all of control's issues, but it would do the archtype some good. When control can not properly establish a mana advantage or have inevitability in the format, there is an issue. Taking out the Eye would allow them to regain a form of inevitability in the format.
But none of those are any more of an "issue" than anything that makes a matchup a weaker one is. All you've done is described why Tron is a tough matchup for control. That's not any explanation for why it should be weakened.
I mean, everything you just said describes why 12-Post utterly smashes Miracles in Legacy. But Miracles is a really great deck. Somehow, having a poor matchup in 12-Post isn't stopping it from being a good deck. The difference is that it has the tools necessary to compete in the format whereas control in Modern does not. You make control viable by giving it those tools, not weakening one poor matchup.
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That is horrific, and somehow unsurprising.
Want to be more inspired?
WOTC doesnt give a ***** about diversity of archetypes.
Formats dominated by aggro and combo seem to be quite ok with WOTC. It's very likely theyre pleased with the non interactivity we've seen in the PT. That's whats more worrying than Eldrazi.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
I personally don't mind the uprising of eldrazi's decks, but some cards has to come off from the banlist to improve other decks. AV, BBE, SFM, Twin and Jace now looks silly being banned in this format. I always feel that Wizards need external input from the community to handle the banlist.
Having lived through the year of caw blade i can say I couldn't disagree more. By the time they got around to banning that broken start in standard 50% of my LGS was running it while the other 50% dropped out of standard until after scars rotated
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
I personally don't mind the uprising of eldrazi's decks, but some cards has to come off from the banlist to improve other decks. AV, BBE, SFM, Twin and Jace now looks silly being banned in this format. I always feel that Wizards need external input from the community to handle the banlist.
That won't stop the eldrazi dominance, itll eat a ban eventually, and then we'll be left with a bunch of unbanned cards dominating the format. Twin with AV and Jace? Stoneblade decks? Jund getting a buff? No thanks. The LAST thing I want to see is this being used as an excuse to sneak cards off the banlist. Unbans shouldn't even be remotely thought of in this unstable a meta.
I personally don't mind the uprising of eldrazi's decks, but some cards has to come off from the banlist to improve other decks. AV, BBE, SFM, Twin and Jace now looks silly being banned in this format. I always feel that Wizards need external input from the community to handle the banlist.
That won't stop the eldrazi dominance, itll eat a ban eventually, and then we'll be left with a bunch of unbanned cards dominating the format. Twin with AV and Jace? Stoneblade decks? Jund getting a buff? No thanks. The LAST thing I want to see is this being used as an excuse to sneak cards off the banlist. Unbans shouldn't even be remotely thought of in this unstable a meta.
Which is why I looked at it from the other perspective; Twin and bloom shouldn't have been banned right before the PT with Eldrazi. As opposed to sneaking things off the ban list, I see it as reversing a too-early ban to see if the original meta-with-twin might have forced eldrazi to be less creature focused and actually contain more removal spells, the same way Affinity used to have Galvanic blasts instead of Master of Etheriums.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
... The LAST thing I want to see is this being used as an excuse to sneak cards off the banlist. Unbans shouldn't even be remotely thought of in this unstable a meta.
Yep, that would be one of the two worst things they could do, to release another unknown variable into the format. (as an aside I said previously, AV would not do a scooby, its just too slow in this instance. You guys just need to look at bloody powerhouse that is shardless and what role AV plays in it. Its a long term thing. But that time you would be Eldrazied).
The other major mistake (and this one I would not put it past them) is that they decide to in an emergency cram a clever on-the-spur of the moment card in the next set and it ends up being a mistake of mental misstep proportions. Given that the set seems to be largely printed by now (judging from the leaks) I think we are also safe on that side.
(and this comes from someone that is all for releasing every single banned card into the format. Something which I'm beginning to believe, looking at that Moxen experiment, would be far more diverse, interesting and challenging than the last PT was. By a larg margin...)
I do understand worrying about ban fatigue, but I think there's also brokenness fatigue as well. Lots of the current modern playerbase just played through the Cruise meta not that long ago: we've seen how this goes, and are just going to skip out of the format until the storm blows over (and the bans happen).
As for worrying about banning the wrong card: I believe the Dig Through Time ban was correct. However, it was never actually proven that the card was broken: Wizards just wasn't willing to risk another three months after the Cruise season. If they emergency ban Cruise, maybe Dig gets tested and ends up not actually being broken? Same thing could happen again: maybe Eldrazi is OK but not broken with only one of Eye/Temple, but they might blow up both lands during the ban announcement if current trends hold.
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That's why I'm not worried about waiting for the metagame to "react": when the matchups are that fundamentally bad, you can't fix them by tweaking your deck. So the "adapted" meta is going to be warped enough that they'll ban the lands anyway. So why make us wait for months? Just rip that band-aid off so we can move forward.
Why would Wizards be able to control what a web site does in terms of monitoring match result stats?
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That is horrific, and somehow unsurprising.
Want to be more inspired?
WOTC doesnt give a ***** about diversity of archetypes.
Formats dominated by aggro and combo seem to be quite ok with WOTC. It's very likely theyre pleased with the non interactivity we've seen in the PT. That's whats more worrying than Eldrazi.
you shouldn't be so sure that we identify with those posters that much instead of Maro, personally i have great appreciation for Maro's work and articles/opinions and i lets say that the guy that calls Maro 'mentally challenged' did not leave me with the best impression (wow i said that smoothly!)
everyone seems to be twisting his words, he said that there's diversity but he has also acknowledged the Eldrazi problem, what we can hold from here is that he essentially excluded the emergency ban, as he said 'it's ok if some smart people smash a tournament, the problem is if this continues in the longterm'
also the article he provided was mentioning that a drop to midrange/control decks was expected due to the unknown metagame
I find this whole "Smart people figured out a unique way to smash a tournament" thing a little inane. "Smart" is finding the Amulet Bloom dynamic requiring multiple pieces and understanding the game mechanics well. "Smart" isn't going back to a previous set (not even that old) which has a tribal land and combining it with new cheap creatures from the tribal type. All that the CFB team and the other players did was show dedication in testing this to ascertain that it was a robust and legitimate deck. That's not intelligent necessarily, it's just determined. And they were able to do this while the rest of the field weren't most likely because they're professionals with more time and resources to dedicate to their deck building.
Maybe it's just me but if they do ban eye the. They need to ban all fast mana from the format ..mox opal..sprit guide ..eye.. Ect ect do it across the format .. But right now it's to early ...let the meta adjust..
Maybe it's just me but if they do ban eye the. They need to ban all fast mana from the format ..mox opal..sprit guide ..eye.. Ect ect do it across the format .. But right now it's to early ...let the meta adjust..
We need to be careful not to confuse ban criteria here. Opal has not yet reached problematic levels, even by the stretched logic of the Twin banning and certainly not by the logic of bans before that. SSG is a trickier case because it appears in all sorts of random stuff but never actually violates the turn four rule in its entirety. If Eldrazi lands get banned, it will likely be for egregious metagame diversity violations that Affinity has never even approached.
I dont think eye is any worse than SSG and opal if you do not have access to eldrazi mimic. Without it you are stuck playing a land that doesn't actually make mana without urbog. Thought not us still a t2-3 play which is reasonable when you consider many ramp decks in the format could do that. Without mimic eldrazi mimic isn't any worse than affinity barfing their whole hand t1
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
... Opal has not yet reached problematic levels, even by the stretched logic of the Twin banning and certainly not by the logic of bans before that. SSG is a trickier case because it appears in all sorts of random stuff but never actually violates the turn four rule in its entirety. If Eldrazi lands get banned, it will likely be for egregious metagame diversity violations that Affinity has never even approached.
I appreciate what you try to do, but I think you try to put too many 'in-game' logic where sometimes there is really none. The last bannings were largely driven for commercial concerns more than anything else.
We all know very well, they are a corporation making money for shareholders and that shows a lot in some decisions. The only reason I'm 100% certain there will be no ban until the next ban announcement, or maybe even further down the line, is pack selling. Nothing more, nothing else.
The problem is that those are lands that are accelerating them, not artifacts, not cards that need to be removed from the game, but lands that are part of the game plan regardless. It allows them to pack more threats into their lists and not suffer from card disadvantage. Heck, Eye is producing CA. Not saying they should be banned, but in the Eldrazi game plan, they can't be compared to Opal and SSG imo.
I do understand worrying about ban fatigue, but I think there's also brokenness fatigue as well. Lots of the current modern playerbase just played through the Cruise meta not that long ago: we've seen how this goes, and are just going to skip out of the format until the storm blows over (and the bans happen).
As for worrying about banning the wrong card: I believe the Dig Through Time ban was correct. However, it was never actually proven that the card was broken: Wizards just wasn't willing to risk another three months after the Cruise season. If they emergency ban Cruise, maybe Dig gets tested and ends up not actually being broken? Same thing could happen again: maybe Eldrazi is OK but not broken with only one of Eye/Temple, but they might blow up both lands during the ban announcement if current trends hold.
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That's why I'm not worried about waiting for the metagame to "react": when the matchups are that fundamentally bad, you can't fix them by tweaking your deck. So the "adapted" meta is going to be warped enough that they'll ban the lands anyway. So why make us wait for months? Just rip that band-aid off so we can move forward.
Why would Wizards be able to control what a web site does in terms of monitoring match result stats?
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That is horrific, and somehow unsurprising.
Want to be more inspired?
WOTC doesnt give a ***** about diversity of archetypes.
Formats dominated by aggro and combo seem to be quite ok with WOTC. It's very likely theyre pleased with the non interactivity we've seen in the PT. That's whats more worrying than Eldrazi.
you shouldn't be so sure that we identify with those posters that much instead of Maro, personally i have great appreciation for Maro's work and articles/opinions and i lets say that the guy that calls Maro 'mentally challenged' did not leave me with the best impression (wow i said that smoothly!)
everyone seems to be twisting his words, he said that there's diversity but he has also acknowledged the Eldrazi problem, what we can hold from here is that he essentially excluded the emergency ban, as he said 'it's ok if some smart people smash a tournament, the problem is if this continues in the longterm'
also the article he provided was mentioning that a drop to midrange/control decks was expected due to the unknown metagame
I find this whole "Smart people figured out a unique way to smash a tournament" thing a little inane. "Smart" is finding the Amulet Bloom dynamic requiring multiple pieces and understanding the game mechanics well. "Smart" isn't going back to a previous set (not even that old) which has a tribal land and combining it with new cheap creatures from the tribal type. All that the CFB team and the other players did was show dedication in testing this to ascertain that it was a robust and legitimate deck. That's not intelligent necessarily, it's just determined. And they were able to do this while the rest of the field weren't most likely because they're professionals with more time and resources to dedicate to their deck building.
c'mon man stop nitpicking semantics. it's obvious what the guy meant.
nobody on this forum, despite a global effort across multiple magic scenes, came up with the colourless eldrazi deck as ChannelFireball ran it. there was chatter about a stompy version but it was mostly ignored.
CFB (and i guess F2F) essentially played something we'd never seen before, and nobody else was prepared for. it was the deck's first ever tournament, and it did well. honestly, that's fine. granted, the results look like a weird outlier, but it's still totally fine.
(imagine Playing Affinity with a big team if nobody had any affinity/artifact hate in their sideboards - it'd be carnage. does Affinity need a ban? no!).
all the stupid hysterics and ban-mania are wearing really thin now. it just shows a lack of reasoning about the whole thing.
the deck's fine. it's good, no doubts. it has some pretty great opening hands it can possibly draw, but that isn't anything unusual for modern.
it's almost like the vocal commenters on here can't stand there being a new decent deck in modern. anything gets remotely good and it needs to be banned. Just a couple of weeks ago, mods were having to tell people to shut up because X deck did reasonably well on MTGO or something and "omg it needs to be banned".
not to mention that the top-8 for that ProTour was actually really great to watch, and very enjoyable. it was a spectacle, something interesting to talk about. some people did well with an effectively unknown deck and it made for great watching. the sky isn't falling on our heads, guys.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
I do understand worrying about ban fatigue, but I think there's also brokenness fatigue as well. Lots of the current modern playerbase just played through the Cruise meta not that long ago: we've seen how this goes, and are just going to skip out of the format until the storm blows over (and the bans happen).
As for worrying about banning the wrong card: I believe the Dig Through Time ban was correct. However, it was never actually proven that the card was broken: Wizards just wasn't willing to risk another three months after the Cruise season. If they emergency ban Cruise, maybe Dig gets tested and ends up not actually being broken? Same thing could happen again: maybe Eldrazi is OK but not broken with only one of Eye/Temple, but they might blow up both lands during the ban announcement if current trends hold.
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That's why I'm not worried about waiting for the metagame to "react": when the matchups are that fundamentally bad, you can't fix them by tweaking your deck. So the "adapted" meta is going to be warped enough that they'll ban the lands anyway. So why make us wait for months? Just rip that band-aid off so we can move forward.
Why would Wizards be able to control what a web site does in terms of monitoring match result stats?
Formats dominated by aggro and combo seem to be quite ok with WOTC. It's very likely theyre pleased with the non interactivity we've seen in the PT. That's whats more worrying than Eldrazi.
you shouldn't be so sure that we identify with those posters that much instead of Maro, personally i have great appreciation for Maro's work and articles/opinions and i lets say that the guy that calls Maro 'mentally challenged' did not leave me with the best impression (wow i said that smoothly!)
everyone seems to be twisting his words, he said that there's diversity but he has also acknowledged the Eldrazi problem, what we can hold from here is that he essentially excluded the emergency ban, as he said 'it's ok if some smart people smash a tournament, the problem is if this continues in the longterm'
also the article he provided was mentioning that a drop to midrange/control decks was expected due to the unknown metagame
I find this whole "Smart people figured out a unique way to smash a tournament" thing a little inane. "Smart" is finding the Amulet Bloom dynamic requiring multiple pieces and understanding the game mechanics well. "Smart" isn't going back to a previous set (not even that old) which has a tribal land and combining it with new cheap creatures from the tribal type. All that the CFB team and the other players did was show dedication in testing this to ascertain that it was a robust and legitimate deck. That's not intelligent necessarily, it's just determined. And they were able to do this while the rest of the field weren't most likely because they're professionals with more time and resources to dedicate to their deck building.
i understand why you say this, but for me it's essential to always give credit were it's due, no exceptions,no excuses, maybe i would be pro if i was playing 8 hrs per day instaed of working 8hrs per day, but that doesn't make me equal to the pros yes?
they came up with alot of tech in a very short time frame and their ideas proved brutally efficient, Eldrazi could develop in tons of directions emphasizing aggro,midrange or ramp gameplans with anywhere from 0 to Jund levels of interaction and it could also include any 0-2 color combination, not to mention Chalice + SSG which was a pretty crazy idea that worked greatly
That's fair, and I'm not trying to take credit away from them, I'm just trying to attribute the credit accurately. I don't think it was about savant level intelligence or anything. I think a few guys spotted a potential exploit, and rigorously tested a lot of cards that the exploit pertains to. That they managed to do it efficiently and in a short space of time is not under question, they definitely did, but they didn't come up with an Amulet Bloom level interaction in a fortnight.
Inventive meta reading like the Chalice + SSG combo was quite clever, that much I'll admit. They understood that the meta thought Tron would be the prevalent deck in the field, and everyone was going to (try to) creep under them with 1CMC spells, and effectively shut off half the field if their openers contained SSG + Chalice. That part was smart, no doubt.
As Nero played a fiddle as Rome fell, Forsythe plays a twitter....
And "smart people didn't find a way to smash a tournament." My God, WotC created a fricken highway of bread crumbs for them to follow. It didn't take a lick of intelligence. Just dog like obedience to go where WotC pointed. I don't mean to raz on folks who worked on this deck. I know they put some time in. But just having basic deck building knowledge one could watch the spoiler and see deck piece after deck piece fall into place as OGW was revealed. Combining that with the already existing lands that were a hair's breadth from being broken already, and presto changeo a format lies nearly in ruins.
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
... Opal has not yet reached problematic levels, even by the stretched logic of the Twin banning and certainly not by the logic of bans before that. SSG is a trickier case because it appears in all sorts of random stuff but never actually violates the turn four rule in its entirety. If Eldrazi lands get banned, it will likely be for egregious metagame diversity violations that Affinity has never even approached.
I appreciate what you try to do, but I think you try to put too many 'in-game' logic where sometimes there is really none. The last bannings were largely driven for commercial concerns more than anything else.
We all know very well, they are a corporation making money for shareholders and that shows a lot in some decisions. The only reason I'm 100% certain there will be no ban until the next ban announcement, or maybe even further down the line, is pack selling. Nothing more, nothing else.
Even if we go with the financial logic, it's a bad move. Wizards doesn't make money in Modern by selling Oath packs. They need to organize tournaments and ensure high attendance. If Eldrazi keep their share past March, that would be a huge detriment to attendance and Wizards would need to ban something to get numbers back up. I guess it's possible that attendance doesn't take a hit even though Eldrazi occupy an obscene metagame share, in which case I suppose they wouldn't necessarily ban something. But assuming large Eldrazi shares lead to lower attendance, which almost everyone believes will happen, then bans are in Wizards' financial interest as much as they are in their metagame diversity ones.
... Wizards doesn't make money in Modern by selling Oath packs. ....
Actually, they do if one of the ways to get the deck to play is through packs. Try to get anything significant for Affinity or Jund that way. All this adds up to their bottom line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm beginning to think Modern needs a ban committee more like Commanders. Full of players that not only look at meta game information, but also actively play the format. It'll never happen, but we can dream the dream.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
I haven't played it yet, but I am going to run UR Eldrazi this Friday. I will give more feedback then. If this deck can help me win a lot, even at the cost of players leaving the format, then it's probably the best option for me for now.
That, or I play Rally in Standard.
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 Tron has spelled death for control for a long time, then why was control much better in the past when Tron was also around? I'm tired of Tron being a scapegoat for control's woes in Modern. Yeah, it's a bad matchup, but I don't think Tron being a bad matchup for, say, Tribal Bears is exactly the reason Tribal Bears isn't viable. Control's problem is not that a deck exists that is a bad matchup (Tron is a bad matchup for Jund, if having Tron as a bad matchup makes something unviable, then why has Jund been good for so long?), it's that they lack good and cheap catch-all answers like Counterspell so control decks have big issues dealing with the format in general because the format is so varied.
I agree control should be made better. However, banning or weakening Tron will do little to achieve that because it doesn't address the bigger issues control has in the format.
Don't rule out WOTC doing anything. Its just as reasonable to assume they don't want to ban anything out of the deck because they want to keep people's decks in place. Plus it gives more reasons to sell any more copies of the MM2015 or OGW. There's almost as much evidence and cynical speculative business politics behind them keeping it around until the next modern pro tour as there is of them doing something about it now.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
As for worrying about banning the wrong card: I believe the Dig Through Time ban was correct. However, it was never actually proven that the card was broken: Wizards just wasn't willing to risk another three months after the Cruise season. If they emergency ban Cruise, maybe Dig gets tested and ends up not actually being broken? Same thing could happen again: maybe Eldrazi is OK but not broken with only one of Eye/Temple, but they might blow up both lands during the ban announcement if current trends hold.
I don't want to link the site because it will get them a WOTC cease-and-desist for scraping MTGO results, but there is someone out there monitoring MTGO match results. Not only is Eldrazi 50% of the winners metagame, but both versions have MWP of around 65%. No other deck is over 54%. For reference, Affinity has a MWP around 64% against Merfolk, and Burn is 64% against Tron. So Eldrazi is a little better against the field than Affinity is against Merfolk or Burn is against Tron. WOTC has all this data, and I'm sure they are paying attention to it.
That's why I'm not worried about waiting for the metagame to "react": when the matchups are that fundamentally bad, you can't fix them by tweaking your deck. So the "adapted" meta is going to be warped enough that they'll ban the lands anyway. So why make us wait for months? Just rip that band-aid off so we can move forward.
That is horrific, and somehow unsurprising.
I mean, everything you just said describes why 12-Post utterly smashes Miracles in Legacy. But Miracles is a really great deck. Somehow, having a poor matchup in 12-Post isn't stopping it from being a good deck. The difference is that it has the tools necessary to compete in the format whereas control in Modern does not. You make control viable by giving it those tools, not weakening one poor matchup.
Want to be more inspired?
WOTC doesnt give a ***** about diversity of archetypes.
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/696762210261962752
Formats dominated by aggro and combo seem to be quite ok with WOTC. It's very likely theyre pleased with the non interactivity we've seen in the PT. That's whats more worrying than Eldrazi.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Having lived through the year of caw blade i can say I couldn't disagree more. By the time they got around to banning that broken start in standard 50% of my LGS was running it while the other 50% dropped out of standard until after scars rotated
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
That won't stop the eldrazi dominance, itll eat a ban eventually, and then we'll be left with a bunch of unbanned cards dominating the format. Twin with AV and Jace? Stoneblade decks? Jund getting a buff? No thanks. The LAST thing I want to see is this being used as an excuse to sneak cards off the banlist. Unbans shouldn't even be remotely thought of in this unstable a meta.
Which is why I looked at it from the other perspective; Twin and bloom shouldn't have been banned right before the PT with Eldrazi. As opposed to sneaking things off the ban list, I see it as reversing a too-early ban to see if the original meta-with-twin might have forced eldrazi to be less creature focused and actually contain more removal spells, the same way Affinity used to have Galvanic blasts instead of Master of Etheriums.
BGW Elves BGW|BW Tokens BW|WBR Sword&ShieldWBR|BUG DelverBUG|UWR Kiki UWR | UR Storm UR
Yep, that would be one of the two worst things they could do, to release another unknown variable into the format. (as an aside I said previously, AV would not do a scooby, its just too slow in this instance. You guys just need to look at bloody powerhouse that is shardless and what role AV plays in it. Its a long term thing. But that time you would be Eldrazied).
The other major mistake (and this one I would not put it past them) is that they decide to in an emergency cram a clever on-the-spur of the moment card in the next set and it ends up being a mistake of mental misstep proportions. Given that the set seems to be largely printed by now (judging from the leaks) I think we are also safe on that side.
(and this comes from someone that is all for releasing every single banned card into the format. Something which I'm beginning to believe, looking at that Moxen experiment, would be far more diverse, interesting and challenging than the last PT was. By a larg margin...)
I like the new metagame even if it stuffs up GP Melbourne royally. People already didn't wanna go because the organisers are charging too much.
Why would Wizards be able to control what a web site does in terms of monitoring match result stats?
I find this whole "Smart people figured out a unique way to smash a tournament" thing a little inane. "Smart" is finding the Amulet Bloom dynamic requiring multiple pieces and understanding the game mechanics well. "Smart" isn't going back to a previous set (not even that old) which has a tribal land and combining it with new cheap creatures from the tribal type. All that the CFB team and the other players did was show dedication in testing this to ascertain that it was a robust and legitimate deck. That's not intelligent necessarily, it's just determined. And they were able to do this while the rest of the field weren't most likely because they're professionals with more time and resources to dedicate to their deck building.
We need to be careful not to confuse ban criteria here. Opal has not yet reached problematic levels, even by the stretched logic of the Twin banning and certainly not by the logic of bans before that. SSG is a trickier case because it appears in all sorts of random stuff but never actually violates the turn four rule in its entirety. If Eldrazi lands get banned, it will likely be for egregious metagame diversity violations that Affinity has never even approached.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
I appreciate what you try to do, but I think you try to put too many 'in-game' logic where sometimes there is really none. The last bannings were largely driven for commercial concerns more than anything else.
We all know very well, they are a corporation making money for shareholders and that shows a lot in some decisions. The only reason I'm 100% certain there will be no ban until the next ban announcement, or maybe even further down the line, is pack selling. Nothing more, nothing else.
c'mon man stop nitpicking semantics. it's obvious what the guy meant.
nobody on this forum, despite a global effort across multiple magic scenes, came up with the colourless eldrazi deck as ChannelFireball ran it. there was chatter about a stompy version but it was mostly ignored.
CFB (and i guess F2F) essentially played something we'd never seen before, and nobody else was prepared for. it was the deck's first ever tournament, and it did well. honestly, that's fine. granted, the results look like a weird outlier, but it's still totally fine.
(imagine Playing Affinity with a big team if nobody had any affinity/artifact hate in their sideboards - it'd be carnage. does Affinity need a ban? no!).
all the stupid hysterics and ban-mania are wearing really thin now. it just shows a lack of reasoning about the whole thing.
the deck's fine. it's good, no doubts. it has some pretty great opening hands it can possibly draw, but that isn't anything unusual for modern.
it's almost like the vocal commenters on here can't stand there being a new decent deck in modern. anything gets remotely good and it needs to be banned. Just a couple of weeks ago, mods were having to tell people to shut up because X deck did reasonably well on MTGO or something and "omg it needs to be banned".
not to mention that the top-8 for that ProTour was actually really great to watch, and very enjoyable. it was a spectacle, something interesting to talk about. some people did well with an effectively unknown deck and it made for great watching. the sky isn't falling on our heads, guys.
That's fair, and I'm not trying to take credit away from them, I'm just trying to attribute the credit accurately. I don't think it was about savant level intelligence or anything. I think a few guys spotted a potential exploit, and rigorously tested a lot of cards that the exploit pertains to. That they managed to do it efficiently and in a short space of time is not under question, they definitely did, but they didn't come up with an Amulet Bloom level interaction in a fortnight.
Inventive meta reading like the Chalice + SSG combo was quite clever, that much I'll admit. They understood that the meta thought Tron would be the prevalent deck in the field, and everyone was going to (try to) creep under them with 1CMC spells, and effectively shut off half the field if their openers contained SSG + Chalice. That part was smart, no doubt.
And "smart people didn't find a way to smash a tournament." My God, WotC created a fricken highway of bread crumbs for them to follow. It didn't take a lick of intelligence. Just dog like obedience to go where WotC pointed. I don't mean to raz on folks who worked on this deck. I know they put some time in. But just having basic deck building knowledge one could watch the spoiler and see deck piece after deck piece fall into place as OGW was revealed. Combining that with the already existing lands that were a hair's breadth from being broken already, and presto changeo a format lies nearly in ruins.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
Even if we go with the financial logic, it's a bad move. Wizards doesn't make money in Modern by selling Oath packs. They need to organize tournaments and ensure high attendance. If Eldrazi keep their share past March, that would be a huge detriment to attendance and Wizards would need to ban something to get numbers back up. I guess it's possible that attendance doesn't take a hit even though Eldrazi occupy an obscene metagame share, in which case I suppose they wouldn't necessarily ban something. But assuming large Eldrazi shares lead to lower attendance, which almost everyone believes will happen, then bans are in Wizards' financial interest as much as they are in their metagame diversity ones.
Actually, they do if one of the ways to get the deck to play is through packs. Try to get anything significant for Affinity or Jund that way. All this adds up to their bottom line.