@KTKenshinx, i'm surprised to see you getting involved with the negativity here as well; you've often been the voice of reason when it comes to what specific tournament results may mean in the long term. instead I see you joining the chorus of ban-talk and sky-is-falling commentary. seems a bit out of character for you, honestly.
When asked what needs to be done, I've responded the same way to multiple posters, both here and on Twitter. We need to wait and see what happens in the March GP weekend. After that, if things smooth out, I'd still like to see control unbans unless control somehow has a total renaissance in March. If Eldrazi and linear decks are still rampant, I'd still prefer to see no bans, as this banning loop has not worked since 2013 to address longterm Modern health. I've admitted that Wizards might themselves ban a card, but I personally hope that doesn't happen.
As I've talked about before, there's this persistent belief that people are either doomsaying or Modern supporters, with little room for middle ground. If we are criticizing the format, it's immediately considered "ban-mania" and "sky-is-falling commentary." If we are supporting Modern, we can't say a word of criticism about it. Although there are certainly people who are just in the doomsaying category, and although there are Modern supporters who choose not to be critical, both of these groups are misleading and misled. There is considerable room for middle ground between those positions, which is where I've found myself all weekend.
Anyone who looks at this Day 1, Day 2, and Top 8 metagame at PT (not to mention the coverage or community response) is deliberately misleading themselves and others if they think there is no cause for worry. There is unquestionably cause for worry. That said, anyone who processes these datapoints and immediately emerges as a categorical Modern hater, emergency-ban proponent, and Wizards basher has also gone too far. We need to look at these numbers and take a healthy measure of worry with a bolstering shot of optimism. This is where I've been in the vast majority of my posts, and although I'm sure people could cherrypick short examples where I'm more frustrated than optimistic, the overall picture (and the longer posts) are very clear.
We have until April to sort this out at a metagame level. If that doesn't work, I will continue to advocate for unbans/reprints/new cards unless Eldrazi develops into some 20%+ monstrosity. If we still have linear/Eldrazi issues in July, the issues suggested but not confirmed in this PT, then maybe a ban will be needed.
i cannot understand why one would have such an issue with bans, especially since it's new cards: Eldrazi have no loyal fanbase, no people who invested years in mastering them, no history, no emotion behind them, none will care if they're banned, this is not Twin or Pod which created some really negative feelings on a considerable amount of the playerbase
imo there's absolutely no reson to NOT ban Eye of Ugin, Eldrazi on an abstract were among the absolute worst meta calls one could make on this PT:essentially you are playing a ramp deck with limited interaction in a meta packed with aggro decks capable of killing you by T3 and in this totally hostile enviroment not only it did preserve but it also completely dominated the Tour: there were T1 decks more played than Eldrazi yet it managed to have a 6/8 seats and we'll see a Eldrazi mirror finals too in a couple of hours
seriously what would happen if Eldrazi were unleashed in a 'normal' meta, with T2 and lower deecks, lots of BGx and considerably slower? what will happen next week when the people will bring those decks at their local events and we'll start seeing them winning GPTs and other minor events by the storm?
honestly even if something actually manages to police them i don't care, having to deal with Tron/affinity/burn/infect is already enough, i just can't take the 'boiling cauldron' idea of format policemen for a good meta, it's just a recipe for MU lottery and minimising the odds of competitive players to win events
Nothing needs to be banned. First time in magic's history we had three non-twin URx decks viable in the top 8... Blue is viable right?
On a more serious note: Eye of ugin will most likely be banned. But we knew that before the PT. It's not like Eldrazi was a "break out deck" of the format. Everyone knew it was going to be the #1 deck in modern, except for the unrealistically optimistic people.
Yeah, if they had not banned Twin, I bet the feels about this PT would have been very very different. Seeing this Eldrazi flood on top of the bad feels of the Twin ban? Bleh.
I doubt we would have seen a meta completely dominated by Eldrazi had Twin not been banned.
There would have been alot, sure. But not as much as we saw this weekend.
I must say that it is adorable how so many of you (though certainly not all) are essenrially hyperventilating over one tournament. Your sample size is too damn small, stop trying to look smart by attempting to fix Modern after one lone tournament.
Although this sentiment can come from a helpful place, it's misplaced in this case. The Pro Tour was a bad event from a diversity perspective. There's no other way to cut it. But this doesn't mean Modern is screwed as a format. As others have said, now it's up to the community to react to the metagame. We have three GPs to do that in March, and some interim events until them. If we can't do that, then I'm sure Wizards will take a more drastic action, whether an unban, a ban, or both.
Anyone who looks at this event with no degree of worry is deliberately misleading themselves or others. That doesn't mean we need to take to Twitter and Twitch about an Eye emergency ban, but it also doesn't mean we can look at the PT and dismiss it because it was one event. That's willfully obscuring the possible dangers the event poses.
I did not mean to imply we should dismiss this ProTour but rather consider it a data point.
This is clearly an important event but the mistake is to make a bunch of important decisions based on nothing but this ProTour.
Important decisions like banning Splinter Twin?
What in the world are you talking about.
Aaron Forsythe of Wizards has basically admitted that Splinter Twin was banned because of the Pro Tour and that preemptive bans are a consequences of a Modern Pro Tour. So yes, it is ironic to advise not making important decisions based on specifically the Pro Tour when we are in this exact predicament BECAUSE Wizards made a decision based on the Pro Tour.
My biggest takeaway from this isn't about bannings or unbannings, but that Wizards needs to devote some serious resources to testing for Modern, if they're going to continue calling it a format. It's either that or be forced to do pseudo-emergency bans all the time, ala Treasure Cruise, somehow slowing this deck down a bit, and being prepared to do that every time there is an oversight like this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
For one you would play seer first on turn two and attack for 12 turn 2. Secondly that's not the nut draw. 4 mimics, eye, temple, reality smasher. Draw SSG on turn two after four turn one mimics and attack for 25.
Then again I'm pretty sure Affinity can come up with many combinations that on turn two they hit you for lethal with poison on inkmoth or just knock you down really low. Same for infect.
Seer doesn't have haste so no 12 on T2, but you are right, you'd play Seer before the attack to strip a card away from opponent. Reality Smasher is a 5 cmc card and would do nothing on T1 or T2. I like your #3 option though.
And yep, the attack T2 would go
Play Temple, Play Seer, 2/2 EO 2/2 EO 4/4 mimic 4/4 mimic for 12 that way. So 12 is correct. And as you say all 4 Mimics would be the true nut draw and an attack for 16 on turn 2 that way.
The true nut 7 is Eye, Mimic, Mimic, Mimic, Temple, SSG, Smasher to attack for 20 on Turn 2.
We have a winner!!!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Yeah, if they had not banned Twin, I bet the feels about this PT would have been very very different. Seeing this Eldrazi flood on top of the bad feels of the Twin ban? Bleh.
I doubt we would have seen a meta completely dominated by Eldrazi had Twin not been banned.
There would have been alot, sure. But not as much as we saw this weekend.
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
For one you would play seer first on turn two and attack for 12 turn 2. Secondly that's not the nut draw. 4 mimics, eye, temple, reality smasher. Draw SSG on turn two after four turn one mimics and attack for 25.
Then again I'm pretty sure Affinity can come up with many combinations that on turn two they hit you for lethal with poison on inkmoth or just knock you down really low. Same for infect.
Seer doesn't have haste so no 12 on T2, but you are right, you'd play Seer before the attack to strip a card away from opponent. Reality Smasher is a 5 cmc card and would do nothing on T1 or T2. I like your #3 option though.
And yep, the attack T2 would go
Play Temple, Play Seer, 2/2 EO 2/2 EO 4/4 mimic 4/4 mimic for 12 that way. So 12 is correct. And as you say all 4 Mimics would be the true nut draw and an attack for 16 on turn 2 that way.
With SSG drawn on turn 2 more shenanigans will commence as you say. Whatever the case, nothing much outside Affinity or Infect can put up that type of damage presence on T1 and T2 in Modern it seems. (Unless I'm missing something)
The nut draw is Eye, 3 Mimics, Simian Spirit Guide, Smasher, Eldrazi Temple. Turn 2 kill.
Yeah, if they had not banned Twin, I bet the feels about this PT would have been very very different. Seeing this Eldrazi flood on top of the bad feels of the Twin ban? Bleh.
I doubt we would have seen a meta completely dominated by Eldrazi had Twin not been banned.
There would have been alot, sure. But not as much as we saw this weekend.
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
slightly better then 100% aggro in top 8.
Not much, but still better (unless you like PURE linear non-interactive decks in your top 8)
My main takeaway from all this is that WotC had a very good reason to not want Modern at the ProTour. I expect WotC to revisit that decision and there won't be much furour over it.
If that "good reason" is "we'd make a bunch of really dumb decisions that would make it look bad." The problem is not Modern being at the Pro Tour, it's WOTC making dumb decisions that caused this. There's no rule that they have to ban something to try to shake things up; they just arbitrarily decided on that themselves, and we see the results. They've also had years to stick some good answer cards into Standard that they've neglected to do. I've become increasingly convinced that Counterspell would do a lot to curb problems, and it's not like they've had a lack of time to put it into Standard. And if they had put Containment Priest in Standard instead of Commander, who knows if Birthing Pod would have been banned?
If their reason for not wanting a Modern Pro Tour is their own incompetence, that's an argument for them to smarten up, not to get rid of the Pro Tour.
Yeah, if they had not banned Twin, I bet the feels about this PT would have been very very different. Seeing this Eldrazi flood on top of the bad feels of the Twin ban? Bleh.
I doubt we would have seen a meta completely dominated by Eldrazi had Twin not been banned.
There would have been alot, sure. But not as much as we saw this weekend.
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
Far from not being any better for the format, that's actually a fairly big improvement, as there's actual archetype diversity (it's not all aggro!) as well as three decks with one deck not taking up the majority of the Top 8.
@KTKenshinx, i'm surprised to see you getting involved with the negativity here as well; you've often been the voice of reason when it comes to what specific tournament results may mean in the long term. instead I see you joining the chorus of ban-talk and sky-is-falling commentary. seems a bit out of character for you, honestly.
When asked what needs to be done, I've responded the same way to multiple posters, both here and on Twitter. We need to wait and see what happens in the March GP weekend. After that, if things smooth out, I'd still like to see control unbans unless control somehow has a total renaissance in March. If Eldrazi and linear decks are still rampant, I'd still prefer to see no bans, as this banning loop has not worked since 2013 to address longterm Modern health. I've admitted that Wizards might themselves ban a card, but I personally hope that doesn't happen.
As I've talked about before, there's this persistent belief that people are either doomsaying or Modern supporters, with little room for middle ground. If we are criticizing the format, it's immediately considered "ban-mania" and "sky-is-falling commentary." If we are supporting Modern, we can't say a word of criticism about it. Although there are certainly people who are just in the doomsaying category, and although there are Modern supporters who choose not to be critical, both of these groups are misleading and misled. There is considerable room for middle ground between those positions, which is where I've found myself all weekend.
Anyone who looks at this Day 1, Day 2, and Top 8 metagame at PT (not to mention the coverage or community response) is deliberately misleading themselves and others if they think there is no cause for worry. There is unquestionably cause for worry. That said, anyone who processes these datapoints and immediately emerges as a categorical Modern hater, emergency-ban proponent, and Wizards basher has also gone too far. We need to look at these numbers and take a healthy measure of worry with a bolstering shot of optimism. This is where I've been in the vast majority of my posts, and although I'm sure people could cherrypick short examples where I'm more frustrated than optimistic, the overall picture (and the longer posts) are very clear.
We have until April to sort this out at a metagame level. If that doesn't work, I will continue to advocate for unbans/reprints/new cards unless Eldrazi develops into some 20%+ monstrosity. If we still have linear/Eldrazi issues in July, the issues suggested but not confirmed in this PT, then maybe a ban will be needed.
i cannot understand why one would have such an issue with bans, especially since it's new cards: Eldrazi have no loyal fanbase, no people who invested years in mastering them, no history, no emotion behind them, none will care if they're banned, this is not Twin or Pod which created some really negative feelings on a considerable amount of the playerbase
imo there's absolutely no reson to NOT ban Eye of Ugin, Eldrazi on an abstract were among the absolute worst meta calls one could make on this PT:essentially you are playing a ramp deck with limited interaction in a meta packed with aggro decks capable of killing you by T3 and in this totally hostile enviroment not only it did preserve but it also completely dominated the Tour: there were T1 decks more played than Eldrazi yet it managed to have a 6/8 seats and we'll see a Eldrazi mirror finals too in a couple of hours
seriously what would happen if Eldrazi were unleashed in a 'normal' meta, with T2 and lower deecks, lots of BGx and considerably slower? what will happen next week when the people will bring those decks at their local events and we'll start seeing them winning GPTs and other minor events by the storm?
honestly even if something actually manages to police them i don't care, having to deal with Tron/affinity/burn/infect is already enough, i just can't take the 'boiling cauldron' idea of format policemen for a good meta, it's just a recipe for MU lottery and minimising the odds of competitive players to win events
Nothing needs to be banned. First time in magic's history we had three non-twin URx decks viable in the top 8... Blue is viable right?
On a more serious note: Eye of ugin will most likely be banned. But we knew that before the PT. It's not like Eldrazi was a "break out deck" of the format. Everyone knew it was going to be the #1 deck in modern, except for the unrealistically optimistic people.
this is getting ridiculous, are you stalking my posts to mock me?
yes URx is viable and we have actually seen it put up results in this very PT against an utterly broken deck which will get banned soon
i don't give a damn if you can't win with it, i can ok?
now if you have a problem with me take to PMs, where i'll be able to express myself more 'librealy', anything else you say to me in public will be ignored
You said it was viable, yet it had terrible conversion rates.
Nothing you say makes sense hence why I bring it up. So we keep truth and logic in these forums.
Had It top 8ed... I would have actually posted saying you where right as well. But that's neither here or there.
It doesn't change the fact that this specific PT: control was NOT viable overall.
People winning with decks != a viable deck. I know people who did well with D&T (despite the fact that it can have an abysmal match up vs Eldrazi)
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
Disagree. You would have had therefore 2 interactive decks in the TOp 8 which is > 0, and is therefore better.
Again, that twin was our 'interactive' deck is the problem. Twin in this meta would have been remands into Twin, which is such a bottom level amount of interaction that it shouldn't even count. And still, no - 3 total decks in a top 8 is still bad. It could be ALL control and it would be bad. The ONLY reason people are placing a premium on interactivity is because there currently isn't any - if it was ALL control decks we'd be begging for some aggro.
guys Twin could do nothing to stop Eldrazi, at least the channelfireball's version
it already has so many cards great against Twin without Twin legal, just look at the list, i'd almost say it was created before the ban...
I dont think anyone is saying Twin would have done *****. I infact do not believe it would have. However doesnt that say something about the 'shake up ban' needed or so claimed by Wizards?
Twin should have been left in, and let the meta police itself!
My biggest takeaway from this isn't about bannings or unbannings, but that Wizards needs to devote some serious resources to testing for Modern, if they're going to continue calling it a format. It's either that or be forced to do pseudo-emergency bans all the time, ala Treasure Cruise, somehow slowing this deck down a bit, and being prepared to do that every time there is an oversight like this.
They knew about the lands and the deck in modern, but Eldrazi offer a lot of options to splash colors and cards that fix specific matchups.
The key here was to have Chalice of the Void which fixes otherwise bad matchups and they also removed 2 otherwise quick decks from the format in bloom and twin.
Ofcourse twin wouldnt be good against the Eldrazi, but you could have played Ratchet Bomb in Twin to beat Chalice and Endless One, while killing the bigger eldrazi with counterspells and bounce, together with flyers to deal damage to them. Certainly more interactive, as Twin also would have options to make the matchup better than it would be in the "basic" form twin was before.
Bloom could just roll over them and Primeval Titan would also be quite a hit, while it would be a more interesting matchup with the Ghost Quarters around.
Overall the format ended up with "slower" decks, and decks that need the graveyard to function (which are storm due to flashback spells and griselshoal) , which also get hated by chalice 1.
Problems add up and make the Eldrazi deck favourable, while the 2 mana lands provide the crucial speed to make it as unfair as it is.
Without the 2 mana lands, the Eldrazi cards are still "good" but not undercosted, so its fair magic and more often than not, Eldarzi lose if they dont have the lands around.
Although this sentiment can come from a helpful place, it's misplaced in this case. The Pro Tour was a bad event from a diversity perspective. There's no other way to cut it. But this doesn't mean Modern is screwed as a format. As others have said, now it's up to the community to react to the metagame. We have three GPs to do that in March, and some interim events until them. If we can't do that, then I'm sure Wizards will take a more drastic action, whether an unban, a ban, or both.
Anyone who looks at this event with no degree of worry is deliberately misleading themselves or others. That doesn't mean we need to take to Twitter and Twitch about an Eye emergency ban, but it also doesn't mean we can look at the PT and dismiss it because it was one event. That's willfully obscuring the possible dangers the event poses.
I did not mean to imply we should dismiss this ProTour but rather consider it a data point.
This is clearly an important event but the mistake is to make a bunch of important decisions based on nothing but this ProTour.
Important decisions like banning Splinter Twin?
What in the world are you talking about.
Aaron Forsythe of Wizards has basically admitted that Splinter Twin was banned because of the Pro Tour and that preemptive bans are a consequences of a Modern Pro Tour. So yes, it is ironic to advise not making important decisions based on specifically the Pro Tour when we are in this exact predicament BECAUSE Wizards made a decision based on the Pro Tour.
I'm talking about reacting to the results of this ProTour, not attempting to anticipate them.
My main takeaway from all this is that WotC had a very good reason to not want Modern at the ProTour. I expect WotC to revisit that decision and there won't be much furour over it.
If that "good reason" is "we'd make a bunch of really dumb decisions that would make it look bad." The problem is not Modern being at the Pro Tour, it's WOTC making dumb decisions that caused this. There's no rule that they have to ban something to try to shake things up; they just arbitrarily decided on that themselves, and we see the results. They've also had years to stick some good answer cards into Standard that they've neglected to do. I've become increasingly convinced that Counterspell would do a lot to curb problems, and it's not like they've had a lack of time to put it into Standard. And if they had put Containment Priest in Standard instead of Commander, who knows if Birthing Pod would have been banned?
If their reason for not wanting a Modern Pro Tour is their own incompetence, that's an argument for them to smarten up, not to get rid of the Pro Tour.
Considering you were part of the crowd that claimed that Jace, Vryn's Prodigy was completely and utterly unplayable and that it would be better if you kept him as looter I'm going to go ahead and laugh at you calling WotC incompetent.
There are inherent issues with non-rotating/eternal formats and that's why WotC does not want to ask the best of the best to break it. That's not incompetence that's how you manage your product intelligently. However since so many people make the false assumption that Modern is necessarily "better" than Standard (just like they assume that Limited is all luck-based) WotC decided to yeild to the pitchforks at allow a Modern ProTour. And now they'll be able to say "we told you so" but your ilk will never accept that the problem lies in your expectations and evaluations of formats.
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
Disagree. You would have had therefore 2 interactive decks in the TOp 8 which is > 0, and is therefore better.
Again, that twin was our 'interactive' deck is the problem. Twin in this meta would have been remands into Twin, which is such a bottom level amount of interaction that it shouldn't even count. And still, no - 3 total decks in a top 8 is still bad. It could be ALL control and it would be bad. The ONLY reason people are placing a premium on interactivity is because there currently isn't any - if it was ALL control decks we'd be begging for some aggro.
I dunno, right now I can almost feel a blue mage superiority complex going on.
As if someone right now was crafting the narrative "IT'S ONLY INTERACTION WHEN IT'S ON THE STACK" or something.
Also the real problem is how hard Chalice on 1 ruins decks. Bad things happen when you can't reach out and affect the opponent's board state, what do you think happens when the opponent ensures you can't do that in the first place?
If spell choices can't successfully adjust to work around Chalice, then we have a real problem on our hands.
I wonder how many copies of a Wrath of God effect were in the entire field.
A competantly built and piloted UW control deck beats the CFB deck 60/40 I'd guess. I think the Modern has a lot of tools to beat Eldrazi stompy.
Again though, I also think having both Eye of Ugin and Eldrazi Temple in the format is probably too much. Take one away and we might be pretty close to fair.
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
Disagree. You would have had therefore 2 interactive decks in the TOp 8 which is > 0, and is therefore better.
Again, that twin was our 'interactive' deck is the problem. Twin in this meta would have been remands into Twin, which is such a bottom level amount of interaction that it shouldn't even count. And still, no - 3 total decks in a top 8 is still bad. It could be ALL control and it would be bad. The ONLY reason people are placing a premium on interactivity is because there currently isn't any - if it was ALL control decks we'd be begging for some aggro.
I dunno, right now I can almost feel a blue mage superiority complex going on.
As if someone right now was crafting the narrative "IT'S ONLY INTERACTION WHEN IT'S ON THE STACK" or something.
Yep. Eldrazi is plenty interactive - Chalice, Dismember, TKS, Spellskite, Ratchet Bomb, Ghost Quarter, Relic - it's just not blue interaction.
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
Disagree. You would have had therefore 2 interactive decks in the TOp 8 which is > 0, and is therefore better.
Again, that twin was our 'interactive' deck is the problem. Twin in this meta would have been remands into Twin, which is such a bottom level amount of interaction that it shouldn't even count. And still, no - 3 total decks in a top 8 is still bad. It could be ALL control and it would be bad. The ONLY reason people are placing a premium on interactivity is because there currently isn't any - if it was ALL control decks we'd be begging for some aggro.
I dunno, right now I can almost feel a blue mage superiority complex going on.
As if someone right now was crafting the narrative "IT'S ONLY INTERACTION WHEN IT'S ON THE STACK" or something.
Blue players have a superiority complex. You didn't really discover anything new here.
It isn't so much that... it was the fact that Wizard's reasoning for the Splinter Twin ban was "increase diversity of blue decks" Which wasn't 100% true (and PT proves it).
That's why people are upset. They argued the ban was to increase diversity and now its less diverse then the format has been since it's inception (I don't even think it was this bad during Pod or when Abzan was 30% of the format).
It isn't so much that... it was the fact that Wizard's reasoning for the Splinter Twin ban was "increase diversity of blue decks" Which wasn't 100% true (and PT proves it).
That's why people are upset. They argued the ban was to increase diversity and now its less diverse then the format has been since it's inception (I don't even think it was this bad during Pod or when Abzan was 30% of the format).
The highest placing URx deck was Blue Moon, a deck that wasn't getting played (basically) because of Twin's existence. So, yes, the ban DID shake up UR.
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
Disagree. You would have had therefore 2 interactive decks in the TOp 8 which is > 0, and is therefore better.
Again, that twin was our 'interactive' deck is the problem. Twin in this meta would have been remands into Twin, which is such a bottom level amount of interaction that it shouldn't even count. And still, no - 3 total decks in a top 8 is still bad. It could be ALL control and it would be bad. The ONLY reason people are placing a premium on interactivity is because there currently isn't any - if it was ALL control decks we'd be begging for some aggro.
I dunno, right now I can almost feel a blue mage superiority complex going on.
As if someone right now was crafting the narrative "IT'S ONLY INTERACTION WHEN IT'S ON THE STACK" or something.
Yep. Eldrazi is plenty interactive - Chalice, Dismember, TKS, Spellskite, Ratchet Bomb, Ghost Quarter, Relic - it's just not blue interaction.
All of those spells can be argued to be pro-active: not reactive. Dismember and Ratchet bomb are really the only "pro-active" cards in that list.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nothing needs to be banned. First time in magic's history we had three non-twin URx decks viable in the top 8... Blue is viable right?
On a more serious note: Eye of ugin will most likely be banned. But we knew that before the PT. It's not like Eldrazi was a "break out deck" of the format. Everyone knew it was going to be the #1 deck in modern, except for the unrealistically optimistic people.
I doubt we would have seen a meta completely dominated by Eldrazi had Twin not been banned.
There would have been alot, sure. But not as much as we saw this weekend.
Aaron Forsythe of Wizards has basically admitted that Splinter Twin was banned because of the Pro Tour and that preemptive bans are a consequences of a Modern Pro Tour. So yes, it is ironic to advise not making important decisions based on specifically the Pro Tour when we are in this exact predicament BECAUSE Wizards made a decision based on the Pro Tour.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Its spam creatures and turn them sideways with not even the choices of Affinity to give some kind of pause.
Go Modern.
Spirits
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
We have a winner!!!
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
It wouldn't have been ANY better for the format if the top 8 looked like this -
Eldrazi
Twin
Eldrazi
Eldrazi
Affinity
Affinity
Eldrazi
Twin
The nut draw is Eye, 3 Mimics, Simian Spirit Guide, Smasher, Eldrazi Temple. Turn 2 kill.
slightly better then 100% aggro in top 8.
Not much, but still better (unless you like PURE linear non-interactive decks in your top 8)
If their reason for not wanting a Modern Pro Tour is their own incompetence, that's an argument for them to smarten up, not to get rid of the Pro Tour.
Disagree. You would have had therefore 2 interactive decks in the TOp 8 which is > 0, and is therefore better.
Spirits
You said it was viable, yet it had terrible conversion rates.
Nothing you say makes sense hence why I bring it up. So we keep truth and logic in these forums.
Had It top 8ed... I would have actually posted saying you where right as well. But that's neither here or there.
It doesn't change the fact that this specific PT: control was NOT viable overall.
People winning with decks != a viable deck. I know people who did well with D&T (despite the fact that it can have an abysmal match up vs Eldrazi)
Again, that twin was our 'interactive' deck is the problem. Twin in this meta would have been remands into Twin, which is such a bottom level amount of interaction that it shouldn't even count. And still, no - 3 total decks in a top 8 is still bad. It could be ALL control and it would be bad. The ONLY reason people are placing a premium on interactivity is because there currently isn't any - if it was ALL control decks we'd be begging for some aggro.
I dont think anyone is saying Twin would have done *****. I infact do not believe it would have. However doesnt that say something about the 'shake up ban' needed or so claimed by Wizards?
Twin should have been left in, and let the meta police itself!
Spirits
They knew about the lands and the deck in modern, but Eldrazi offer a lot of options to splash colors and cards that fix specific matchups.
The key here was to have Chalice of the Void which fixes otherwise bad matchups and they also removed 2 otherwise quick decks from the format in bloom and twin.
Ofcourse twin wouldnt be good against the Eldrazi, but you could have played Ratchet Bomb in Twin to beat Chalice and Endless One, while killing the bigger eldrazi with counterspells and bounce, together with flyers to deal damage to them. Certainly more interactive, as Twin also would have options to make the matchup better than it would be in the "basic" form twin was before.
Bloom could just roll over them and Primeval Titan would also be quite a hit, while it would be a more interesting matchup with the Ghost Quarters around.
Overall the format ended up with "slower" decks, and decks that need the graveyard to function (which are storm due to flashback spells and griselshoal) , which also get hated by chalice 1.
Problems add up and make the Eldrazi deck favourable, while the 2 mana lands provide the crucial speed to make it as unfair as it is.
Without the 2 mana lands, the Eldrazi cards are still "good" but not undercosted, so its fair magic and more often than not, Eldarzi lose if they dont have the lands around.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I'm talking about reacting to the results of this ProTour, not attempting to anticipate them.
Considering you were part of the crowd that claimed that Jace, Vryn's Prodigy was completely and utterly unplayable and that it would be better if you kept him as looter I'm going to go ahead and laugh at you calling WotC incompetent.
There are inherent issues with non-rotating/eternal formats and that's why WotC does not want to ask the best of the best to break it. That's not incompetence that's how you manage your product intelligently. However since so many people make the false assumption that Modern is necessarily "better" than Standard (just like they assume that Limited is all luck-based) WotC decided to yeild to the pitchforks at allow a Modern ProTour. And now they'll be able to say "we told you so" but your ilk will never accept that the problem lies in your expectations and evaluations of formats.
I dunno, right now I can almost feel a blue mage superiority complex going on.
As if someone right now was crafting the narrative "IT'S ONLY INTERACTION WHEN IT'S ON THE STACK" or something.
Also the real problem is how hard Chalice on 1 ruins decks. Bad things happen when you can't reach out and affect the opponent's board state, what do you think happens when the opponent ensures you can't do that in the first place?
If spell choices can't successfully adjust to work around Chalice, then we have a real problem on our hands.
A competantly built and piloted UW control deck beats the CFB deck 60/40 I'd guess. I think the Modern has a lot of tools to beat Eldrazi stompy.
Again though, I also think having both Eye of Ugin and Eldrazi Temple in the format is probably too much. Take one away and we might be pretty close to fair.
Yep. Eldrazi is plenty interactive - Chalice, Dismember, TKS, Spellskite, Ratchet Bomb, Ghost Quarter, Relic - it's just not blue interaction.
It isn't so much that... it was the fact that Wizard's reasoning for the Splinter Twin ban was "increase diversity of blue decks" Which wasn't 100% true (and PT proves it).
That's why people are upset. They argued the ban was to increase diversity and now its less diverse then the format has been since it's inception (I don't even think it was this bad during Pod or when Abzan was 30% of the format).
The highest placing URx deck was Blue Moon, a deck that wasn't getting played (basically) because of Twin's existence. So, yes, the ban DID shake up UR.
That's one additional Blue deck out in the field, no matter what you think.
All of those spells can be argued to be pro-active: not reactive. Dismember and Ratchet bomb are really the only "pro-active" cards in that list.