Asking if 2 archetypes went away, what would be the impact on 1 archetype is pretty pointless. I'll keep the other 2 every day of the at the expense of 1.
And thats as a reactive blue player.
Standard allows for Control. It has a piss poor viewership, and about 4 meaningful decks.
Frontier (and post-modern when it comes around) will almost CERTAINLY be mid range heavy, and control will be possible.
Modern, nope, you must close the door too quickly, and blue alone cannot do it. Unless you do something unfair and take all the turns.
Honestly hellfire simply does not want to play Modern, so move on. Nothing is in need of a ban, and the day SSG is banned, we lose 3 completely unique decks at least, and that would be disappointing.
I actually do want to play modern fyi. this game could use alot of improvement however.
I believe, 'this game could use a lot of improvement' is an opinion.
I further believe if you where honest with yourself you would see that...no you dont want to play Modern. You want to play Modern within your own self constructed framework of what is, and is not, fair or the 'right kind of fun'.
You want certain portions of Modern to die, so you can have what you want. Thats not wanting to play Modern.
Modern is not a fair format, there is a reason it got moved away from the Pro Tour. If you like going through fast games where you just execute your own gameplan, Modern is a great format and it appeals to alot of people.
I am under the impression that you personally dislike Modern. This is fine, but you shouldn't allow your personal biases against the format to influence your arguments. Your stated reason for the elimination of Modern from the Pro Tour is wholly false. Modern was removed because it didn't showcase new cards in new sets, because it rewarded repetitions on existing decks and not innovating new ones, and because it expedited the pace of bans in the format. Forsythe literally said this in last year's "Where Modern Goes From Here" article, none of which have anything to do with the unsupportable claim you are making. If you want a format where you can play a deck with a 50-50 or better matchup across the board, Legacy is probably a better format for you. Modern is never going to have this deck and that's obviously fine for Wizards and fine for the majority of players.
if death shadow eats a ban, i think that it would be the last nail in the coffin, i mean, i see shadow jund like bant eldrazi, they are really efficient "midrange" decks that can race non interactive decks with raw power (a common complain about modern is the power of non interactive strategies). You just cant ban things because they are good decks. It's like the old cardboard crack comic when the people were cheering for their deck to lose at the pro tour afraid of bannings
If DS Jund sustained a 20% share across the format, that would be Pod, TC Delver, and DRS BGx territory and it would eat a ban. I guess I'm comfortable with that if it was over a long period of time. The big issue is that Legacy has a very similar deck consistently pushing 15%-20% (Miracles), and Wizards never touches it. Modern would be better off with this kind of hands-off approach to bans.
If Wizards is going to keep banning cards, I hope they are small cuts like Probe/GGT and not archetype-killers like Twin, or thinking about current cards people want banned in this thread, Opal, SSG, Death's Shadow/Traverse, Temple, etc. And honestly, it would be so much better from a marketing and management perspective to ADD to the format rather than subtract. People get super excited about unbans, reprints, and new cards. Bans just lead to the Cardboard Crack scenario in event after event; it's not sustainable for non-rotating formats.
Jace is banned because of price IMO. If he gets unbanned he's probably jump up to $150 and I doubt WoTC wants that sort of thing going on in Modern where card scarcity is already a problem.
There is no reason to suggest price has anything to do with bans or unbans. Wizards has plenty of other public reasons why cards are banned or unbanned, so unless you have specific evidence about this criterion, we shouldn't speculate about it.
I do dislike Modern, the games have less and less decisions since a large majority of decks are so fast or hard to interact with in a meaningful way. There are too many games where you don't even get to participate just based on what you wrote down on your decklist versus your opponent's. That's what I have found in most levels of play in my personal experience. And the fact that one type of strategy (blue control) is completely inferior to the others is an issue that WOTC created is another thing I hate about the format.
I don't get it Sisicat - are you being held hostage or something? If you dislike modern, I guess you don't play? So what impetus brings you to post here about your dislike of it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I do dislike Modern, the games have less and less decisions since a large majority of decks are so fast or hard to interact with in a meaningful way. There are too many games where you don't even get to participate just based on what you wrote down on your decklist versus your opponent's. That's what I have found in most levels of play in my personal experience. And the fact that one type of strategy (blue control) is completely inferior to the others is an issue that WOTC created is another thing I hate about the format.
Do you still play modern if you hate it so much? Why or why not?
Dont reply to sisicat he is a troll, stop feeding him. He has been banned for playing this game twice now and immediately comes back to play it again every time
Public Mod Note
(ktkenshinx):
Infraction for trolling -ktkenshinx-
"A good chunk of Modern plays these strategies and enjoys them, so the burden for killing any number of these decks to hypothetically open space to other strategies is very high."
wasn't the pod ban to open up more creature strategies?
Pod was indeed banned to open up creature strategies, but that's because its share of the field was way too high:
"Over the past year, Birthing Pod decks have won significantly more Grand Prix than any other Modern decks and compose the largest percentage of the field."
"Pod won five of the twelve Grand Prix over the past year, including winning the last two. "
"The high percentage of the field playing Pod suppresses decks, especially other creature decks, that have an unfavorable matchup."
The issue wasn't that Pod was abstractly suppressing other strategies. It was that Pod's share was too high.
but what if reactive blue decks cannot do well in this meta? what if the meta is the problem?
If blue reactive decks can't succeed in this metagame but BGx strategies can, this suggests the problem isn't the metagame. It's the bad cards in reactive blue.
people hate bans, mine are strictly hypothetical. tell me, if we could simulate the meta game without eldrazi tmeple and valakut in it, how would reactive blue be doing?
my guess is better.
Blue would do badly. BGx would be the best deck by a mile. We just saw this approach fail with the Twin ban, which was designed to open up the format to all the decks being suppressed by the evil Twin, but instead just opened it up to the top echelon of the decks which Twin was holding back (Dredge, DSZ, Infect).
EDIT: Also, thanks spiegel, I ask you again to please name the fair decks that would be opened up if big mana suddenly disappeared.
but can you really compare such different decks to each other? they are 2 different archetypes. 1 reactive the other proactive.
maybe reactive strategies are doomed in this format?
They are doomed, I've waited 2 years too long for things to improve for reactive decks. You can thank WOTC for making BGx the best color in the format based on design in the past decade.
Well, people keep saying Splinter Twin isn't a blue card, but it sure felt like in modern.
I remember after the POD Ban but before Amulet Bloom got out of hand, people in this thread, the streams, reddit and the lgs were talking about how flourishing the format looked, and it was.
POD was genuinely one of those cards that would just get better and better and break the format as it went on. Deathrite Shaman did too much for 1 mana, he was a win-con, a mana dork, and could prey on graveyards, or pump out a turn 2 LOTV. TC and DTT, no comment.
I feel like the bans just really escalated after Twin though, I think for a month or so we all said, "the meta looks so wonderful!" and then Return to Zendikar was printed. The meta really devolved into fast, linear solitaire decks where games were over in an instant. By no means would I say to people, "stop playing your solitaire deck!" It does, however get really upsetting when I have seen the meta become like that at certain times.
I feel like Twin could have possibly avoided or prolonged bans like probe, maybe dredge, etc. The meta became more diverse after Twin's banning, but it also became really linear with significantly less interaction.
I'm not sure preordain would break any combo decks playing blue BUT there is some risk of it, or really empowering combo decks; I also have no proof that it would elevate it to oppressive levels. Preordain is still not fixing that many issues about being proactive.
Counterspell doesn't improve the issue of lack of proactivity, although I think it should be in the format, regardless
SFM would help out blue/white decks if we had more issues of creature oriented, linear aggro strategies. The only argument I could make for SFM is if it could elevate Death and Taxes to tier 1 and police combo/ramp decks. I have no clue if it'd power up white enough though, so I don't want to make false claims. It still wouldn't really help blue, except maybe have a better game against midrange.
I know some people are saying, "well, if Jace isn't oppressive, why be banned in the first place?" I mean, besides for slotting into Jund, does anyone really think BBE would be broken either? I'd say no, but there's still no reason to really take that chance at the moment, especially with it slotting into Jund. Yeah, yeah, I know, jund is tier 1, Grixis isn't---but there's still the fact I don't think it'll help, and if I'm wrong and it is oppressive and has to rebanned, we're talking about a level of disaster to the formats confidence that would make any other banning look like a joke. Blue players would leave the entire game in anger if they invested 400-600 in modern for it to be rebanned.
I keep saying this like a broken clock, but Twin would help against ramp decks, and these crazy, uninteractive decks, I'm not sure how it'd do against Bant Eldrazi---but it could stem some of this ban talk. We saw more decks arise from Twins ban, but they were just different but similar flavors of solitaire decks.
I truly think had Shadow Jund not emerged at the GP we'd be looking at a ramp meta game with more people clamoring for bans. We have stubborn Jund/Junk players sprinkled with grixis players who are out in enough numbers to suppress those aggro strategies while more ramp is doing well.
IF Shadow Jund gets banned, deservedly so or not, I think we're about to see a next big problem. WOTC thought Splinter Twin decks were suppressing other blue strategies or that Kiki-Jiki would just be a slower, balanced version, they did not mean to harm blue this badly, or expect this outcome. I give WOTC some credit, they genuinely tried. They did Sword of the Meek and AV, and it didn't work.
People in the, "wait for good blue cards to be printed", we could seriously be waiting a very long time, considering how far in advance they make these sets.
I think WOTC should man up and say they were wrong about the Twin package monopolizing blue. If Twin wins too much after the ban, ban Exarch and force players to go the Jeskai route, a powerful option but clunkier and more difficulty becoming a blue moon deck post-game. Or, they could play Taro-Twin which was a more solid beat down plan with a worse combo plan, that, too, wasn't always the right deck to play Blood Moon in the SB.
I do dislike Modern, the games have less and less decisions since a large majority of decks are so fast or hard to interact with in a meaningful way. There are too many games where you don't even get to participate just based on what you wrote down on your decklist versus your opponent's. That's what I have found in most levels of play in my personal experience. And the fact that one type of strategy (blue control) is completely inferior to the others is an issue that WOTC created is another thing I hate about the format.
Do you still play modern if you hate it so much? Why or why not?
I play Modern to get store credit for Standard/Legacy cards and planeswalker points. That's the only purpose Modern serves me right now.
Even if the power level isn't an issue, it would probably slow the format down too much in tournaments, since so many of those games come close to time.
Asking if 2 archetypes went away, what would be the impact on 1 archetype is pretty pointless. I'll keep the other 2 every day of the at the expense of 1.
And thats as a reactive blue player.
Standard allows for Control. It has a piss poor viewership, and about 4 meaningful decks.
Frontier (and post-modern when it comes around) will almost CERTAINLY be mid range heavy, and control will be possible.
Modern, nope, you must close the door too quickly, and blue alone cannot do it. Unless you do something unfair and take all the turns.
Honestly hellfire simply does not want to play Modern, so move on. Nothing is in need of a ban, and the day SSG is banned, we lose 3 completely unique decks at least, and that would be disappointing.
I actually do want to play modern fyi. this game could use alot of improvement however.
I believe, 'this game could use a lot of improvement' is an opinion.
I further believe if you where honest with yourself you would see that...no you dont want to play Modern. You want to play Modern within your own self constructed framework of what is, and is not, fair or the 'right kind of fun'.
You want certain portions of Modern to die, so you can have what you want. Thats not wanting to play Modern.
or maybe you need to raise your bar of your expectations. as your opinion on the format being fine is also an opinion.
"A good chunk of Modern plays these strategies and enjoys them, so the burden for killing any number of these decks to hypothetically open space to other strategies is very high."
wasn't the pod ban to open up more creature strategies?
Pod was indeed banned to open up creature strategies, but that's because its share of the field was way too high:
"Over the past year, Birthing Pod decks have won significantly more Grand Prix than any other Modern decks and compose the largest percentage of the field."
"Pod won five of the twelve Grand Prix over the past year, including winning the last two. "
"The high percentage of the field playing Pod suppresses decks, especially other creature decks, that have an unfavorable matchup."
The issue wasn't that Pod was abstractly suppressing other strategies. It was that Pod's share was too high.
but what if reactive blue decks cannot do well in this meta? what if the meta is the problem?
If blue reactive decks can't succeed in this metagame but BGx strategies can, this suggests the problem isn't the metagame. It's the bad cards in reactive blue.
people hate bans, mine are strictly hypothetical. tell me, if we could simulate the meta game without eldrazi tmeple and valakut in it, how would reactive blue be doing?
my guess is better.
Blue would do badly. BGx would be the best deck by a mile. We just saw this approach fail with the Twin ban, which was designed to open up the format to all the decks being suppressed by the evil Twin, but instead just opened it up to the top echelon of the decks which Twin was holding back (Dredge, DSZ, Infect).
EDIT: Also, thanks spiegel, I ask you again to please name the fair decks that would be opened up if big mana suddenly disappeared.
but can you really compare such different decks to each other? they are 2 different archetypes. 1 reactive the other proactive.
maybe reactive strategies are doomed in this format?
They are doomed, I've waited 2 years too long for things to improve for reactive decks. You can thank WOTC for making BGx the best color in the format based on design in the past decade.
and the time you have waited is ridiculous im with you on that. alot of people on here dont get that. were tired of waiting we want this fixed NOW.
some think non twin unbans will help us and i doubt this, yes its a gut feeling, but its a gut feeling with over 2k hours of modern played. and i think next january we will still see reactive blue players in the pits.
You've yet to answer or justify any of your rationale or argument that Sheridan asked you to clarify. You're not fostering discussion, it sounds like ultimatums.
You've yet to answer or justify any of your rationale or argument that Sheridan asked you to clarify. You're not fostering discussion, it sounds like ultimatums.
I have aswered all of his points several times before. why dont you ask me some arguments? ill gladly dispute them
Even if the power level isn't an issue, it would probably slow the format down too much in tournament, since so many of those games come close to time.
It is faster than lantern and gets dumped on by Tron, not to mention Nahiri/Mentor make for a pretty fast win condition. If you want control in the format, it would be more effective than just about anything else I can think of.
Even if the power level isn't an issue, it would probably slow the format down too much in tournament, since so many of those games come close to time.
It is faster than lantern and gets dumped on by Tron, not to mention Nahiri/Mentor make for a pretty fast win condition. If you want control in the format, it would be more effective than just about anything else I can think of.
The vast majority don't want control in the format, people want to be able to do things. Good luck trying to convince the vast majority of people that it's good for the format. Because when Control is Tier 3, the Modern community says "blue is fine". Which by the way, is something people on this forum say.
Heck, you can say that from anything. The reason my pet tribal camel deck is bad is because of the *****ty cards that the camel tribe has.
C'mon, is that really an answer?...
That's a ridiculous comparison and we both know it. Tribal Camels does have *****ty cards (like reactive blue), but it was never a Tier 1 deck (unlike reactive blue). When a Tier 1 deck takes such a fall for such a long period of time, we have to ask why. In this case, hellfire and others claim it is because of bad matchups with big mana decks. And yet, BGx strategies which also have bad matchups with big mana decks are just fine. If a formerly Tier 1 deck can't succeed against its bad matchup while a current Tier 1 deck can, this means the problem isn't with the opposing deck. It's with the card pool for the formerly Tier 1 deck.
The problem is that blue decks have very bad matchups against some big mana decks (35-65 or 40-60) and BGx decks have barely bad matchups against them (much closer to 45-55 and even 50-50). This shows that the problem isn't the big mana deck. It's the deck that has the bad matchup in the first place; BGx has the tools to get the matchup closer to 50-50 and reactive blue doesn't.
I do dislike Modern, the games have less and less decisions since a large majority of decks are so fast or hard to interact with in a meaningful way. There are too many games where you don't even get to participate just based on what you wrote down on your decklist versus your opponent's. That's what I have found in most levels of play in my personal experience. And the fact that one type of strategy (blue control) is completely inferior to the others is an issue that WOTC created is another thing I hate about the format.
Honestly, if you dislike Modern for these reasons, you probably shouldn't play it. I don't play or talk about Standard because I dislike a lot of things about it. Format bashing is not okay in this thread or in this subforum, and many of your posts are close to or crossing that line. Please stay constructive.
You've yet to answer or justify any of your rationale or argument that Sheridan asked you to clarify. You're not fostering discussion, it sounds like ultimatums.
I have aswered all of his points several times before. why dont you ask me some arguments? ill gladly dispute them
You have dodged my main argument (and several other arguments) multiple times. Let's focus on the main one: The only deck that has a legitimately bad big mana matchup is reactive blue. It's close to 35-65 or 40-60. The historic underdog to big mana, BGx, manages to keep this matchup closer to 45-55 or even 50-50. Given this situation, why on earth would you focus on big mana being the problem? If your goal is to reduce the number of swingy matchups, why not improve blue so it can get closer to the 45-55 matchup that BGx enjoys? Banning big mana just means BGx loses its natural predator and becomes a 50-50 or better deck across the format. Improving blue means that BGx keeps its natural predator and now reactive blue can compete alongside it.
Asking if 2 archetypes went away, what would be the impact on 1 archetype is pretty pointless. I'll keep the other 2 every day of the at the expense of 1.
And thats as a reactive blue player.
Standard allows for Control. It has a piss poor viewership, and about 4 meaningful decks.
Frontier (and post-modern when it comes around) will almost CERTAINLY be mid range heavy, and control will be possible.
Modern, nope, you must close the door too quickly, and blue alone cannot do it. Unless you do something unfair and take all the turns.
Honestly hellfire simply does not want to play Modern, so move on. Nothing is in need of a ban, and the day SSG is banned, we lose 3 completely unique decks at least, and that would be disappointing.
I actually do want to play modern fyi. this game could use alot of improvement however.
I believe, 'this game could use a lot of improvement' is an opinion.
I further believe if you where honest with yourself you would see that...no you dont want to play Modern. You want to play Modern within your own self constructed framework of what is, and is not, fair or the 'right kind of fun'.
You want certain portions of Modern to die, so you can have what you want. Thats not wanting to play Modern.
or maybe you need to raise your bar of your expectations. as your opinion on the format being fine is also an opinion.
Well, my opinion has some basis in reality.
Is the meta in paper diverse? Yeah.
Is the format able to pull viewers over any other? Yeah.
Other than reactive blue (that I've campaigned for to help via twin, Jace, preordained) there are no fundamental issues in the format.
Fast combo is possible, but not stable, mid-range thrives, aggro thrives, big mana thrives.
We have decks that are unique, that depend on, yes, broken cards. To remove those cards to cultivate the format in our favour is wrong.
I just tire Grishoalbrand together again on MTGO, it's hilarious. Draw your deck and some the guy with lands.
Why not?!?
Play the format, enjoy it if you can, but there are fundamentally broken mechanics that are not overpowering, and those are part of the format.
Asking if 2 archetypes went away, what would be the impact on 1 archetype is pretty pointless. I'll keep the other 2 every day of the at the expense of 1.
And thats as a reactive blue player.
Standard allows for Control. It has a piss poor viewership, and about 4 meaningful decks.
Frontier (and post-modern when it comes around) will almost CERTAINLY be mid range heavy, and control will be possible.
Modern, nope, you must close the door too quickly, and blue alone cannot do it. Unless you do something unfair and take all the turns.
Honestly hellfire simply does not want to play Modern, so move on. Nothing is in need of a ban, and the day SSG is banned, we lose 3 completely unique decks at least, and that would be disappointing.
I actually do want to play modern fyi. this game could use alot of improvement however.
I believe, 'this game could use a lot of improvement' is an opinion.
I further believe if you where honest with yourself you would see that...no you dont want to play Modern. You want to play Modern within your own self constructed framework of what is, and is not, fair or the 'right kind of fun'.
You want certain portions of Modern to die, so you can have what you want. Thats not wanting to play Modern.
or maybe you need to raise your bar of your expectations. as your opinion on the format being fine is also an opinion.
Well, my opinion has some basis in reality.
Is the meta in paper diverse? Yeah.
Is the format able to pull viewers over any other? Yeah.
Other than reactive blue (that I've campaigned for to help via twin, Jace, preordained) there are no fundamental issues in the format.
Fast combo is possible, but not stable, mid-range thrives, aggro thrives, big mana thrives.
We have decks that are unique, that depend on, yes, broken cards. To remove those cards to cultivate the format in our favour is wrong.
I just tire Grishoalbrand together again on MTGO, it's hilarious. Draw your deck and some the guy with lands.
Why not?!?
Play the format, enjoy it if you can, but there are fundamentally broken mechanics that are not overpowering, and those are part of the format.
"my opinion has some basis in reality."
linear decks dominate this game
polarizing decks in top tiers vs entire archtypes is toxic to a skillful metagame
blue reactive decks need huge help right now and twin is our best bet.
I am a Jund player through and through, I was casting Spiritmonger and Pernicious Deed in tournaments before you all bought your first booster pack, so take it from me; Modern won't be healthy until Jund is Tier 2. The reason Jund has always stayed near Tier 1, is because of it's efficient creatures and efficient removal. Thoughtseize is great, but you can't claim that most decks don't care about facing Lightning Bolt, Tarmogoyf, & Terminate. Blue isn't the only color that needs desperate help, the entire Sorcery and Instant category of the Modern format needs help.
When all you people who claim Jund needs to be the defining feature and pillar of the format for comparison. When that goes away, you will realize the fundamental problems Modern has. You will then realize why cards like Seat of the Synod, Bloodbraid Elf, and Stoneforge Mystic being on the banned list is a complete joke.
When you all stop thinking Jund needs to be king, and how Jund reacts compared to everything in sight, that's when Modern will finally get fixed.
I believe, 'this game could use a lot of improvement' is an opinion.
I further believe if you where honest with yourself you would see that...no you dont want to play Modern. You want to play Modern within your own self constructed framework of what is, and is not, fair or the 'right kind of fun'.
You want certain portions of Modern to die, so you can have what you want. Thats not wanting to play Modern.
Spirits
I do dislike Modern, the games have less and less decisions since a large majority of decks are so fast or hard to interact with in a meaningful way. There are too many games where you don't even get to participate just based on what you wrote down on your decklist versus your opponent's. That's what I have found in most levels of play in my personal experience. And the fact that one type of strategy (blue control) is completely inferior to the others is an issue that WOTC created is another thing I hate about the format.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Do you still play modern if you hate it so much? Why or why not?
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
They are doomed, I've waited 2 years too long for things to improve for reactive decks. You can thank WOTC for making BGx the best color in the format based on design in the past decade.
I remember after the POD Ban but before Amulet Bloom got out of hand, people in this thread, the streams, reddit and the lgs were talking about how flourishing the format looked, and it was.
POD was genuinely one of those cards that would just get better and better and break the format as it went on. Deathrite Shaman did too much for 1 mana, he was a win-con, a mana dork, and could prey on graveyards, or pump out a turn 2 LOTV. TC and DTT, no comment.
I feel like the bans just really escalated after Twin though, I think for a month or so we all said, "the meta looks so wonderful!" and then Return to Zendikar was printed. The meta really devolved into fast, linear solitaire decks where games were over in an instant. By no means would I say to people, "stop playing your solitaire deck!" It does, however get really upsetting when I have seen the meta become like that at certain times.
I feel like Twin could have possibly avoided or prolonged bans like probe, maybe dredge, etc. The meta became more diverse after Twin's banning, but it also became really linear with significantly less interaction.
I'm not sure preordain would break any combo decks playing blue BUT there is some risk of it, or really empowering combo decks; I also have no proof that it would elevate it to oppressive levels. Preordain is still not fixing that many issues about being proactive.
Counterspell doesn't improve the issue of lack of proactivity, although I think it should be in the format, regardless
SFM would help out blue/white decks if we had more issues of creature oriented, linear aggro strategies. The only argument I could make for SFM is if it could elevate Death and Taxes to tier 1 and police combo/ramp decks. I have no clue if it'd power up white enough though, so I don't want to make false claims. It still wouldn't really help blue, except maybe have a better game against midrange.
I know some people are saying, "well, if Jace isn't oppressive, why be banned in the first place?" I mean, besides for slotting into Jund, does anyone really think BBE would be broken either? I'd say no, but there's still no reason to really take that chance at the moment, especially with it slotting into Jund. Yeah, yeah, I know, jund is tier 1, Grixis isn't---but there's still the fact I don't think it'll help, and if I'm wrong and it is oppressive and has to rebanned, we're talking about a level of disaster to the formats confidence that would make any other banning look like a joke. Blue players would leave the entire game in anger if they invested 400-600 in modern for it to be rebanned.
I keep saying this like a broken clock, but Twin would help against ramp decks, and these crazy, uninteractive decks, I'm not sure how it'd do against Bant Eldrazi---but it could stem some of this ban talk. We saw more decks arise from Twins ban, but they were just different but similar flavors of solitaire decks.
I truly think had Shadow Jund not emerged at the GP we'd be looking at a ramp meta game with more people clamoring for bans. We have stubborn Jund/Junk players sprinkled with grixis players who are out in enough numbers to suppress those aggro strategies while more ramp is doing well.
IF Shadow Jund gets banned, deservedly so or not, I think we're about to see a next big problem. WOTC thought Splinter Twin decks were suppressing other blue strategies or that Kiki-Jiki would just be a slower, balanced version, they did not mean to harm blue this badly, or expect this outcome. I give WOTC some credit, they genuinely tried. They did Sword of the Meek and AV, and it didn't work.
People in the, "wait for good blue cards to be printed", we could seriously be waiting a very long time, considering how far in advance they make these sets.
I think WOTC should man up and say they were wrong about the Twin package monopolizing blue. If Twin wins too much after the ban, ban Exarch and force players to go the Jeskai route, a powerful option but clunkier and more difficulty becoming a blue moon deck post-game. Or, they could play Taro-Twin which was a more solid beat down plan with a worse combo plan, that, too, wasn't always the right deck to play Blood Moon in the SB.
I play Modern to get store credit for Standard/Legacy cards and planeswalker points. That's the only purpose Modern serves me right now.
Are you joking? No.
Even if the power level isn't an issue, it would probably slow the format down too much in tournaments, since so many of those games come close to time.
or maybe you need to raise your bar of your expectations. as your opinion on the format being fine is also an opinion.
decks playing:
none
These bannings we go through feel more like standard rotations at this point
Dredge is still powerful, but it was dropped fast. Infect, I feel, is genuinely a tier 3 deck as of now.
How would you feel if people told you your snapcasters, Goyfs, Goblin Guides and Collected Company should be banned? It's what you sound like
and the time you have waited is ridiculous im with you on that. alot of people on here dont get that. were tired of waiting we want this fixed NOW.
some think non twin unbans will help us and i doubt this, yes its a gut feeling, but its a gut feeling with over 2k hours of modern played. and i think next january we will still see reactive blue players in the pits.
decks playing:
none
I have aswered all of his points several times before. why dont you ask me some arguments? ill gladly dispute them
decks playing:
none
ive had my decks banned every year now. so i dont know where you are gong with this.
decks playing:
none
It is faster than lantern and gets dumped on by Tron, not to mention Nahiri/Mentor make for a pretty fast win condition. If you want control in the format, it would be more effective than just about anything else I can think of.
Stop net decking and youll be fine.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
The vast majority don't want control in the format, people want to be able to do things. Good luck trying to convince the vast majority of people that it's good for the format. Because when Control is Tier 3, the Modern community says "blue is fine". Which by the way, is something people on this forum say.
That's a ridiculous comparison and we both know it. Tribal Camels does have *****ty cards (like reactive blue), but it was never a Tier 1 deck (unlike reactive blue). When a Tier 1 deck takes such a fall for such a long period of time, we have to ask why. In this case, hellfire and others claim it is because of bad matchups with big mana decks. And yet, BGx strategies which also have bad matchups with big mana decks are just fine. If a formerly Tier 1 deck can't succeed against its bad matchup while a current Tier 1 deck can, this means the problem isn't with the opposing deck. It's with the card pool for the formerly Tier 1 deck.
The problem is that blue decks have very bad matchups against some big mana decks (35-65 or 40-60) and BGx decks have barely bad matchups against them (much closer to 45-55 and even 50-50). This shows that the problem isn't the big mana deck. It's the deck that has the bad matchup in the first place; BGx has the tools to get the matchup closer to 50-50 and reactive blue doesn't.
Honestly, if you dislike Modern for these reasons, you probably shouldn't play it. I don't play or talk about Standard because I dislike a lot of things about it. Format bashing is not okay in this thread or in this subforum, and many of your posts are close to or crossing that line. Please stay constructive.
You have dodged my main argument (and several other arguments) multiple times. Let's focus on the main one: The only deck that has a legitimately bad big mana matchup is reactive blue. It's close to 35-65 or 40-60. The historic underdog to big mana, BGx, manages to keep this matchup closer to 45-55 or even 50-50. Given this situation, why on earth would you focus on big mana being the problem? If your goal is to reduce the number of swingy matchups, why not improve blue so it can get closer to the 45-55 matchup that BGx enjoys? Banning big mana just means BGx loses its natural predator and becomes a 50-50 or better deck across the format. Improving blue means that BGx keeps its natural predator and now reactive blue can compete alongside it.
Well, my opinion has some basis in reality.
Is the meta in paper diverse? Yeah.
Is the format able to pull viewers over any other? Yeah.
Other than reactive blue (that I've campaigned for to help via twin, Jace, preordained) there are no fundamental issues in the format.
Fast combo is possible, but not stable, mid-range thrives, aggro thrives, big mana thrives.
We have decks that are unique, that depend on, yes, broken cards. To remove those cards to cultivate the format in our favour is wrong.
I just tire Grishoalbrand together again on MTGO, it's hilarious. Draw your deck and some the guy with lands.
Why not?!?
Play the format, enjoy it if you can, but there are fundamentally broken mechanics that are not overpowering, and those are part of the format.
Spirits
Im not insulting him. If you keep building the best and most oppressive deck of the meta, you cant keep getting surprised when it gets banned.
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
"my opinion has some basis in reality."
linear decks dominate this game
polarizing decks in top tiers vs entire archtypes is toxic to a skillful metagame
blue reactive decks need huge help right now and twin is our best bet.
big mana/fast mana decks stifle fair decks
decks playing:
none
When all you people who claim Jund needs to be the defining feature and pillar of the format for comparison. When that goes away, you will realize the fundamental problems Modern has. You will then realize why cards like Seat of the Synod, Bloodbraid Elf, and Stoneforge Mystic being on the banned list is a complete joke.
When you all stop thinking Jund needs to be king, and how Jund reacts compared to everything in sight, that's when Modern will finally get fixed.