.. yes, it's a knee-jerk response, but I'm not sure why you're more special than everyone else who "wants to play <insert favorite non-tiered archetype of choice here>". Plus, if you really want to play a certain type of deck, there's nothing stopping you. Heck, Seismic Swans(!) spiked a tournament this month.
Wait, where/when was that? I'd love to know.
Someone won the TCG States in Idaho with Seismic Swans:
What likely would happen in modern without fetches given the fact there are strong hate cards like blood moon is that we'd see more use of basics and a number of decks par down to two color with a light splash for a third, but given how fast the meta is in modern I'm highly inclined to believe we'd be pushed more towards a two color format entirely. Also, the land cycles that would see more play would likely be shocklands, check lands, and fast lands, along with the filter lands (which would probably become as expensive as the zen fetches without a reprint), and pain lands. Burn would get less effective since it's harder to deal with an opponent who has more than 15 life and other than that if anyone else has any input on what they could foresee changing in modern if the fetches were banned are free to chime in. I'm sure Kevin on Rogue Deckbuilder would have more input since he's had a love/hate relationship with modern for a while and runs an LGS so I'll see if maybe I can get input from him on it.
It is highly unlikely that we will see 2 colors become the norm. I say that because in Innistrad-RTR Standard, 3 color decks were the norm despite having no fetchlands, and that format had worse mana fixing than Modern does even without the fetchlands (at the time it was just the Shocklands, Checklands, and guildgates). It would make 4-color decks less feasible, but how many of those are there? Death's Shadow sometimes splashes for a fourth but it can just as easily stay in Jund. Amulet Titan is 4 colors, but it doesn't even use the fetchlands or shocklands!
Now you mention hate cards as a way to keep people into three colors, citing Blood Moon. It is true that it's a lot harder to play around Blood Moon without fetchlands, so it's more powerful. The problem is that it's harder for the player casting Blood Moon to play around it as well! The card might be more powerful, but it would see far less play.
I've said before that fetches were a good idea gone wrong. At the time they were designed card sleeves weren't as popular as they are now and the game was far younger with a smaller player base. I don't even think the design team at Wizards was as big as it is now, as card design has been getting better moving forward in time and they've been able to crank out more unique card designs than they were able to back in the day.
I'm not sure what the size of the playerbase or the popularity of card sleeves have to do with anything, but I can tell you that you are flat out incorrect when it comes to card sleeves. Those were extremely popular even back then, and you were the odd one out if you weren't using them.
Here is an example of decks from the Onslaught block where allied fetches were from:
Do you see any four color decks? Their are barely any three color decks! From the perspective of the designers at the time fetches were fine and worked great in the blocks they were originally printed in. It wasn't until modern that lands started to really get intermixed and we ended up with three and even four color decks, all of which have unheard of flexibility.
Are you joking? People realized what the fetchlands could do right from the get-go; to claim "it wasn't until Modern" that people used it when people were using the fetchland+dual land or fetchland+shockland combination for almost 10 years is downright laughable. True, at first the synergy was limited to Type 1 and Type 1.5, but the instant the shocklands were printed, that combo was a major force in Extended for years. The idea that this synergy was some kind of long-kept secret that only Modern revealed is just wrong.
Really, in the current day they are a mistake card because of basic land type dual lands turning what was once a "you got to pick which of two colors you want" to "you got to pick which two of four possible colors you want and pay 2 more life if you want to use that right away". That is an incredible amount of power to put into a land.
Nonrotating formats tend to have a higher power level. Nothing particularly odd about the lands keeping up.
For that matter, most of the cards or synergies that are decent enough to see play in Modern were "mistake cards" due to unexpected interactions.
Depends on when you consider modern was a real format. Before it was dubbed so by wizards or afterwards? I was never a fan of extended, but I did play "Modern" before it was actually made official as did a lot of players. Also never said people didn't realize the potential of fetches, just that at the time standard was more the thing and the internet of things was still young. We used fetches back with dual lands in casual play and knew the kind of world we'd be living in if basic land types became more common in the future.
Of course, then they went back around and reprinted both in modern legal sets. Also made planeswalkers. Then decided spells were too powerful and gradually made more and more powerful creatures to turn the entire world into creature wars. Yeah, sometimes designers are really strange people.
Again, you can go around saying "No, you are flat out wrong and here is why" all day long Seth. Back in the days of Tempest people played way more casually than now. Heck, tons of people didn't use sleeves and saying they are popular? Must have been your meta buddy.
The internet changed things around and started unifying a lot of the communities around different areas. Depending on where you lived or who you played with your reality of Magic the gathering was vastly different than another groups. What I wrote was not wrong, it was 100% correct for where I was living, who I was playing with, and the LGSs I frequented at the time. So before going off on rebuttals, consider the time period being addressed here.
A few things I've noted in discussions on this forum is that everyone pretty much goes binary on arguments. They don't consider what meta they are talking about (are we talking about a local meta? PT? GP?), the kind of player making the post (super competitive? casual modern player? modern collector?), time period, etc. Conversations would probably go a lot better if people actually understood each other and where they are coming from on their opinions instead of imagining some kind of effigy with preconceived notions.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Depends on when you consider modern was a real format. Before it was dubbed so by wizards or afterwards? I was never a fan of extended, but I did play "Modern" before it was actually made official as did a lot of players.
What "before it was dubbed so by Wizards"? There was no before. They made it an official format in May 2011 with a short banned list, then (in order to make it the format for the Pro Tour), massively expanded the banlist on August 2011. While I suppose one can argue that Modern first truly "started" in August, there was definitely nothing before May 2011. But it doesn't really matter because whichever date you pick, it was after years and years of shockland+fetchland dominance in Extended. Whether you were a fan or not of Extended has nothing to do with the fact that that plainly was the case in Extended.
Or are you actually trying to claim that Modern somehow existed in 2005 or earlier and was played back then?
Also never said people didn't realize the potential of fetches, just that at the time standard was more the thing and the internet of things was still young. We used fetches back with dual lands in casual play and knew the kind of world we'd be living in if basic land types became more common in the future.
You did say people didn't realize the potential, because you claimed "It wasn't until modern that lands started to really get intermixed and we ended up with three and even four color decks, all of which have unheard of flexibility." But that's provably false. Observe the Top 8 of the 2007 Pro Tour Valencia (Extended). There's two 3-color decks, one 4-color deck, and a Tribal Flames deck, which is either 4 or 5 depending on how you count it (it runs no Blue spells but does run blue shocklands in order to fuel Tribal Flames). If anything, Extended manabases were more greedy with the fetch+shock synergy than Modern decks were, when was the last time you saw someone trying to support a 5-color manabase with fetches and shocks?
Again, you can go around saying "No, you are flat out wrong and here is why" all day long Seth. Back in the days of Tempest people played way more casually than now. Heck, tons of people didn't use sleeves and saying they are popular? Must have been your meta buddy.
Yes, it is true that in Tempest people didn't use sleeves as much. But we weren't talking about Tempest. We were talking about Onslaught, 5 years later. And by that time, yes, sleeves were extremely common.
Still not use how the usage of sleeves is relevant, though.
What likely would happen in modern without fetches given the fact there are strong hate cards like blood moon is that we'd see more use of basics and a number of decks par down to two color with a light splash for a third, but given how fast the meta is in modern I'm highly inclined to believe we'd be pushed more towards a two color format entirely. Also, the land cycles that would see more play would likely be shocklands, check lands, and fast lands, along with the filter lands (which would probably become as expensive as the zen fetches without a reprint), and pain lands. Burn would get less effective since it's harder to deal with an opponent who has more than 15 life and other than that if anyone else has any input on what they could foresee changing in modern if the fetches were banned are free to chime in. I'm sure Kevin on Rogue Deckbuilder would have more input since he's had a love/hate relationship with modern for a while and runs an LGS so I'll see if maybe I can get input from him on it.
It is highly unlikely that we will see 2 colors become the norm. I say that because in Innistrad-RTR Standard, 3 color decks were the norm despite having no fetchlands, and that format had worse mana fixing than Modern does even without the fetchlands (at the time it was just the Shocklands, Checklands, and guildgates). It would make 4-color decks less feasible, but how many of those are there? Death's Shadow sometimes splashes for a fourth but it can just as easily stay in Jund. Amulet Titan is 4 colors, but it doesn't even use the fetchlands or shocklands!
Now you mention hate cards as a way to keep people into three colors, citing Blood Moon. It is true that it's a lot harder to play around Blood Moon without fetchlands, so it's more powerful. The problem is that it's harder for the player casting Blood Moon to play around it as well! The card might be more powerful, but it would see far less play.
I've said before that fetches were a good idea gone wrong. At the time they were designed card sleeves weren't as popular as they are now and the game was far younger with a smaller player base. I don't even think the design team at Wizards was as big as it is now, as card design has been getting better moving forward in time and they've been able to crank out more unique card designs than they were able to back in the day.
I'm not sure what the size of the playerbase or the popularity of card sleeves have to do with anything, but I can tell you that you are flat out incorrect when it comes to card sleeves. Those were extremely popular even back then, and you were the odd one out if you weren't using them.
Here is an example of decks from the Onslaught block where allied fetches were from:
Do you see any four color decks? Their are barely any three color decks! From the perspective of the designers at the time fetches were fine and worked great in the blocks they were originally printed in. It wasn't until modern that lands started to really get intermixed and we ended up with three and even four color decks, all of which have unheard of flexibility.
Are you joking? People realized what the fetchlands could do right from the get-go; to claim "it wasn't until Modern" that people used it when people were using the fetchland+dual land or fetchland+shockland combination for almost 10 years is downright laughable. True, at first the synergy was limited to Type 1 and Type 1.5, but the instant the shocklands were printed, that combo was a major force in Extended for years. The idea that this synergy was some kind of long-kept secret that only Modern revealed is just wrong.
Really, in the current day they are a mistake card because of basic land type dual lands turning what was once a "you got to pick which of two colors you want" to "you got to pick which two of four possible colors you want and pay 2 more life if you want to use that right away". That is an incredible amount of power to put into a land.
Nonrotating formats tend to have a higher power level. Nothing particularly odd about the lands keeping up.
For that matter, most of the cards or synergies that are decent enough to see play in Modern were "mistake cards" due to unexpected interactions.
Yes 3 color decks will still be the norm but everybody will just lose more to variance.
So what about decks like Tron, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Ad Nauseam and Valakut that dont't play or need fetchlands. Woudn't they just push most midrange decks and control decks out?
It would require lots of bans to balance this format but I like the idea of tribal decks getting stronger.
Depends on when you consider modern was a real format. Before it was dubbed so by wizards or afterwards? I was never a fan of extended, but I did play "Modern" before it was actually made official as did a lot of players.
What "before it was dubbed so by Wizards"? There was no before. They made it an official format in May 2011 with a short banned list, then (in order to make it the format for the Pro Tour), massively expanded the banlist on August 2011. While I suppose one can argue that Modern first truly "started" in August, there was definitely nothing before May 2011. But it doesn't really matter because whichever date you pick, it was after years and years of shockland+fetchland dominance in Extended. Whether you were a fan or not of Extended has nothing to do with the fact that that plainly was the case in Extended.
Or are you actually trying to claim that Modern somehow existed in 2005 or earlier and was played back then?
Also never said people didn't realize the potential of fetches, just that at the time standard was more the thing and the internet of things was still young. We used fetches back with dual lands in casual play and knew the kind of world we'd be living in if basic land types became more common in the future.
You did say people didn't realize the potential, because you claimed "It wasn't until modern that lands started to really get intermixed and we ended up with three and even four color decks, all of which have unheard of flexibility." But that's provably false. Observe the Top 8 of the 2007 Pro Tour Valencia (Extended). There's two 3-color decks, one 4-color deck, and a Tribal Flames deck, which is either 4 or 5 depending on how you count it (it runs no Blue spells but does run blue shocklands in order to fuel Tribal Flames). If anything, Extended manabases were more greedy with the fetch+shock synergy than Modern decks were, when was the last time you saw someone trying to support a 5-color manabase with fetches and shocks?
Again, you can go around saying "No, you are flat out wrong and here is why" all day long Seth. Back in the days of Tempest people played way more casually than now. Heck, tons of people didn't use sleeves and saying they are popular? Must have been your meta buddy.
Yes, it is true that in Tempest people didn't use sleeves as much. But we weren't talking about Tempest. We were talking about Onslaught, 5 years later. And by that time, yes, sleeves were extremely common.
Still not use how the usage of sleeves is relevant, though.
I'm still not sure why you want to make a bigger deal out of someone mentioning sleeves in a posting than it really is. I've also said before, posts on forums are not research articles they are opinions based on the person with a loose context of factual evidence depending on how they play the game and the environment they live in. The best I can tell, most people in modern base their entirety of their arguments on the deep end of the competitive meta, and the reason for a lot of disagreements is that many (and most) don't play that way. Also, I stated before I'm more a designer than a player and look at things from how a card stacks up to others in the field. Fetches are just rediculously powerful lands and extremely restrictive on the play space. You don't need to know what the meta would look like without them, you just need to know what kind of space that particular design crowds out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
BBD posts a rather thought provoking article and we are still on fetchlands?
Agree'd, he probably had the most reasonable thoughts about bans and unbans I've seen in a good while, and people are talking about a dumb hypothetical.
I think it means outside of blue control, moderns doing well since people are posting about the "what if" about fetchlands. I personally think it's one of the worst suggestions I've seen in this topic in the past two years.
I also think that traditional countermagic-based control decks are simply a flawed archetype in today's era of Magic. Unbanning Jace isn't going to fix something that is fundamentally flawed. Jace will simply be better used by other decks that aren't trying to execute a reactive game plan.
This is kind what I have been saying, at least in the same vein. The reactive archetype seems to be something WOtC didn't want in the format. Whether it is because it was considered unfun or overpowered or both, I have no idea. For whatever reason WotC went away from it and there isn't anything the banlist can change about that. The cards needed are not in the format and to think it's merely coincidence is pretty naive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
This is kind what I have been saying, at least in the same vein. The reactive archetype seems to be something WOtC didn't want in the format. Whether it is because it was considered unfun or overpowered or both, I have no idea. For whatever reason WotC went away from it and there isn't anything the banlist can change about that. The cards needed are not in the format and to think it's merely coincidence is pretty naive.
There is a big difference between them not wanting it and them wanting it but the strategy not working despite their desire. A year ago, Wizards explicitly stated they wanted to improve attrition-based and controlling decks when they unbanned AV, so your conspiracy theory seems to not hold water. Do you have any actual statements from Wizards suggesting this to be the case in Modern?
I also think that traditional countermagic-based control decks are simply a flawed archetype in today's era of Magic. Unbanning Jace isn't going to fix something that is fundamentally flawed. Jace will simply be better used by other decks that aren't trying to execute a reactive game plan.
Thoughts?
Yeah, agreed; hence why Jace is a ways down my priority list despite being a powerful card in a color that could use the boost. Jace is a payoff card, and a really good one. The problem with just unbanning Jace is that the reactive Ux decks people want to prop up with him still won't have the tools to capitalize fully on that payoff. So the colors that do have those tools/haven't had those tools banned out of the format as collateral damage from combo being too good (pretty much BGx) will still be far and away the most viable Jace shells.
That's why Dig Through Time is my first pick, and Stoneforge Mystic in combination with Preordain is my second(/third). Between the ModernNexus testing results and the rise of DS Jund (which laughs at Batterskull so hard), Abzan may not even be able to profitably run Stoneforge (or would see completely mixed results at best), while bringing Blue's cantripping closer to where it was at the format's inception would do it a lot of good. With both Blue spells, there's a chance that combo becomes pushed, but 1) And Naus never even ran Dig when it was legal (nor Cruise), 2) Storm is now super easy to interact with, 3) the other cantrip combo decks are pretty weak 4) better control means better policing of combo, and 5) if things get really bad, there are other cards that could be banned from combo that wouldn't neuter fair Blue decks.
Ideally, accompany that with a decent 2-CMC universal Counterspell in Standard, like the kicker: discard version I posted a few days ago. Something that can't just cleanly 1-for-1 any Standard bomb, but can still answer what needs to be answered and gels with Blue attrition-based strategies. Plain Counterspell would probably be fine, but I think it's more likely we'll get a watered-down-but-still-serviceable version, which is fine by me.
I also think that traditional countermagic-based control decks are simply a flawed archetype in today's era of Magic. Unbanning Jace isn't going to fix something that is fundamentally flawed. Jace will simply be better used by other decks that aren't trying to execute a reactive game plan.
Thoughts?
This is a dramatic stretch from the possibilities that Jace could provide to other decks. Scapeshift is the only combo/control deck I could currently vision even thinking about using Jace. Jace will always cost 4 mana, and at best will only brainstorm every turn. This is fundamentally different than a card such as Dig Through Time, where it actually profits you for deckbuilding differently to abuse the maximum potential. Jace has no such mechanisms attached to his playability.
Unless someone can point out to any Tier 1, 3, or 3 deck that could potentially abuse this card, which is arguably on par with Liliana of the Veil, I feel most of these claims are just unfounded beliefs.
(This is coming from a blue reactive player whom also has in depth knowledge of almost every deck in tier 1 2 3, with and against)
Bottom line. Reactive decks are forever doomed I'n this format, over time this game has gotten more and more proactive and quick, And blue will never be as good as bgx. Not to mention there are archetype imbalances and too much linearity(this is fact, crunch some numbers and you'll see).
In a perfect world there would be less lopsided matchups in the top tiers of the game, this makes the game feel like rock paper sciccors much too often which isnt healthy imo, because in a perfect world most top tier (1,2) decks should have a 45/55 at worst vs each other, thus more skill required rather than matchup and sideboard dependence. Anyone who thinks this game is perfect, as is, must be a bit touched in the head imo. Or are too arrogant to see the big picture.
This is just not the format me. And it's not going to change. I'm selling out,enjoy your flawed format folks.
Public Mod Note
(ktkenshinx):
Infraction for trolling (format bashing) -ktkenshinx-
(This is coming from a blue reactive player whom also has in depth knowledge of almost every deck in tier 1 2 3, with and against)
Bottom line. Reactive decks are forever doomed I'n this format, over time this game has gotten more and more proactive and quick, And blue will never be as good as bgx. Not to mention there are archetype imbalances and too much linearity(this is fact, crunch some numbers and you'll see).
In a perfect world there would be less lopsided matchups in the top tiers of the game, this makes the game feel like rock paper sciccors much too often which isnt healthy imo, because in a perfect world most top tier (1,2) decks should have a 45/55 at worst vs each other, thus more skill required rather than matchup and sideboard dependence. Anyone who thinks this game is perfect, as is, must be a bit touched in the head imo. Or are too arrogant to see the big picture.
This is just not the format me. And it's not going to change. I'm selling out,enjoy your flawed format folks.
Ok thanks for letting us now.
See you!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Reanimator
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
I also think that traditional countermagic-based control decks are simply a flawed archetype in today's era of Magic. Unbanning Jace isn't going to fix something that is fundamentally flawed. Jace will simply be better used by other decks that aren't trying to execute a reactive game plan.
Thoughts?
Truthfully, this may be the case. However, if that is true than Modern is unlikely to ever be more self-regulating. On the other hand, there are tools that control strategies could have that might make a difference. Honestly, as much as I'd like it, I'm not sure if counterspell would really make a huge difference. That being said, if the options are "it does nothing" and "reactive control decks exist" I think it is a bet WotC should take. Regrettably, I don't know that Jace would do much to fix control's problems. It would be fun to try, and I am hopeful that they may do so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Dark Night Cavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios!
This here is why so many ( myself included ) people dislike blue mages in MTG. This attitude that Blue is the only color that matters and any format
not policed by it sucks by default. Of course not all blue players but the vocal ones that stand out and act like petulant children make it harder for
anyone else to actually care when they are accustomed to hearing "Wah blue sucks!" Does Blue have issues, absolutely yes. Is Wizards working on it, most likely, but probably not the way you want it.
Slug it out with the rest of us or just sell your stuff and move on.
This is kind what I have been saying, at least in the same vein. The reactive archetype seems to be something WOtC didn't want in the format. Whether it is because it was considered unfun or overpowered or both, I have no idea. For whatever reason WotC went away from it and there isn't anything the banlist can change about that. The cards needed are not in the format and to think it's merely coincidence is pretty naive.
There is a big difference between them not wanting it and them wanting it but the strategy not working despite their desire. A year ago, Wizards explicitly stated they wanted to improve attrition-based and controlling decks when they unbanned AV, so your conspiracy theory seems to not hold water. Do you have any actual statements from Wizards suggesting this to be the case in Modern?
Attrition-based, controlling decks does not mean blue based counter magic, reactive control. I think that is the disconnect with this argument.
To you. To some they have been waiting for a format like this since the inception of the game. A non-Standard format that isnt blue based. A non-Standard format not dominated by control or prison decks. A format where there are multiple decks you can play and make top tables.
To you, you may think its flawed, To others its a dream come true.
To you. To some they have been waiting for a format like this since the inception of the game. A non-Standard format that isnt blue based. A non-Standard format not dominated by control or prison decks. A format where there are multiple decks you can play and make top tables.
To you, you may think its flawed, To others its a dream come true.
This his use of the word subjective
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
Why does it have to be a blue reactive deck? Wouldn't a blue combo or midrange ( well I guess that would be reactive to some extent ) deck be enough? So long as people get to jam Snapcaster Mage in a tier 1 deck why does it matter?
If your dream is to sit behind a row of Islands and counter everything poor thing little Timmy has to offer
then I have some bad news for you.
Not surprised. I T8ed the MA "States" last year with budget goblins worth ~$50... field of 20 people.
Depends on when you consider modern was a real format. Before it was dubbed so by wizards or afterwards? I was never a fan of extended, but I did play "Modern" before it was actually made official as did a lot of players. Also never said people didn't realize the potential of fetches, just that at the time standard was more the thing and the internet of things was still young. We used fetches back with dual lands in casual play and knew the kind of world we'd be living in if basic land types became more common in the future.
Of course, then they went back around and reprinted both in modern legal sets. Also made planeswalkers. Then decided spells were too powerful and gradually made more and more powerful creatures to turn the entire world into creature wars. Yeah, sometimes designers are really strange people.
Again, you can go around saying "No, you are flat out wrong and here is why" all day long Seth. Back in the days of Tempest people played way more casually than now. Heck, tons of people didn't use sleeves and saying they are popular? Must have been your meta buddy.
The internet changed things around and started unifying a lot of the communities around different areas. Depending on where you lived or who you played with your reality of Magic the gathering was vastly different than another groups. What I wrote was not wrong, it was 100% correct for where I was living, who I was playing with, and the LGSs I frequented at the time. So before going off on rebuttals, consider the time period being addressed here.
A few things I've noted in discussions on this forum is that everyone pretty much goes binary on arguments. They don't consider what meta they are talking about (are we talking about a local meta? PT? GP?), the kind of player making the post (super competitive? casual modern player? modern collector?), time period, etc. Conversations would probably go a lot better if people actually understood each other and where they are coming from on their opinions instead of imagining some kind of effigy with preconceived notions.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
What "before it was dubbed so by Wizards"? There was no before. They made it an official format in May 2011 with a short banned list, then (in order to make it the format for the Pro Tour), massively expanded the banlist on August 2011. While I suppose one can argue that Modern first truly "started" in August, there was definitely nothing before May 2011. But it doesn't really matter because whichever date you pick, it was after years and years of shockland+fetchland dominance in Extended. Whether you were a fan or not of Extended has nothing to do with the fact that that plainly was the case in Extended.
Or are you actually trying to claim that Modern somehow existed in 2005 or earlier and was played back then?
You did say people didn't realize the potential, because you claimed "It wasn't until modern that lands started to really get intermixed and we ended up with three and even four color decks, all of which have unheard of flexibility." But that's provably false. Observe the Top 8 of the 2007 Pro Tour Valencia (Extended). There's two 3-color decks, one 4-color deck, and a Tribal Flames deck, which is either 4 or 5 depending on how you count it (it runs no Blue spells but does run blue shocklands in order to fuel Tribal Flames). If anything, Extended manabases were more greedy with the fetch+shock synergy than Modern decks were, when was the last time you saw someone trying to support a 5-color manabase with fetches and shocks?
Yes, it is true that in Tempest people didn't use sleeves as much. But we weren't talking about Tempest. We were talking about Onslaught, 5 years later. And by that time, yes, sleeves were extremely common.
Still not use how the usage of sleeves is relevant, though.
Yes 3 color decks will still be the norm but everybody will just lose more to variance.
It would require lots of bans to balance this format but I like the idea of tribal decks getting stronger.
`No changes` and I think that is a good thing.
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
I'm still not sure why you want to make a bigger deal out of someone mentioning sleeves in a posting than it really is. I've also said before, posts on forums are not research articles they are opinions based on the person with a loose context of factual evidence depending on how they play the game and the environment they live in. The best I can tell, most people in modern base their entirety of their arguments on the deep end of the competitive meta, and the reason for a lot of disagreements is that many (and most) don't play that way. Also, I stated before I'm more a designer than a player and look at things from how a card stacks up to others in the field. Fetches are just rediculously powerful lands and extremely restrictive on the play space. You don't need to know what the meta would look like without them, you just need to know what kind of space that particular design crowds out.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Agree'd, he probably had the most reasonable thoughts about bans and unbans I've seen in a good while, and people are talking about a dumb hypothetical.
I think it means outside of blue control, moderns doing well since people are posting about the "what if" about fetchlands. I personally think it's one of the worst suggestions I've seen in this topic in the past two years.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
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.
There is a big difference between them not wanting it and them wanting it but the strategy not working despite their desire. A year ago, Wizards explicitly stated they wanted to improve attrition-based and controlling decks when they unbanned AV, so your conspiracy theory seems to not hold water. Do you have any actual statements from Wizards suggesting this to be the case in Modern?
Yeah, agreed; hence why Jace is a ways down my priority list despite being a powerful card in a color that could use the boost. Jace is a payoff card, and a really good one. The problem with just unbanning Jace is that the reactive Ux decks people want to prop up with him still won't have the tools to capitalize fully on that payoff. So the colors that do have those tools/haven't had those tools banned out of the format as collateral damage from combo being too good (pretty much BGx) will still be far and away the most viable Jace shells.
That's why Dig Through Time is my first pick, and Stoneforge Mystic in combination with Preordain is my second(/third). Between the ModernNexus testing results and the rise of DS Jund (which laughs at Batterskull so hard), Abzan may not even be able to profitably run Stoneforge (or would see completely mixed results at best), while bringing Blue's cantripping closer to where it was at the format's inception would do it a lot of good. With both Blue spells, there's a chance that combo becomes pushed, but 1) And Naus never even ran Dig when it was legal (nor Cruise), 2) Storm is now super easy to interact with, 3) the other cantrip combo decks are pretty weak 4) better control means better policing of combo, and 5) if things get really bad, there are other cards that could be banned from combo that wouldn't neuter fair Blue decks.
Ideally, accompany that with a decent 2-CMC universal Counterspell in Standard, like the kicker: discard version I posted a few days ago. Something that can't just cleanly 1-for-1 any Standard bomb, but can still answer what needs to be answered and gels with Blue attrition-based strategies. Plain Counterspell would probably be fine, but I think it's more likely we'll get a watered-down-but-still-serviceable version, which is fine by me.
WUBRG Humans
BRW Mardu Pyromancer
UW UW "Control"
UR Blue Moon
This is a dramatic stretch from the possibilities that Jace could provide to other decks. Scapeshift is the only combo/control deck I could currently vision even thinking about using Jace. Jace will always cost 4 mana, and at best will only brainstorm every turn. This is fundamentally different than a card such as Dig Through Time, where it actually profits you for deckbuilding differently to abuse the maximum potential. Jace has no such mechanisms attached to his playability.
Unless someone can point out to any Tier 1, 3, or 3 deck that could potentially abuse this card, which is arguably on par with Liliana of the Veil, I feel most of these claims are just unfounded beliefs.
By hellfire,
(This is coming from a blue reactive player whom also has in depth knowledge of almost every deck in tier 1 2 3, with and against)
Bottom line. Reactive decks are forever doomed I'n this format, over time this game has gotten more and more proactive and quick, And blue will never be as good as bgx. Not to mention there are archetype imbalances and too much linearity(this is fact, crunch some numbers and you'll see).
In a perfect world there would be less lopsided matchups in the top tiers of the game, this makes the game feel like rock paper sciccors much too often which isnt healthy imo, because in a perfect world most top tier (1,2) decks should have a 45/55 at worst vs each other, thus more skill required rather than matchup and sideboard dependence. Anyone who thinks this game is perfect, as is, must be a bit touched in the head imo. Or are too arrogant to see the big picture.
This is just not the format me. And it's not going to change. I'm selling out,enjoy your flawed format folks.
decks playing:
none
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
decks playing:
none
Ok thanks for letting us now.
See you!
Modern - Burn
EDH - Neheb the Eternal
Truthfully, this may be the case. However, if that is true than Modern is unlikely to ever be more self-regulating. On the other hand, there are tools that control strategies could have that might make a difference. Honestly, as much as I'd like it, I'm not sure if counterspell would really make a huge difference. That being said, if the options are "it does nothing" and "reactive control decks exist" I think it is a bet WotC should take. Regrettably, I don't know that Jace would do much to fix control's problems. It would be fun to try, and I am hopeful that they may do so.
This here is why so many ( myself included ) people dislike blue mages in MTG. This attitude that Blue is the only color that matters and any format
not policed by it sucks by default. Of course not all blue players but the vocal ones that stand out and act like petulant children make it harder for
anyone else to actually care when they are accustomed to hearing "Wah blue sucks!" Does Blue have issues, absolutely yes. Is Wizards working on it, most likely, but probably not the way you want it.
Slug it out with the rest of us or just sell your stuff and move on.
Attrition-based, controlling decks does not mean blue based counter magic, reactive control. I think that is the disconnect with this argument.
I also put in my ramble that I play and own most decks. This isn't a blue biased opinion. This is a subjective fact that modern is flawed.
Keep your head up your <ass> as always peace.
decks playing:
none
To you. To some they have been waiting for a format like this since the inception of the game. A non-Standard format that isnt blue based. A non-Standard format not dominated by control or prison decks. A format where there are multiple decks you can play and make top tables.
To you, you may think its flawed, To others its a dream come true.
This his use of the word subjective
If your dream is to sit behind a row of Islands and counter everything poor thing little Timmy has to offer
then I have some bad news for you.