So according to mainphasemtg, DS numbers are still rising. It's sitting at upwards of 16.5% between all the flavors.
If it does stay at that point, it probably will get hit with a ban. IIRC, that is the meta share that BGx had when DRS was banned.
It's important to distinguish the % of the share being due to the hype and it being the "so called best deck" and due to the fact that something really busted is happening. There's also the question that the meta is still evolving and decks are adapting to these new decks.
True. That's why I said it will probably get hit with a ban if it stays at that percentage or higher until the next banlist update.
True. That's why I said it will probably get hit with a ban if it stays at that percentage or higher until the next banlist update.
I really hope it doesn't. The DS variants are hardly busted. I don't even think the card is that efficient and sets a good standard for the Modern meta. I always enjoyed watching different flavors of Delver in legacy go head to head against each other. Although there have similar cards they have some subtle intricacies that make them different from one another.
I really think DS brings that dimension to the Modern metagame. To be quite honest, I believe that almost everyone is happier with this new meta than the typical non-interactive bash of my 10 cards against your 10 cards that we have been having in Modern for the last few months.
I hope that they unban more interactive cards instead of banning cards from an interactive deck, but there is precedence to banning a component of a deck once it in its various forms reaches this metashare.
Not that i think it is beyond wizards to ban something from the deck anyways, but i think shadow is fine personally. I view it as an efficient beater, nothing more. People are playing that efficient beater in several different styles of decks, and when they play their efficient beater, it gets killed or beats in efficiently for awhile. I find this dissimilar to twin, where if the namesake card resolves, the twin player wins and the package was large enough that the games all had an extremely similar playstyle regardless of the build. It is unfortunate that people decided to name the decks after shadow, since unlike past decks with a namesake card, they really are not even centered around shadow very much. If we just called dsj "jund" I don't think there would be any perceived issue
When could the next banning/unbanning concievably announcement br?
Imo eldrazi temple should still get the axe. Sol ring for some of the most busted creatures in the game isn't exactly fair and balanced. If there was one card that Jund should lose it would be Thoughtsieze.
Good thing you aren't in charge of changes then because you have really bad opinions
Ban thoughtseize?
Ok, let's just play solitaire and let combo decks rein supreme, because I promise you no one will play an interactive deck if that happened, it'd all be aggro or combo/big ramp, no one would bother playing control since it's in an awkward in-between
A thoughtseize/IOK ban is almost equivalent to banning FOW in legacy
Thoughtseize is literally one of moderns few safety valves, why the hell would you even suggest an awful banning, I'd rather hear about Val's argument for why DDT isn't a broken card in the format.
This is the thing with balance imo. If we look at Eldrazi Tron, DSJund, the established aggro of Affinity, Infect, Burn, Bant Eldrazi etc. they're all fair and eminently beatable. But stacked like that they have sped up the format so much that the only thing that can compete are non interactive combos which are just parasitising on the fact that control is not viable to keep them in check and that aggro cant disrupt them easily. This is the problem I see with the meta. On the surface everything is playable but in reality everything other than aggro (whichever the flavor) is suboptimal. The culprit is not any one card, its the general efficiency of beatdown plans. In order to make the meta more diverse either more powerful answers have to see print or some cards should be banned to make decks less efficient. The thing with printing strong hosers is that they would have to be stupidly undercosted and effective to compete with broken things like eldrazi, affinity, infect. IMO we're talking Daze, FoW, tax effects, no drawback land destruction etc. level of brokenness and that would likely and easily tilt balance to the opposite side even if they wanted to print them. Therefore banning, as distasteful as it is, is preferable. Banning whole archetypes is bad for obvious reasons, so the next best thing in those decks should be the one to go. Im not an expert but if you think eldrazi temple is fine then one of the critters should get axed. If deaths shadow is ok the same goes for thoughtsieze or whatever gives the deck edge. Etc. Etc.
There's no good answers in modern. BAN THOUGHTSEIZE, BAN ALL THE THINGS!
You're literally advocating to killing off the Eldrazi decks---the deck won't be viable. There won't be a, "oh, no, it'll bounce back, it survived the eye ban", no, you'd be killing the deck. You'd also kill Eldrazi Tron off, and even though it's a bad deck, you'd kill off the Eldrazi and Taxes deck off, too. None of those three decks have reached alarming meta shares or posted fast wins that violate the turn rule, nor have they been sweeping tournaments.
You managed to contradict yourself multiple times in one post.
When could the next banning/unbanning concievably announcement br?
Imo eldrazi temple should still get the axe. Sol ring for some of the most busted creatures in the game isn't exactly fair and balanced. If there was one card that Jund should lose it would be Thoughtsieze.
Good thing you aren't in charge of changes then because you have really bad opinions
Ban thoughtseize?
Ok, let's just play solitaire and let combo decks rein supreme, because I promise you no one will play an interactive deck if that happened, it'd all be aggro or combo/big ramp, no one would bother playing control since it's in an awkward in-between
A thoughtseize/IOK ban is almost equivalent to banning FOW in legacy
Thoughtseize is literally one of moderns few safety valves, why the hell would you even suggest an awful banning, I'd rather hear about Val's argument for why DDT isn't a broken card in the format.
You call DS decks with Thoughtsieze etc. as very interactive magic? Okay. They're the ones keeping "big bad combo" in check. Mhm.
You know what kept combo in check? The fact that Wizards nuke it every time it grows. The banlist is mostly a graveyard of combo decks and combo deck enablers.
Meanwhile observe the meta on the left hand side of MTGtop8. That's interactive magic?
Let me ask you, what deck do you play in modern?
DS decks are highly interactive. They run 8 discard spells, 4+ removals, a limited number of threats and card advantage engines. It might not be control but it is highly interactive.
Hold up, so instead of having good safety valves, WOTC should just nuke combo decks when it gets too good? Sheridan talked about his cheerios deck, and decks with discard and removal stop it from being a degenerate, broken deck.
I do call call DS decks with thoughtseize as interactive magic
Are you somehow going to tell me
8 discard, 2x Tarfire, 2x Abrupt Decay, 3x Fatal Push, 2x Kolaghan Commands, 3x LOTV/LTLH, with 1x terminate, 1x fatal push, 2x surgicals/spellbomb, 3x fulminators, 3x lingering souls, ancient grudges, collective brutality isn't interactive? Ok, bud. You can call Death Shadow Jund streamlined, but calling it linear is ridiculous and shows how little you probably understand the format. Let's also consider the 4 Shadows/4 Goyfs/4 Traverse as creatures. The Temur battle-rages also interact for stealing wins, too, but that aspect is very comboish, so I won't push that argument very hard.
let's look on mtggoldfish and see what they're showing--
Death Shadow, Dredge, Burn, Abzan, Grixis Death Shadow, Affinity, Eldrazi Tron, Tron, Gift Storm, Titan Shift, Bant Eldrazi, Merfolk, Jund, AD Nasuem.
Looks like a healthy mix. You do realize the second Shadow, or thoughtseize or any of those things are banned that ramp/combo and big mana decks will take over, right? And then what, we ban Eldrazi Temple next? And then what? Tron lands, ancient stirrings?
I play DSJ, Abzan and a little burn on the side---because I'm defending thoughtseize it's because I play GBx, right? So me arguing for preordain, SFM and Twin for the past year must mean I'm a blue player, right?
Banning thoughtseize is one of the worst suggestions this board has ever had, you're feeding into this banmania which is cancerous to the format.
All we know is that Dig Through Time was being used heavily in RUG Scapeshift. I don't believe Dig Through Time would be as abused in Modern as it was in Legacy, but it slightly tips the line in power level most likely acceptable in the Modern format.
It's definitely worth discussing, I don't think it's a card in the distant future that's off the table. I just feel that if we want a higher power level Modern, they need to start unbanning multiple other fair cards first.
The typical Junk list plays 14 pieces of removal in the 60, the typical Shadow deck is playing 12 pieces of removal in the 60---is Junk highly more interactive because of those 2 removal spells? You sound ignorant. The traditional Jund and Junk's plan is literally to discard, play goyf, and kill any creatures you lay down while beating you down. Everyone has agreed for years GBx has been the hallmark of interactive decks. It plays creatures and removes stuff, that's not interactive? LOL?! What?!
Your agreement about Affinity running 4x Galvanic blast is sooooooooooooo bad. You can't compare 4 pieces of removal to twelve, along with the discard package. How is discard not interacting with my opponent?! They aren't randomly discarding something like in 8Rack, I am choosing specifically what I feel is most disruptive to my plan. Do I want to discard a creature I can't handle? A removal I can't afford to take, a combo/enchantment piece? I don't understand how removal and discard isn't interacting. Is Lilliana of the Veil not interactive either? Please, I'm ******* begging you, what do you consider interactive in magic, playing an Esper deck that counters everything until it beats you down with a manland and tokens?
I have argued for over a year and a half that counterspell needs to be introduced into modern, telling me I play GBx and am selfishly defending my deck is not the issue here, I've definitely advocated for cards that I don't and will not play with. Crying about blue not having a counterspell and therefore taking away thoughtseize is ridiculous.
I want to make this clear---you know that midrange would not exist without Thoughtseize/IOK, right? It would not be competitively viable, it would be kitchen table magic at that point
Instead you demand for thoughtseize and Eldrazi Temple to be axed. Absolutely horrible, poorly thought-out arguments by you.
Isn't that exactly what Wizards has been doing even though your safety valve was there all along?
I don't consider a fistful of removal to clear out the way for beatdown as very interactive. Affinity has 4x galvanic blast, nobody is going to argue that the deck is very interactive because of it. Sure the G/B/x is quite a bit more interactive than Infect or Affinity. But the game-plan of stripping resources and beating down with the best cards in the game is really much closer to any other aggro than reactive control gameplay. The success of that entire game-plan depends on how you interact the opponent.
Furthermore you make it sound like a "healthy mix" but you are well aware that all the "combo" and "control" decks combined make up 40% of the meta. And even the 20% control gives a misleading impression given that the decks simply aren't on the same level as Aggro and Combo. A realistic power assessment can practically delete most modern control decks from the equation.
Also if the meta is so healthy and diverse why are 2/5 colors basically delegated to support in the format? Why is control Tier 2 at its best?
Look, I'm not hung up on Thougtsieze. I think its a badly designed card through and through. Allowing for an uncounterable T1 mulligan of your opponents hand is FoW level bull*****. Bad, completely asymmetric gameplay. But let's not kid ourselves that the format is any more balanced than Legacy.
I'm for actual balance and for all three traditional styles of play to be equally viable. If you are willing to see other colors armed with spells on that power level then we are in agreement. That would include printing a genuine counterspell as broken as Thoughtsieze and whatever W needs for its traditional strategies to be a thing.
But if you're just arguing for your deck in all its variations to stay almost permanently on top of the format then that's just lame.
If you wouldn't mind telling us, what are your criteria for a deck to be considered interactive? The non-cantrip part of the DSJ deck is about 25% creatures (counting TtU), 25% lands, and 50% interactive spells. That's a far cry from affinity, which runs at most < 7% interactive spells. Also, how is clearing creatures off of the board and then attacking not interacting? I think it's fair to say that there are three types of interaction that matter in modern: the board, hand, and stack. IMO decks that try to interact on all three axes are bad, so I don't think it's fair to punish DSJ for not having counterspells. (I say this as a grixis control player)
Also, if we indulge in a little theorycrafting, I think it's pretty clear that thoughtseize actually promotes interaction and fairness in the format. Hear me out. The biggest weakness of hand disruption is that, if the game goes on long enough, your opponent will eventually draw into a replacement for whatever you made them discard. So the longer the game goes, the weaker play thougthseize is, even if it happens at the beginning. A T1 Thoughtseize won't impact a 15 turn game nearly as much as it will a 5 turn game. Now, the fair, interactive styles of decks - like UW or Grixis control (the latter is what I play), or Abzan rock - have enough redundancy that a singe T1 Thoughtseize will not protect your creatures most of the time. The fair decks have enough tools to force a deck like DSJ to go long. The fast, linear decks do not. The logical conclusion of this is that hand disruption like Thoughtseize or IoK helps interactive decks like Abzan or, yes, DSJ, have good matchups against the linear decks while giving the other fair decks an axis to attack the hand disruption style fair decks.
This analysis is backed up by the fact that most good GBx players will board out some/all of their hand disruption against grindy matchups, boarding in 2-1's.
Affinity has 4x galvanic blast, nobody is going to argue that the deck is very interactive because of it. Sure the G/B/x is quite a bit more interactive than Infect or Affinity. But the game-plan of stripping resources and beating down with the best cards in the game is really much closer to any other aggro than reactive control gameplay. The success of that entire game-plan depends on how you interact the opponent.
I've never seen a control player actually make this particular argument compelling. It basically boils down to "When I do it, it's good and proper Magic; when you do it, it's unfair and mindless." By your definition, when an Aggro or Mid-Range strategy uses lightning bolt to clear a blocker - that's not interactive. But when a control deck does it to preserve their life total - Bam! - magically it's interactive?
Furthermore you make it sound like a "healthy mix" but you are well aware that all the "combo" and "control" decks combined make up 40% of the meta. And even the 20% control gives a misleading impression given that the decks simply aren't on the same level as Aggro and Combo. A realistic power assessment can practically delete most modern control decks from the equation.
Also if the meta is so healthy and diverse why are 2/5 colors basically delegated to support in the format? Why is control Tier 2 at its best?
Look, I'm not hung up on Thougtsieze. I think its a badly designed card through and through. Allowing for an uncounterable T1 mulligan of your opponents hand is FoW level bull*****. Bad, completely asymmetric gameplay. But let's not kid ourselves that the format is any more balanced than Legacy.
I'm for actual balance and for all three traditional styles of play to be equally viable. If you are willing to see other colors armed with spells on that power level then we are in agreement. That would include printing a genuine counterspell as broken as Thoughtsieze and whatever W needs for its traditional strategies to be a thing.
But if you're just arguing for your deck in all its variations to stay almost permanently on top of the format then that's just lame.
The power level of decks naturally wax and wane. Death's Shadow doesn't deserve to be on top anymore than Scapeshift, or Affinity, or control for that matter either. The argument that gets made over and over again is that control deserves to be tier 1 (and a very specific kind of control deck at that), but there doesn't seem to be a lot of articulation as to why it deserves to be tier 1. We have a diverse and legitimately fun format that is growing. There are a wide swath of decks that are present. That control is not the best deck in the format (and specifically blue control, lets be honest) is not some massive failure on the part of Wizards. Blue isn't owed anything.
The typical Junk list plays 14 pieces of removal in the 60, the typical Shadow deck is playing 12 pieces of removal in the 60---is Junk highly more interactive because of those 2 removal spells? You sound ignorant. The traditional Jund and Junk's plan is literally to discard, play goyf, and kill any creatures you lay down while beating you down. Everyone has agreed for years GBx has been the hallmark of interactive decks. It plays creatures and removes stuff, that's not interactive? LOL?! What?!
Your agreement about Affinity running 4x Galvanic blast is sooooooooooooo bad. You can't compare 4 pieces of removal to twelve, along with the discard package. How is discard not interacting with my opponent?! They aren't randomly discarding something like in 8Rack, I am choosing specifically what I feel is most disruptive to my plan. Do I want to discard a creature I can't handle? A removal I can't afford to take, a combo/enchantment piece? I don't understand how removal and discard isn't interacting. Is Lilliana of the Veil not interactive either? Please, I'm ******* begging you, what do you consider interactive in magic, playing an Esper deck that counters everything until it beats you down with a manland and tokens?
I have argued for over a year and a half that counterspell needs to be introduced into modern, telling me I play GBx and am selfishly defending my deck is not the issue here, I've definitely advocated for cards that I don't and will not play with. Crying about blue not having a counterspell and therefore taking away thoughtseize is ridiculous.
I want to make this clear---you know that midrange would not exist without Thoughtseize/IOK, right? It would not be competitively viable, it would be kitchen table magic at that point
Instead you demand for thoughtseize and Eldrazi Temple to be axed. Absolutely horrible, poorly thought-out arguments by you.
The only reason I suggested that a component of G/B/x be banned is because I firmly believe Wizards will likely never print good enough answers in blue again. This is the preferable option, but they simply don't want to do it. They've chosen not to time and time again. When they do make the occasional "mistake" like mental misstep its banned in a flash.
And if you go from the assumption that they won't do it how would you bring a semblance of balance to the colors in the format?
Please indulge me.
Stand alone products like the commander series or conspiracy that become legal in Modern but are never introduced into Standard.
The power level of decks naturally wax and wane. Death's Shadow doesn't deserve to be on top anymore than Scapeshift, or Affinity, or control for that matter either. The argument that gets made over and over again is that control deserves to be tier 1 (and a very specific kind of control deck at that), but there doesn't seem to be a lot of articulation as to why it deserves to be tier 1. We have a diverse and legitimately fun format that is growing. There are a wide swath of decks that are present. That control is not the best deck in the format (and specifically blue control, lets be honest) is not some massive failure on the part of Wizards. Blue isn't owed anything.
Flipping into extremes does not support your argument. Control does not have to be the best, but there is no reason why at least one control deck shouldn't be a viable tier 1 option.
Going by MTGtop8 format overview 60/20/20 split, how is the format diverse? Most tier 1 is some form of aggro with some combo sneaking in. Tier 2 is a lot more varied but tier 2 is tier 2. There are a lot of playable decks in modern, but the top decks are almost all aggro. How is that diverse?
Except Tier 1 decks are the best? I am not sure I follow. Wanting a deck type to be Tier 1 means you want it to be among the best decks in the format, if not the best deck in any given particular metagame. And you still haven't addressed the main point, which was why it should be Tier 1. That I am genuinely curious about.
Black is over-represented, sure. But in the Top 10 cards played in the format, literally every color has at least one card. Tarmogoyf, Death's Shadow, and Fulminator are the only creatures (way behind the spells). Blue has a creature within the top 15, while white has lingering souls which is almost a creature (reaching a bit here). Honestly, looking at the percentages of the top 15, Green cards see less play than blue or white ones. (Of course that cut-off point is largely arbitrary - Hierarch and Decay are 17/18 which brings green's numbers back up a bit.)
The issue seems less that white and blue are under-represented, and more that black has the Lion's share of format defining cards.
i had a similar conversation about interaction the other day. i ask you guys here since we are on topic:
do you think taking turns is an interactive deck?
i can understand it is not while comboeing, but that's kinda...out of question?
60 cards for a deck, 23 lands, 12 extra turn effect, 6 howling mines, 4 serum visions. this gives us 15 slots in which we play all interactive/survival cards, something like:
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
Blue doesn't get counterspell so we should punish Black with no thought-seize? That's not how you balance the format. Thank god WOTC doesn't listen to people like you, people like you only escalate more bans with that mob-mentality. Shadow, Traverse, Bauble, or Wraith may eat a ban, but banning thoughtseize would be hands down the dumbest, most destructive ban of all time in the format.
Blue doesn't suddenly get better with a thoughtseize ban, a ban like that would have ripple effects in the entire format. We would easily see more unfair things done in the format, which would actually make blue worse in effect.
I don't mind that blue doesn't get a powerful counterspell actually, I just want a playable blue creature that is worth casting besides Snap. Is there anything? If they want us to have creature threats why can't I get a blue focused one? Torrential Gearhulk costs 6 and we all know how not great control decks are in this format.
Commander GUR Maelstrom Wanderer BWU Sydri, Galvanic Genius BGB Meren of Clan Nel Toth WGW Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith RRR Feldon of the Third Path WWW Heliod, God of the Sun
I don't mind that blue doesn't get a powerful counterspell actually, I just want a playable blue creature that is worth casting besides Snap. Is there anything? If they want us to have creature threats why can't I get a blue focused one? Torrential Gearhulk costs 6 and we all know how not great control decks are in this format.
vendilion clique? thing in the ice? delver of secrets?
Clique dies to a gust of wind, Thing requires investment, Delver requires luck. So we need to rely on creatures that require a bunch of hoops? Sounds good to me, end of discussion.
Commander GUR Maelstrom Wanderer BWU Sydri, Galvanic Genius BGB Meren of Clan Nel Toth WGW Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith RRR Feldon of the Third Path WWW Heliod, God of the Sun
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
True. That's why I said it will probably get hit with a ban if it stays at that percentage or higher until the next banlist update.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I hope that they unban more interactive cards instead of banning cards from an interactive deck, but there is precedence to banning a component of a deck once it in its various forms reaches this metashare.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
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
Those aren't that absurd, Jund and Junk had large meta shares when combined
When Death's Shadow has DSJ, Esper, Grixis and Abzan, they aren't dangerous levels ban worthy.
Who knows though, I won't be surprised whatsoever to see something huge from Shadow banned
Like I said, the moment DSJ decks drop, ramp/big mana decks will present a problem with no true decks to prey on them
RUG Temur Deprive Delver
BUG Sultai Deprive Delver
Good thing you aren't in charge of changes then because you have really bad opinions
Ban thoughtseize?
Ok, let's just play solitaire and let combo decks rein supreme, because I promise you no one will play an interactive deck if that happened, it'd all be aggro or combo/big ramp, no one would bother playing control since it's in an awkward in-between
A thoughtseize/IOK ban is almost equivalent to banning FOW in legacy
Thoughtseize is literally one of moderns few safety valves, why the hell would you even suggest an awful banning, I'd rather hear about Val's argument for why DDT isn't a broken card in the format.
There's no good answers in modern. BAN THOUGHTSEIZE, BAN ALL THE THINGS!
You're literally advocating to killing off the Eldrazi decks---the deck won't be viable. There won't be a, "oh, no, it'll bounce back, it survived the eye ban", no, you'd be killing the deck. You'd also kill Eldrazi Tron off, and even though it's a bad deck, you'd kill off the Eldrazi and Taxes deck off, too. None of those three decks have reached alarming meta shares or posted fast wins that violate the turn rule, nor have they been sweeping tournaments.
You managed to contradict yourself multiple times in one post.
UB Faeries (15-6-0)
UWR Control (10-5-1)/Kiki Control/Midrange/Harbinger
UBR Cruel Control (6-4-0)/Grixis Control/Delver/Blue Jund
UWB Control/Mentor
UW Miracles/Control (currently active, 14-2-0)
BW Eldrazi & Taxes
RW Burn (9-1-0)
I do (academic) research on video games and archaeology! You can check out my open access book here: https://www.sidestone.com/books/the-interactive-past
I do call call DS decks with thoughtseize as interactive magic
Are you somehow going to tell me
8 discard, 2x Tarfire, 2x Abrupt Decay, 3x Fatal Push, 2x Kolaghan Commands, 3x LOTV/LTLH, with 1x terminate, 1x fatal push, 2x surgicals/spellbomb, 3x fulminators, 3x lingering souls, ancient grudges, collective brutality isn't interactive? Ok, bud. You can call Death Shadow Jund streamlined, but calling it linear is ridiculous and shows how little you probably understand the format. Let's also consider the 4 Shadows/4 Goyfs/4 Traverse as creatures. The Temur battle-rages also interact for stealing wins, too, but that aspect is very comboish, so I won't push that argument very hard.
let's look on mtggoldfish and see what they're showing--
Death Shadow, Dredge, Burn, Abzan, Grixis Death Shadow, Affinity, Eldrazi Tron, Tron, Gift Storm, Titan Shift, Bant Eldrazi, Merfolk, Jund, AD Nasuem.
Looks like a healthy mix. You do realize the second Shadow, or thoughtseize or any of those things are banned that ramp/combo and big mana decks will take over, right? And then what, we ban Eldrazi Temple next? And then what? Tron lands, ancient stirrings?
I play DSJ, Abzan and a little burn on the side---because I'm defending thoughtseize it's because I play GBx, right? So me arguing for preordain, SFM and Twin for the past year must mean I'm a blue player, right?
Banning thoughtseize is one of the worst suggestions this board has ever had, you're feeding into this banmania which is cancerous to the format.
Someone is feeling a bit jaded because Counterspell isn't Modern legal.
It's definitely worth discussing, I don't think it's a card in the distant future that's off the table. I just feel that if we want a higher power level Modern, they need to start unbanning multiple other fair cards first.
The typical Junk list plays 14 pieces of removal in the 60, the typical Shadow deck is playing 12 pieces of removal in the 60---is Junk highly more interactive because of those 2 removal spells? You sound ignorant. The traditional Jund and Junk's plan is literally to discard, play goyf, and kill any creatures you lay down while beating you down. Everyone has agreed for years GBx has been the hallmark of interactive decks. It plays creatures and removes stuff, that's not interactive? LOL?! What?!
Your agreement about Affinity running 4x Galvanic blast is sooooooooooooo bad. You can't compare 4 pieces of removal to twelve, along with the discard package. How is discard not interacting with my opponent?! They aren't randomly discarding something like in 8Rack, I am choosing specifically what I feel is most disruptive to my plan. Do I want to discard a creature I can't handle? A removal I can't afford to take, a combo/enchantment piece? I don't understand how removal and discard isn't interacting. Is Lilliana of the Veil not interactive either? Please, I'm ******* begging you, what do you consider interactive in magic, playing an Esper deck that counters everything until it beats you down with a manland and tokens?
I have argued for over a year and a half that counterspell needs to be introduced into modern, telling me I play GBx and am selfishly defending my deck is not the issue here, I've definitely advocated for cards that I don't and will not play with. Crying about blue not having a counterspell and therefore taking away thoughtseize is ridiculous.
I want to make this clear---you know that midrange would not exist without Thoughtseize/IOK, right? It would not be competitively viable, it would be kitchen table magic at that point
Instead you demand for thoughtseize and Eldrazi Temple to be axed. Absolutely horrible, poorly thought-out arguments by you.
If you wouldn't mind telling us, what are your criteria for a deck to be considered interactive? The non-cantrip part of the DSJ deck is about 25% creatures (counting TtU), 25% lands, and 50% interactive spells. That's a far cry from affinity, which runs at most < 7% interactive spells. Also, how is clearing creatures off of the board and then attacking not interacting? I think it's fair to say that there are three types of interaction that matter in modern: the board, hand, and stack. IMO decks that try to interact on all three axes are bad, so I don't think it's fair to punish DSJ for not having counterspells. (I say this as a grixis control player)
Also, if we indulge in a little theorycrafting, I think it's pretty clear that thoughtseize actually promotes interaction and fairness in the format. Hear me out. The biggest weakness of hand disruption is that, if the game goes on long enough, your opponent will eventually draw into a replacement for whatever you made them discard. So the longer the game goes, the weaker play thougthseize is, even if it happens at the beginning. A T1 Thoughtseize won't impact a 15 turn game nearly as much as it will a 5 turn game. Now, the fair, interactive styles of decks - like UW or Grixis control (the latter is what I play), or Abzan rock - have enough redundancy that a singe T1 Thoughtseize will not protect your creatures most of the time. The fair decks have enough tools to force a deck like DSJ to go long. The fast, linear decks do not. The logical conclusion of this is that hand disruption like Thoughtseize or IoK helps interactive decks like Abzan or, yes, DSJ, have good matchups against the linear decks while giving the other fair decks an axis to attack the hand disruption style fair decks.
This analysis is backed up by the fact that most good GBx players will board out some/all of their hand disruption against grindy matchups, boarding in 2-1's.
Then you stretch the definition of interactive so far that its almost meaningless. Interactivity isn't only a thing when control decks do it.
I've never seen a control player actually make this particular argument compelling. It basically boils down to "When I do it, it's good and proper Magic; when you do it, it's unfair and mindless." By your definition, when an Aggro or Mid-Range strategy uses lightning bolt to clear a blocker - that's not interactive. But when a control deck does it to preserve their life total - Bam! - magically it's interactive?
Do you not see how self-serving that is?
The power level of decks naturally wax and wane. Death's Shadow doesn't deserve to be on top anymore than Scapeshift, or Affinity, or control for that matter either. The argument that gets made over and over again is that control deserves to be tier 1 (and a very specific kind of control deck at that), but there doesn't seem to be a lot of articulation as to why it deserves to be tier 1. We have a diverse and legitimately fun format that is growing. There are a wide swath of decks that are present. That control is not the best deck in the format (and specifically blue control, lets be honest) is not some massive failure on the part of Wizards. Blue isn't owed anything.
Stand alone products like the commander series or conspiracy that become legal in Modern but are never introduced into Standard.
Except Tier 1 decks are the best? I am not sure I follow. Wanting a deck type to be Tier 1 means you want it to be among the best decks in the format, if not the best deck in any given particular metagame. And you still haven't addressed the main point, which was why it should be Tier 1. That I am genuinely curious about.
I looked through all three pages and the results aren't quite as dire as you state. Looking at this, for example: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/modern/full/all
Black is over-represented, sure. But in the Top 10 cards played in the format, literally every color has at least one card. Tarmogoyf, Death's Shadow, and Fulminator are the only creatures (way behind the spells). Blue has a creature within the top 15, while white has lingering souls which is almost a creature (reaching a bit here). Honestly, looking at the percentages of the top 15, Green cards see less play than blue or white ones. (Of course that cut-off point is largely arbitrary - Hierarch and Decay are 17/18 which brings green's numbers back up a bit.)
The issue seems less that white and blue are under-represented, and more that black has the Lion's share of format defining cards.
do you think taking turns is an interactive deck?
i can understand it is not while comboeing, but that's kinda...out of question?
60 cards for a deck, 23 lands, 12 extra turn effect, 6 howling mines, 4 serum visions. this gives us 15 slots in which we play all interactive/survival cards, something like:
4 gigadrowse
3 exhaustion
4 remand
1 boomerang
1 unsubstantiate
2 cryptic command
while i understand are proactive/prison cards gigadrowse -> exhaustion for example, can we call this interaction?
in ur there are these things and to me it doesnt' look not interactive
4x Snapcaster Mage
4x Lightning Bolt
3x Blood Moon
2x Cryptic Command
3x Remand
2x Exhaustion
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/which-control-deck-should-you-play-in-modern/
TL;DR don't unban him
|
|
Big Johnny.
i kinda hate how bad everyone talks about taking turns being "uninteractive"
"you play all by yourself" said the infect player lol
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
Blue doesn't get counterspell so we should punish Black with no thought-seize? That's not how you balance the format. Thank god WOTC doesn't listen to people like you, people like you only escalate more bans with that mob-mentality. Shadow, Traverse, Bauble, or Wraith may eat a ban, but banning thoughtseize would be hands down the dumbest, most destructive ban of all time in the format.
Blue doesn't suddenly get better with a thoughtseize ban, a ban like that would have ripple effects in the entire format. We would easily see more unfair things done in the format, which would actually make blue worse in effect.
GURB Grixis/Jund Shadow
RBG Dredge
xUx U Ballista Tron
Commander
GUR Maelstrom Wanderer
BWU Sydri, Galvanic Genius
BGB Meren of Clan Nel Toth
WGW Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith
RRR Feldon of the Third Path
WWW Heliod, God of the Sun
vendilion clique? thing in the ice? delver of secrets?
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
GURB Grixis/Jund Shadow
RBG Dredge
xUx U Ballista Tron
Commander
GUR Maelstrom Wanderer
BWU Sydri, Galvanic Genius
BGB Meren of Clan Nel Toth
WGW Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith
RRR Feldon of the Third Path
WWW Heliod, God of the Sun