Well people were saying grixis shadow was seeing heavy play in large paper tournaments so I thought maybe it's a problem or something. On second thought, eldrazi temple is pretty odd in a format where chrome mox and artifact lands are banned.
What Temple does is a bit more narrow than what the Artifact Lands do, and a lot more narrow than Chrome Mox.
Chrome Mox is banned because it is literally insane in a format without Force of Will. It accelerates you too fast, in any deck.
The Artifact lands, much like Temple, help ramp a specific deck, in this instance it would be affinity, where each land essentially acts as an Eye of Ugin for 1 for cards like Frogmite and Myr Enforcer. Keep in mind that when we had Eldrazi Winter, the land that was banned was Eye of Ugin, not Temple, because Eye was just that much better than Temple in the long run.
While I am not saying Temple is exactly a fair card, if we put it on a scale of unfair ramp with the Artifact Lands and Chrome Mox, Mox would be at a 9/10, the artifact lands would probably be at a 7, and Temple would honestly be around a 4. And if you're curious, I'd put the Urza lands at about a 3.5.
Is Temple an unfair land? Yes. Is it too unfair for Modern? Not at all. If it was too unfair, we would still be reliving the days of Eldrazi Winter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Those cards are nonland cards, and mtgtop8 is "to blame" for this result. Opinions, please?
What do those most played Modern cards say about the format's health?
There's an interesting gap between Thoughtseize and Noble Hierarch. Taking these numbers at face value, it looks like Grixis colors are being played more than others. Kind of interesting that Death's Shadow didn't make the top 20. Also tells me that white is still the weakest color in the format despite having the best silver bullets.
EDIT: As far as format health, that really depends on what a healthy format looks like to you. That's also kind of hard to draw a conclusion about just looking at the top 20 played cards. People like removal, cantrips, and Mana fixing, but since when is that breaking news?
Man, I'm talking about dropping the bear and THEN comboing, on the same turn.
Of course everyone is going to kill the bear the same turn it drops if they have removal to do so. But ever since they got the redundant bear, they can access the bears too easily.
The first scenario you are describing JUST CANT happen on turn 3. And even after that, I doubt it can happen all that often. I think you have not played with the deck that much. Just try to play the deck and try to go off instant speed while the opp has Fatal Pushed the bear, gather mana play Gifts Ungiven,then let Baral die, then play Past In Flames, then grapeshot the opponent
Anyway, that's where Fatal Push shines. Bears are some two drops die to most removals. They are small creatures, not enchantments. Moreover, Gifts is a 4 mana instant spell without them. If Opt does not push the deck too much, I cant see that being banned.
IMO, Storm is fine even if its a very powerful deck.
Of course it can't happen on turn 3. If it would, we would be freezing in storm winter already.
But it happens turn4+ if you kill their turns 2 or 3 bears.
I highly suspect, no, I'm sure storm's win% on MTGO is super high, and its turn3 win% is also too high for the format standards.
I'm certain past in flames is getting banned next month.
I think we're forgetting that there's a difference between a reason to ban and a good reason to ban. Banning Felidar after 2 days was beyond terrifying -- I would say it's almost petrifying. Now, if they said they had a team of pros test the deck and they reported that it was just too strong, that's one thing. But they didn't say that, so we shouldn't extrapolate. Similarly, banning a deck for having a turn 3 kill that requires so many specific cards isn't a good reason. Grishoalbrand had a turn 2 kill, and it survived its hayday without getting hit by a ban. For Storm, what's our definition of "going off"? I am well aware no one likes defining obvious terms, but if we're saying that winning the game is casting Empty the Warrens for 8-10, well yeah they can do that on turn three after dropping a creature. Creature>Ritual>Ritual>Manamorphose>Gifts (getting Ritual, Ritual, Manamorphose, and a Past in Flames? I don't play Storm, so forgive me for theory crafting) is a conceivable line of play. Notably, that requires an exact combination of cards, not mulliganing, and while it is doable on the play it's obviously more likely on the draw. This is on top of the fact that you only have red mana after casting Gifts. If the last card in your hand is yet another Ritual or Past in Flames, you've basically won the game, but other than that your opponent can really mess you up by giving you . So we have this God-like opener that requires about 7 specific cards and 3 land drops, on top of not being able to sculpt your hand with cantrips on turn 2 or 3. If we're talking about a Grapeshot kill, that's much less likely because you need a higher storm count.
The above scenario is Magical Christmas Land at best. It rarely ever happens. If cards were banned based on small potentials and not just consistency, Infect would've been banned out of existence after Blazing Shoal got banned because a specific combination of green pump spells could kill on turn 2 and Grishoalbrand would've seen a ban. What matters is a consistent turn 3 kill, hence Blazing Shoal. Requiring a large amount of cards to do so is not a good reason to ban.
Rereading the multiple paragraphs for Vintage in the last announcement, I cant believe I missed this piece at the end of the first paragraph: As justification for bans they specifically cited "can be frustrating to play against." I have no idea what that means for Modern (if it means anything), but I can say that nearly every top deck in "Tier 1" for Modern is miserable and frustrating to play against.
I do believe that Past in Flames is a poorly designed Magic card - it's either going to do nothing or win you the game - but I can't see any reason why it will be banned next month.
Seething song wouldn't be a problem and would even enable some tier2-3 deck like dragonstorm or all in red.
I've rewatched a game from yesterday against storm, I was testing my jeskai geist deck.
Game1 he comboes turn8 after trying to cast at the end of his last turns a gifts which I always remanded or tried to counter which he remanded to himself. I didn't put pressure on the field since I can't just tap out on my turn and he had all that time to sculpt his hand.
Game 2 I'm on the play, end of his turn2 he plays 2 opts. I untap T3, play geist to put some pressure before he can combo and pass the turn. Turn3 he plays an electromancer and proceeds to put 18 goblins in play after playing a Wipe Away on one of my 3 lands. So even if I had had a hate card in play he would have comboed anyways. Turn 3. And it's not something special. Happens very often. Yes. Needs a ban. A big one.
Another point is: storm plays a turn 2 bear. If you don't kill the bear before turn 3, storm is going off turn3 with what, a 90% chance? Some will say: of course storm is gonna kill you if you don't kill his bear. And I say, really?? Is a deck that consistently wins turn3 if you don't have removal for his bear on turn2 fair?
Rereading the multiple paragraphs for Vintage in the last announcement, I cant believe I missed this piece at the end of the first paragraph: As justification for bans they specifically cited "can be frustrating to play against." I have no idea what that means for Modern (if it means anything), but I can say that nearly every top deck in "Tier 1" for Modern is miserable and frustrating to play against.
My interpretation was "these are frustrating to play against because of their prevalence." It's not secret the format was getting stale. That, however, is a topic for another day.
If your line of thinking is the same as WotC's, we're not going to have a stable format for a long time. Hopefully we don't have this subgame of "who can complain to WotC the loudest."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
Rereading the multiple paragraphs for Vintage in the last announcement, I cant believe I missed this piece at the end of the first paragraph: As justification for bans they specifically cited "can be frustrating to play against." I have no idea what that means for Modern (if it means anything), but I can say that nearly every top deck in "Tier 1" for Modern is miserable and frustrating to play against.
My interpretation was "these are frustrating to play against because of their prevalence." It's not secret the format was getting stale. That, however, is a topic for another day.
If your line of thinking is the same as WotC's, we're not going to have a stable format for a long time. Hopefully we don't have this subgame of "who can complain to WotC the loudest."
I don't think it means a whole lot in of itself, but it is indicative of a trend the last two years of bannings across multiple formats. Rather than rely on explicit definitions like Turn 4 Rule or Metagame Oppression, many of bans since Twin seem to be based much more heavily on vague or subjective criteria. This observation, combined with completely ignoring Modern this year (but Vintage, of all things, was a priority??), and the return of the Pro Tour really does nothing to inspire confidence in this format and its stability. Anything could be banned at any time for any reason, and there is strong motivation to shake up PTs. Hopefully this means UNbans, but it's hard to be optimistic based on Wizards' repeated history of action.
Seething song wouldn't be a problem and would even enable some tier2-3 deck like dragonstorm or all in red.
I've rewatched a game from yesterday against storm, I was testing my jeskai geist deck.
Game1 he comboes turn8 after trying to cast at the end of his last turns a gifts which I always remanded or tried to counter which he remanded to himself. I didn't put pressure on the field since I can't just tap out on my turn and he had all that time to sculpt his hand.
Game 2 I'm on the play, end of his turn2 he plays 2 opts. I untap T3, play geist to put some pressure before he can combo and pass the turn. Turn3 he plays an electromancer and proceeds to put 18 goblins in play after playing a Wipe Away on one of my 3 lands. So even if I had had a hate card in play he would have comboed anyways. Turn 3. And it's not something special. Happens very often. Yes. Needs a ban. A big one.
Another point is: storm plays a turn 2 bear. If you don't kill the bear before turn 3, storm is going off turn3 with what, a 90% chance? Some will say: of course storm is gonna kill you if you don't kill his bear. And I say, really?? Is a deck that consistently wins turn3 if you don't have removal for his bear on turn2 fair?
I enjoy reading the discussion in this thread. I like evidence even more. One isolated match in which the Storm player got a nut draw is not necessarily representative of the Storm deck's strength in the larger metagame.
Could you share with us the statistics that demonstrate Storm with T2 cost bear can go off T3 90% of the time?
Would you rather WOTC ignore modern, or give it attention? Because re-introducing it as a PT format means a lot more scrutiny will be on modern, which you seem to think is bad, equally or near so to that negative aspect of WOTC letting it police itself...
Just say you're gonna complain until twin is unbanned...
Seething song wouldn't be a problem and would even enable some tier2-3 deck like dragonstorm or all in red.
I've rewatched a game from yesterday against storm, I was testing my jeskai geist deck.
Game1 he comboes turn8 after trying to cast at the end of his last turns a gifts which I always remanded or tried to counter which he remanded to himself. I didn't put pressure on the field since I can't just tap out on my turn and he had all that time to sculpt his hand.
Game 2 I'm on the play, end of his turn2 he plays 2 opts. I untap T3, play geist to put some pressure before he can combo and pass the turn. Turn3 he plays an electromancer and proceeds to put 18 goblins in play after playing a Wipe Away on one of my 3 lands. So even if I had had a hate card in play he would have comboed anyways. Turn 3. And it's not something special. Happens very often. Yes. Needs a ban. A big one.
Another point is: storm plays a turn 2 bear. If you don't kill the bear before turn 3, storm is going off turn3 with what, a 90% chance? Some will say: of course storm is gonna kill you if you don't kill his bear. And I say, really?? Is a deck that consistently wins turn3 if you don't have removal for his bear on turn2 fair?
I enjoy reading the discussion in this thread. I like evidence even more. One isolated match in which the Storm player got a nut draw is not necessarily representative of the Storm deck's strength in the larger metagame.
Could you share with us the statistics that demonstrate Storm with T2 cost bear can go off T3 90% of the time?
Please and thank you.
Personally, Nyzzeh, I'm of the opinion that you're monumentally biased. But that's just based on a couple posts (and the "Storm needs a ban" under your name, damn!), so with no substantial data collected, I could be wrong...
My anecdotal experience is that if I let storm untap with a bear on turn 3 they kill me about half the time. If the number isn't between 40 and 60% I would be very, very surprised.
But if you're a deck that lets storm untap with a bear on turn 3 and you haven't thoughtseized their gifts or have no answer for the gifts, or have no removal for the bear, you're probably goldfishing too and deserve to get got. I would guess that about as often as this happens to me I've untapped with a devoted druid and killed them after they tapped out for a t2 bear.
The rule has always been that any deck that consistently wins on turn3 gets a ban. Of course every deck that can do that, will get slowed down a few turns if it's disrupted. Couldn't infect shoal be disrupted with thoughtseize????
But the turn3 rule doesn't take into account any interaction.
The devoted druid combo is a 2-card combo that doesn't even win the game on the spot (although admitedly is quite strong cos you can play your entire hand). But still is a 2 card combo, and the possibilities of drawing those 2 cards by turn 3 in a 60 card deck are not that high.
I said this on the Storm thread and got infracted for talking about bans outside of this thread, so I'll say it here:
How can a combo deck like storm be TIER1 in a field where there is a tier1 deck packing 4 chalices main, a tier1 deck packing 4 eidolons main, and another tier1 deck packing 6 1CMC discard spells, 6 removal spells and 3 counterspells along with cheap big clocks???
The answer is: a super overpowered deck that can still have a decent win% against those 3 decks while it ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS all the other decks.
If it absolutely destroyed all other decks, plus had a decent win % against the rest of tier 1 (or as you put it, super overpowered), it would absolutely show in results and meta share. Also, yes the Turn 4 rule does take into account interaction as supported by WotC.
Certainly, there is a lot of fun to be had in that strategy. I've been known to belch some chars in my day, but it's not the kind of strategy we particularly like as a tier 1 strategy. Most of the super-fast combo decks in Modern that can win before turn three on a regular basis tend to do so in a way that we can expect most decks to easily interact with. I'm not saying that Infect can't get a quick win early, but that a deck with Lightning Bolts, Path, or Dismember has real game against it. It has ways to fight back. There is interaction.
Edit: To expand further, how the deck can be interacted with is absolutely key to a potential T4 violator's survival if it meets all other criteria including consistency and being top tier. Storm requires creatures that can be easily answered by all forms of major removal (bolt, path, push, dismember, abrupt decay). Compare that to say Amulet Bloom which required very specific answers and invalidated most forms of removal.
I said this on the Storm thread and got infracted for talking about bans outside of this thread, so I'll say it here:
How can a combo deck like storm be TIER1 in a field where there is a tier1 deck packing 4 chalices main, a tier1 deck packing 4 eidolons main, and another tier1 deck packing 6 1CMC discard spells, 6 removal spells and 3 counterspells along with cheap big clocks???
The answer is: a super overpowered deck that can still have a decent win% against those 3 decks while it ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS all the other decks.
I haven't played much Modern lately because I don't really like the metagame ...
... but I don't think I've read a better defense of the format's health. If Storm is powerful, but there are several other powerful decks keeping it in check to the extent that no single deck is clearly superior, isn't that a best-case metagame? Furthermore, isn't Tier 1 decks having good matchups against Tier 2 and below exactly how tiers work?
You could still be correct, but I haven't seen good reasoning yet.
If it absolutely destroyed all other decks, plus had a decent win % against the rest of tier 1 (or as you put it, super overpowered), it would absolutely show in results and meta share. Also, yes the Turn 4 rule does take into account interaction as supported by WotC.
Certainly, there is a lot of fun to be had in that strategy. I've been known to belch some chars in my day, but it's not the kind of strategy we particularly like as a tier 1 strategy. Most of the super-fast combo decks in Modern that can win before turn three on a regular basis tend to do so in a way that we can expect most decks to easily interact with. I'm not saying that Infect can't get a quick win early, but that a deck with Lightning Bolts, Path, or Dismember has real game against it. It has ways to fight back. There is interaction.
Edit: To expand further, how the deck can be interacted with is absolutely key to a potential T4 violator's survival if it meets all other criteria including consistency and being top tier. Storm requires creatures that can be easily answered by all forms of major removal (bolt, path, push, dismember, abrupt decay). Compare that to say Amulet Bloom which required very specific answers and invalidated most forms of removal.
infect could be slowed down with lots of interaction..
The rule has always been that any deck that consistently wins on turn3 gets a ban. Of course every deck that can do that, will get slowed down a few turns if it's disrupted. Couldn't infect shoal be disrupted with thoughtseize????
But the turn3 rule doesn't take into account any interaction.
The devoted druid combo is a 2-card combo that doesn't even win the game on the spot (although admitedly is quite strong cos you can play your entire hand). But still is a 2 card combo, and the possibilities of drawing those 2 cards by turn 3 in a 60 card deck are not that high.
I said this on the Storm thread and got infracted for talking about bans outside of this thread, so I'll say it here:
How can a combo deck like storm be TIER1 in a field where there is a tier1 deck packing 4 chalices main, a tier1 deck packing 4 eidolons main, and another tier1 deck packing 6 1CMC discard spells, 6 removal spells and 3 counterspells along with cheap big clocks???
The answer is: a super overpowered deck that can still have a decent win% against those 3 decks while it ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS all the other decks.
It's true. A top tier that has the best answers the format has to offer, and storm is still tier 1. The only reason it's not dominating is because of this too. But one should think it should be tier 2 because of all this indirect hate.
I felt the same way about etron. With so many fast decks at the top of the meta how is it still tier 1?
It's a sign of brokenness that's why.
But here is the thing, modern is broken, And it always will be. And the next best broken deck will rise and get banned or nerfed one day when it's dominating. History always repeats itself.
Modern will always be a linear dominated format(yes naysayers...I know.... Not 100 percent linear... I'm wrong...Here have a treat... good boy).
because of this there will always be an unhealthy amount of these type of decks in the top tiers keeping each other in check.
(a matter of opinion you say naysayers? ......here... another treat.... Good boy...)
So bans will never fully eradicate them as they slip under the hammer in each announcement.
And unless you like to drool and play solitaire and sideboard lottery, then it's not the format for you.
Solution: Instead get into hobbies that take more skill and Intelligence.
The rule has always been that any deck that consistently wins on turn3 gets a ban. Of course every deck that can do that, will get slowed down a few turns if it's disrupted. Couldn't infect shoal be disrupted with thoughtseize????
But the turn3 rule doesn't take into account any interaction.
The devoted druid combo is a 2-card combo that doesn't even win the game on the spot (although admitedly is quite strong cos you can play your entire hand). But still is a 2 card combo, and the possibilities of drawing those 2 cards by turn 3 in a 60 card deck are not that high.
I said this on the Storm thread and got infracted for talking about bans outside of this thread, so I'll say it here:
How can a combo deck like storm be TIER1 in a field where there is a tier1 deck packing 4 chalices main, a tier1 deck packing 4 eidolons main, and another tier1 deck packing 6 1CMC discard spells, 6 removal spells and 3 counterspells along with cheap big clocks???
The answer is: a super overpowered deck that can still have a decent win% against those 3 decks while it ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS all the other decks.
What kind of win percentage do you think Storm has against Eldrazi Tron and Grixis Death Shadow? I'd be willing to bet that it's not as 'decent' as you believe. There's a guy I play magic with every week at fnm, he has a ETron deck and a storm deck. Which one do you think he wins more often with?
Then it will get a ban cuz we know how wizards is with pro tour formats. Then where will we be?
Yep. Because GDS, Eldra Tron, Titanshift and Storm all play Path To Exile and Lighting Bolt, playsets, in the Mainboard.
Also, DS is the 35th most played card in the format atm. Why is Snap no.4? Maybe because other control decks play that as well?
again where did u get these stats....
Also I said linear Dominated.not 100 percent linear.
Tell me what percentage of the format is linear vs non linear?
I bet if you got good stats and did the work you would realize modern is more linear.
Metagame stats are alot more relevant than most played cards in terms of format health.
For instance bolt is in titan and burn, both very linear decks.
What Temple does is a bit more narrow than what the Artifact Lands do, and a lot more narrow than Chrome Mox.
Chrome Mox is banned because it is literally insane in a format without Force of Will. It accelerates you too fast, in any deck.
The Artifact lands, much like Temple, help ramp a specific deck, in this instance it would be affinity, where each land essentially acts as an Eye of Ugin for 1 for cards like Frogmite and Myr Enforcer. Keep in mind that when we had Eldrazi Winter, the land that was banned was Eye of Ugin, not Temple, because Eye was just that much better than Temple in the long run.
While I am not saying Temple is exactly a fair card, if we put it on a scale of unfair ramp with the Artifact Lands and Chrome Mox, Mox would be at a 9/10, the artifact lands would probably be at a 7, and Temple would honestly be around a 4. And if you're curious, I'd put the Urza lands at about a 3.5.
Is Temple an unfair land? Yes. Is it too unfair for Modern? Not at all. If it was too unfair, we would still be reliving the days of Eldrazi Winter.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
There's an interesting gap between Thoughtseize and Noble Hierarch. Taking these numbers at face value, it looks like Grixis colors are being played more than others. Kind of interesting that Death's Shadow didn't make the top 20. Also tells me that white is still the weakest color in the format despite having the best silver bullets.
EDIT: As far as format health, that really depends on what a healthy format looks like to you. That's also kind of hard to draw a conclusion about just looking at the top 20 played cards. People like removal, cantrips, and Mana fixing, but since when is that breaking news?
Of course it can't happen on turn 3. If it would, we would be freezing in storm winter already.
But it happens turn4+ if you kill their turns 2 or 3 bears.
I highly suspect, no, I'm sure storm's win% on MTGO is super high, and its turn3 win% is also too high for the format standards.
I'm certain past in flames is getting banned next month.
The above scenario is Magical Christmas Land at best. It rarely ever happens. If cards were banned based on small potentials and not just consistency, Infect would've been banned out of existence after Blazing Shoal got banned because a specific combination of green pump spells could kill on turn 2 and Grishoalbrand would've seen a ban. What matters is a consistent turn 3 kill, hence Blazing Shoal. Requiring a large amount of cards to do so is not a good reason to ban.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/august-28-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2017-08-28
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
If it is, though, can we at least get Seething Song or Rite of Flame back as compensation?
I've rewatched a game from yesterday against storm, I was testing my jeskai geist deck.
Game1 he comboes turn8 after trying to cast at the end of his last turns a gifts which I always remanded or tried to counter which he remanded to himself. I didn't put pressure on the field since I can't just tap out on my turn and he had all that time to sculpt his hand.
Game 2 I'm on the play, end of his turn2 he plays 2 opts. I untap T3, play geist to put some pressure before he can combo and pass the turn. Turn3 he plays an electromancer and proceeds to put 18 goblins in play after playing a Wipe Away on one of my 3 lands. So even if I had had a hate card in play he would have comboed anyways. Turn 3. And it's not something special. Happens very often. Yes. Needs a ban. A big one.
Another point is: storm plays a turn 2 bear. If you don't kill the bear before turn 3, storm is going off turn3 with what, a 90% chance? Some will say: of course storm is gonna kill you if you don't kill his bear. And I say, really?? Is a deck that consistently wins turn3 if you don't have removal for his bear on turn2 fair?
My interpretation was "these are frustrating to play against because of their prevalence." It's not secret the format was getting stale. That, however, is a topic for another day.
If your line of thinking is the same as WotC's, we're not going to have a stable format for a long time. Hopefully we don't have this subgame of "who can complain to WotC the loudest."
I don't think it means a whole lot in of itself, but it is indicative of a trend the last two years of bannings across multiple formats. Rather than rely on explicit definitions like Turn 4 Rule or Metagame Oppression, many of bans since Twin seem to be based much more heavily on vague or subjective criteria. This observation, combined with completely ignoring Modern this year (but Vintage, of all things, was a priority??), and the return of the Pro Tour really does nothing to inspire confidence in this format and its stability. Anything could be banned at any time for any reason, and there is strong motivation to shake up PTs. Hopefully this means UNbans, but it's hard to be optimistic based on Wizards' repeated history of action.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Could you share with us the statistics that demonstrate Storm with T2 cost bear can go off T3 90% of the time?
Just say you're gonna complain until twin is unbanned...
Please and thank you.
Personally, Nyzzeh, I'm of the opinion that you're monumentally biased. But that's just based on a couple posts (and the "Storm needs a ban" under your name, damn!), so with no substantial data collected, I could be wrong...
But if you're a deck that lets storm untap with a bear on turn 3 and you haven't thoughtseized their gifts or have no answer for the gifts, or have no removal for the bear, you're probably goldfishing too and deserve to get got. I would guess that about as often as this happens to me I've untapped with a devoted druid and killed them after they tapped out for a t2 bear.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
But the turn3 rule doesn't take into account any interaction.
The devoted druid combo is a 2-card combo that doesn't even win the game on the spot (although admitedly is quite strong cos you can play your entire hand). But still is a 2 card combo, and the possibilities of drawing those 2 cards by turn 3 in a 60 card deck are not that high.
I said this on the Storm thread and got infracted for talking about bans outside of this thread, so I'll say it here:
How can a combo deck like storm be TIER1 in a field where there is a tier1 deck packing 4 chalices main, a tier1 deck packing 4 eidolons main, and another tier1 deck packing 6 1CMC discard spells, 6 removal spells and 3 counterspells along with cheap big clocks???
The answer is: a super overpowered deck that can still have a decent win% against those 3 decks while it ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS all the other decks.
Example from Sam Stoddard:
Edit: To expand further, how the deck can be interacted with is absolutely key to a potential T4 violator's survival if it meets all other criteria including consistency and being top tier. Storm requires creatures that can be easily answered by all forms of major removal (bolt, path, push, dismember, abrupt decay). Compare that to say Amulet Bloom which required very specific answers and invalidated most forms of removal.
... but I don't think I've read a better defense of the format's health. If Storm is powerful, but there are several other powerful decks keeping it in check to the extent that no single deck is clearly superior, isn't that a best-case metagame? Furthermore, isn't Tier 1 decks having good matchups against Tier 2 and below exactly how tiers work?
You could still be correct, but I haven't seen good reasoning yet.
So can storm
decks playing:
none
I felt the same way about etron. With so many fast decks at the top of the meta how is it still tier 1?
It's a sign of brokenness that's why.
But here is the thing, modern is broken, And it always will be. And the next best broken deck will rise and get banned or nerfed one day when it's dominating. History always repeats itself.
Modern will always be a linear dominated format(yes naysayers...I know.... Not 100 percent linear... I'm wrong...Here have a treat... good boy).
because of this there will always be an unhealthy amount of these type of decks in the top tiers keeping each other in check.
(a matter of opinion you say naysayers? ......here... another treat.... Good boy...)
So bans will never fully eradicate them as they slip under the hammer in each announcement.
And unless you like to drool and play solitaire and sideboard lottery, then it's not the format for you.
Solution: Instead get into hobbies that take more skill and Intelligence.
You will thank me later trust me!
decks playing:
none
So why are you still here?
What kind of win percentage do you think Storm has against Eldrazi Tron and Grixis Death Shadow? I'd be willing to bet that it's not as 'decent' as you believe. There's a guy I play magic with every week at fnm, he has a ETron deck and a storm deck. Which one do you think he wins more often with?
Then it will get a ban cuz we know how wizards is with pro tour formats. Then where will we be?
decks playing:
none
decks playing:
none
Also I said linear Dominated.not 100 percent linear.
Tell me what percentage of the format is linear vs non linear?
I bet if you got good stats and did the work you would realize modern is more linear.
Metagame stats are alot more relevant than most played cards in terms of format health.
For instance bolt is in titan and burn, both very linear decks.
decks playing:
none
Well, keep it up. You're doing a hell of a job.